LyrArc Article Gist
Decline in capital investment in 2016-2017 expected at Lukoil and Rosneft as the Russian government postponed a reduction in taxes on oil exports for 2016. Russia is dependent on oil exports for a third of its national output, and about half of its budget depends on oil revenues, a major weakness, but this is being managed carefully till oil prices recover. Russian officials say the $50 a barrel assumption for oil revenues in 2016 in the budget is optimistic. Yet Russian output decline is expected to be limited to about 3% a year from 5% for Lukoil in future years from decline in investment, because of drilling new wells and use of horizontal drilling technology on older fields. In 2015 oil output increased modestly to 10.73 barrels a day from 10.58 barrels a day in 2014. Russia's oil industry benefits from a tax system that favors the industry. The export duty on oil and the mineral extraction tax are based on price. A declining ruble which has gone from 35 to the dollar before its invasion of Ukraine in 2014 to 86 to the dollar in Jan 2016, has a favorable impact. This actually helps the industry because workers and oil equipment suppliers in Russia are paid in rubles, and oil revenues are earned in dollars. As a result new technologies such as horizontal drilling now make up one third of oil supplies from 11% in 2010. Chinese suppliers also provide new technology drilling equipment, as China is not part of the sanctions. Gazprom Neft's CEO Dyukov says it can make a profit at oil price of $15 a barrel. Because of the tax system after tax revenues are stable at the oil companies in Russia, even as government tax revenue declines. All this points to resilience in the short run for the Russian oil industry. The decline in the value of the ruble is seen as an opportunity to shift away from an overdependence on imports during the period of high oil prices. Alexei Kudrin, former Russsian finance minister, sees growth returning for the Russian economy in 2017. This may actually be good news for the struggling economies of U.S., Europe, India, China, and other countries which would be boosted by low oil prices sustained over a longer period- something made possible by competition between big oil producing countries Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, and the profitability of oil production at prices below $30 to $20 a barrel....

LyrArc Article Gist
Dow Chemical CEO, Anthony Liveris, is co-chair of the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, an effort to bring together federal government, industry, universities and other groups to invest in new technologies that would generate good-quality jobs and increase U.S. competitiveness. He writes this letter in the Wall Street Journal to correct two misperceptions. The first, is that government has no significant role in nurturing an environment that is good for business and manufacturing industry. Because other countries, including China, are now operating like companies, it is important not to let the U.S. be in a disadvantageous position. Government has always been involved in its writing of tax and incentive policies, regulations, trade agreements, and creating a climate of certainty. The second, is that the loss of manufacturing capacity and job losses in the last 10 years are different from the job losses in the 1980's. These are not the low tech and less efficient manufacturing job losses of the 1980's, but job losses as a result of moving advanced manufacturing capacity and research and development centers to outside of the U.S. Of the 8 million jobs lost in the last recession, he says two million manufacturing jobs of higher pay and supporting employment in other sectors were lost. His point: its time to focus on expanding manufacturing in the U.S. because manufacturing is the sector with the highest multiplier effect on other sectors. Public-private partnerships are critical to this effort for increasing technology development and increasing investment. This view is supported by other experts....

LyrArc Article Gist
The first budget of the Obama government makes a sharp swing away from decades of earlier policy, and puts America on a new direction focussed on priorities in education, health care for all, and energy. The 134 page doocument on the budget defines the governing principles and priorities of the new government. "This is the legacy that we inherit- a legacy of mismanagement and misplaced priorities, of missed opportunities and of deep, strutural problems ignored for too long," the document says. It declares that "government must lead" in contrast to Reagan's "government is not the solution, government is the problem." In contrast to "trickle down" policies of Reagan it proposes "trickle up" policies- shifting income from rich to the poor. It creates a $630 billion fund towards a national health insurance program built with the help of savings and cuts elsewhere. Government takes over most student lending, and dramatically expands Pell grants for poor college bound strudents, transforming it into something like Medicare that is automatic rather than approved each year by Congress. Businesses that emit carbon and heat trapping gases will have to purchase permits to do so starting in 2012. Hundreds of billions of dollars from these permits will pay for clean-energy technology and for tax credits for working couples. Income tax rates will rise for couples earning more than $250,000 beginning in 2011 and will have lower personal exemptions, lower itemized deductions, and higher capital gains tax rates. The estate tax will be preserved. Hedge fund and private equity managers wil have to pay income tax rates for that compensation as high as 39.6% after 2010, not the low 15% capital gains rate they pay now. The Defense Department would see a $20.4 billion boost or a 4% increase in 2010 over 2009, it will request an additional $75.5 billion in 2009 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an additional $130 billion for 2010. The budget is for $3.6 trillion for 2009, and projects a deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of GDP- a level see in 1942 when the US entered World War II. Under optimistic White House assumptions for a strong economic rebound, the deficit would drop to $533 billion by 2013....

LyrArc Article Gist
The really small cars like the HOnda FIt and the Toyota Yaris and the GM Aveo are piling up on dealer lots as the price of gasoline drops to $2 a gallon from last summer's $4 a gallon. At February end 2009 Honda had 22191 Fits on dealer lots enough to last 125 days at the current sales rate, and Toyota had enough Yaris subcompacts to last 175 days at the current sales rate, according to Autodata Corp. Chrysler has a 205 day supply of the Dodge Caliber, and GM 427 days of Aveo cars. Honda Civics are also piling up. Price shifts and shifts in consumer attention and buying behaviour makes it difficult to plan ahead. The American carmakers have shifted plants to smaller and midsize cars after seeing the disastrous drop in the sales of larger vehicles in the third and fourth quarters of 2008. Now government policy is to mandate fuel efficiency standards, there is talk of agasoline tax, and even the current numbers shows ashift away from the SUV's and larger vehicles of the past. Ford's sales analyst Pipas says that over the 5 months ending February 2009 sales of small cars totaled 718,000. This was down 28% over the same period in 2008, but small cars grew to 18.4% of the total market, up 2.1 points from the year earlier period. Part of this is that overall the market has declined much more than 28%. This also shows that policy in an industry-government partnership will have to show the way that is best for the US, to ensure that oil prices don't go up the way they did, when consumption at the pump was excesssive and fuel standards lax. This should also be done in a partnership with other countries like China and India to ensure that technologies are available worldwide to reduce fuel consumption and promote fuel efficiency, as keeping consumption per passenger for each mile travelled as low as possible will take pressure off the oil price. It would make automobile transportation feasible for a rapidly urbanizing Asia, and by reducing the pressure on price that urbanization and motorization in Asia would bring, help moderate oil prices for western countries. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The results of the February 24, 2011, CBS/New York Times poll show strong support for public workers in schools, firefighters, police and other functions. On collective bargaining 60% opposes weakening the bargaining rights of public workers, only 33% support it. On reducing the benefits and pay of public workers to reduce deficits, 56% opposed cutting pay or benefits, only 37% support it. Are public workers overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. On this issue 61% -including over half of Republicans- say the salaries of public workers were either "about right" or "too low" for the work they do. So how are states to reduce their deficits? The people polled say they prefer tax increases over benefit cuts for public employees- only 22% chose to reduce the benefits of public employees, 40% said they would increase taxes, 20% said they would cut financing for roads, only 3% said they would cut financing for education. How this breaks down in politcal groups. 71% of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights, the opposition was also strong from Independents with 62% of Independents opposing weakening of collective bargaining rights. Followup interviews showed independents saying the public workers work hard and still struggle to have a home, saving for retirement, and sending their kids to college, with both spouses generally having to work, which is why they oppose weakening collective bargaining rights. Which segment of the populations support cutting pay and benefits of public workers? The one income group that showed support for cutting pay and benefits- those earning over $100,000 a year! There 45% said they favored cutting pay and benefits, even here 49% opposed it. On the intentions of the governors and state legislators trying to cut pay or benefits of public workers- 45% said they did this to cut the deficits, and as many as 41% said the saw this as an effort to weaken unions. Which takes one to the last question, so how are unions perceived in the U.S. in 2011? A far smaller number of people, 37% saw unions as having "too much influence" on American life and politics vs. 48% who said that unions had the "right amount" or "too little" influence....

LyrArc Article Gist
Emmanuel Macron graduated from Sciences Po University in 2004 with a degree in public affairs. He joins the Finance Ministry as an inspector and then buys himself out of government service contract by 2008 to join a private bank. He arranges an acquisition from Nestle and other business deals during this period. In 2012 he is appointed as deputy secretary general for the president's office after Francois Hollande a socialist is elected to the presidency. In 2014 he is offered the position of Minister of Industry and Digital Affairs in the second Manuel Valls government. He makes some changes to French government but opposes the wealth tax or tax on business, and is generally pro-business, though he acts as a member of the Socialist party.  He uses this period to build momentum for his own run for the presidency as support for Hollande falters having lost support from his working class base with Macron and Valls inspired changes.  Macron finally announces he will run for the presidency forming his own En Marche movement which he finances with his own fund raising. Throughout this period right up to the election in 2017 Macron has not run for public office. When he wins the presidency in that year he lacks the experience needed as the youngest president in French history at the age of 39. Like another young president Obama he handles his public image with the media for his En Marche movement promising to unblock France. This public image and his lack of experience makes him impervious to the social changes going on in France that lead to the yellow vest protests in 2018. This is a period when there are changes in the midwest as workers in Michigan and other midwestern states turn away from Hillary Clinton and Obama.  French workers are in the position of workers in the US with the decline of manufacturing, much of it shifted with the supply chain to China and Japan, and the gap opening between rural and urban tech educated areas. Macron follows Obama's quick rise from Senator to run for president yet lacks experience, and lacks sufficient grasp of the social changes with loss of manufacturing, the wide gaps between rural and urban tech educated people, conditions in the rural and farming areas. Macron survives this period, is reelected in 2022 with the help of socialist Melenchon voters. He says he will govern differently, less distant from average Frenchmen, but his instincts are to push for pension reform. At a time of cost of living crisis, and when the French budget office says the change in pension from 62 to 64 was not critical at the present time when inflation was hitting the public after the pandemic. Macron does this by Article 49 in the way he has done under the Manuel Valls government, by executive action alone. This time he faces a no confidence motion in parliament in March 2023 following some of the largest protests France has seen in years, with two thirds of the French according to FR24 opposing the change in pension law. Women see this as coming at a time when age discrimination hurts their chances of earning a living after 50 years of age.  Age discrimination is widespread in France, in a way it is not in Germany, say reports in the NYT. And with the cost of living crisis acts as a major hurdle for the average French person, if pensions are delayed without addressing these cultural issues in France. The result is that the protests have substance and Macron is seen as not sensitive to this at a time when he lacks a majority in parliament. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The effects of a health scare about chicken and hormones on China's internet sites is affecting sales of Yum Brands store outlets for Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) in China. As most of the stores are company owned compared to 11% in the U.S., this is having an outsized effect on Yum Brands performance. Fast growth in China can be an asset as well as a liability if not carefully handled. Food is an especially difficult field in China with careful management and control of supplies critical. The Chinese public is skeptical about government monitoring and checks of food supplies and pharmaceuticals after years of lax enforcement. Yum Brands has 5400 KFC and Pizza Hut stores in China, 14% of total global store outlets.

LyrArc Article Gist
If Morse's thinking holds and crude prices drop to $90 range per barrel (see the link to Morse) then we have another major problem on our hands as the incentives for conservation diminish and there is less money invested in energy conservation, and investment, effort and enthusiasm for new technologies for conservation also diminishes. This risks the environment and carbon dioxide emissions and keeps sending money on expensive oil imports to Saudis, Russia and the middle east which could be better invested in the US for innovation and R&D or returned tothe public. For energy saving conservation technology investors the drop in incentive through a return to cheap oil or expectations of prices that are below $100 for instance can be the worst of both worlds high prices and low investment says Vinod Khosla. He advocates a floor on the price of oil. Stanford Professor Hillard Huntington, executive director of the Energy Modeling Forum, a group of energy experts, says energy saving initiatives could easily take 4 million to 5 million barrels a day of demand off the market in 10 years from the 20 million barrels a day that the USA uses to heat homes, power industry, and fuel cars, trucks and planes. It would be a huge loss for that not to happen. And this has happened before as the oil crisis in the 1980's became a dim memory once oil prices hit a low of $11 in the mid 1980's after conservation kicked in at the time. The idea then is to have some sort of gasoline tax that would keep a floor on the price of oil that Europe already has. And British Columbia has shown how by having a small tax and returning money to the taxpayers with a $100 check refund and in other ways to small business and other txpayers....

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. government sold its last remaining shares in auto company GM booking a loss of $10.5 billion- a recovery of $39 billion dollars of the $49.5 billon dollars given to GM. The Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., points out that the cost of bailing out GM and Chrysler was about $13.7 billion. The benefits were 1.2 million jobs protected in 2009 during the depths of the financial crisis. It also preserved $39.4 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections in 2009 and 2010. The Treasury Department estimate of the cost is about $15 billon, including money invested in GM's former finance arm Ally Financial Inc. President Obama says the effort helped create 372,000 new jobs in five years. Treasury Secretary Lew summed it up by saying "it helped stabilize the auto industry and prevent another Great Depression." Other intangible but larger benefits in the long run were building up the companies anew with new pay structures the auto companies could support in a globalized economy, bringing in new management and discarding of old mindsets and culture, new relationships with unions and customers, committment to achieving fuel efficiency targets with new technologies in cooperation with the U.S. government guidelines, and renewed confidence of millions of employees in the U.S. auto sector. It is also the one area in which the Obama administration scores a clear win, and in which president Obama took the greatest interest as senator. That the public did not fully appreciate the significance of the step is more a reflecion of public frustration with how the companies were run by the old management, and a continual reminder of the importance of good management for the U.S. industry and economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
See the important link to Keith Johnson, 7/9/2007, WSJ, on the economics of wind energy, suppliers, and the industry in the US and Europe, and the shortage of turbines because of some 800 parts that go into the turbines and blades making it a complicated supplier issue to get more turbines. We can make only more turbines as fast as we can access the last of some 8000 components says a Vestas executive. Windmill generated electricity was only 0.4% of the electricity generated in the US compared to 0.1% for solar and 0.4% for geothermal but of the new energy added in the US in 2007 it was 30% of the new energy generating capacity added. So it has a disproportionate share of the increase in generating capacity starting from an insignificant base. Its a new industry but with many companies the largest being Vestas of Denmark, GE Energy, Nordex of Germany and Accoiona of Spain. Germany, the US, Spain India, and China are countries at the forefron of the wind energy business. Because the business is relatively new manufacturers were not providing the installation and maintenance required in emerging market countries in 1995 when Suzlon which had powered its yarn business in Surat, Gujarat with 2 wind energy turbines from Vestas entered the business seeing an opportunity. Mr Tanti of Rajkot, Gujarat, Suzlon's founder saw the opportunity and used European firms to design his turbines and blades and provided energy to Bajaj Auto and large Indian companies that have an erratic supply of electricity because of chronic electricity shortages. Starting with a tax break which allowed Suzlon to deduct windmill costs against its sales tax bill enacted in 1999 and retracted in 2002 Suzlon took advantage of lower manufacturing costs in India. Its main plant is in Pondicherry, India. By 2002 sales had increased to $131 million in India from $32 million in 2000. The company entered the US market in 2003 and in 2004 with the boomin stock market in India Citigroup took a 9% stake in Suzlon for $22 million. By 2005 Suzlon because of lower manufacturing costs had margns of20% compared to 8% for European companies and Suzlon raised $340 million in an IPO. With loans from Barclays and Deutsche Bank Suzlon bought European parts makers Hansen Transmission in 2006 and set up a factory in Tianjin, India. Early on in the 1990's it had set up an R&D center using engineers in Germany of a supplier company in wind energy Sudwind that had exited the business, this R&D center now designed its largest turbine for US and European markets of 2.1 megawatts and blades 50 yards in length. Today Tanti and Suzlon are faced with problems accessing the world class technology of the western companies as its technology has not kept up with the technological advances especially in addressing the needs of western markets. It has about 8% of the US market and about $1.8 billion in global sales. Its pricing to Edison Energy in 2006 for 1.2 megawatt turbines was 20% below European and American manufacturers. Its latest designs have flaws because Edison Energy of Irvine , California, has seen cracks in the blades at 3 windmill sites in the midwest USA and Suzlon has withdrawn 1251 blades, the majority of the ones sold in the US. Deere and Company another customer has experienced the same problem. And even though it has moved to acquire technology by taking over 33.6% of REpower which has advanced technology and makes 5 megawatt turbines. its mired in its efforts to get the blueprints of advanced designs from REpower because German law considers minority shareholders like Suzlon as competitors, other shareholders Areva of France and Martifer of Portugal have to be bought out and minority shareholders also bought out before Suzlon can access the designs. Speed, funding, tax breaks, and timing to attract capital, and most of all insight and courage to see a growing opportunity from its own experience of using two 2.1 megawatt turbines from Denmark's Vestas, and looking deeper into problems with maintenance and support in Asia and lack of technology for homegrown development that hamstrung development of energy alternatives in dire and chronic electricity short Indian companies, this has helped bring windpower to India and a new company in a new industry from scratch. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A report released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shows growing income inequality in 34 OECD countries. OECD Secretary General, Angel Gurria says: "The social contract is starting to unravel in many countries. This study dispels the assumptions that the benefits of economic growth will automatically trickle down to the disadvantaged and that the greater inequality fosters greater social mobility. Without a comprehensive strategy for inclusive growth, income inequality will continue to rise." Countries with the largest ratios between incomes at the top and the bottom, are the United States, Turkey and Israel, roughly 14 to 1. Germany, Denmark and Sweden have ratios of 6 to 1, with their ratios up from the 1980's. Gaps in Chile and Mexico are at 25 to 1. The study covers the period from 1980 to 2008. Overall inequality went up by 25% in the U.S. from 1980. In 2008 the top ten percent in the U.S. earned $114,000, 15 times than incomes for the bottom 10%. The top 1% of Americans saw incomes go up from 1980 to 2008, increasing from 8 percent to 18 percent. The richest 1% having $1.3 million in after tax income, and the lowest 20% making $17,700. The trends have accentuated an increase at the highest end- the top 1% and top 10% of the people- and a sharp decrease for the bottom 20%, which can be grasped from the $17,700 and the $1.3 million, both at extreme ends. The study attributes the rise in inequality to a growing gap in wages for highly skilled workers as technology advances, a surge in foreign direct investment and a looser regulatory regime that reduces employee protections leading to wage premiums for financial jobs and smaller incomes for workers at the bottom. Income groups and professions and sectors that had the greatest influence in government were able during this period to get the greatest protection for incomes, and able also to maximize their incomes. Incomes in the financial sector increased dramatically in the last decade, as a result of deregulation leading to higher risk and speculative activities in the financial sector, leading to the financial crisis of 2008-2009. Financial crises further depress incomes at the lower end. Similiar income inequality trends can be seen for India and China. China has a Ginni coefficient of 0.5 according to researchers at Beijing Normal University, up from 0.3 three decades ago- a Ginni Coefficient above 0.4 is considered destabilizing. Another factor that played a part in these countries is corruption and lobbying by special interests for favored treatment of sectors or groups. Austerity measures taken in Europe and in the U.S. are likely to widen income gaps by depressing the lower end income groups, creating social unrest, especially in the absence of efforts to stimulate growth....

LyrArc Article Gist
A open conversation with the NYT's Baker, Schmidt and Haberman by president Trump in mid July 2017. This conversation of the president with the NYT is remarkable for its frankness about people close to the president during the election campaign, particularly Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions was the only leading Senator in Congress who supported Mr. Trump from the beginning. Southern states came out heavily for Mr. Trump as part of the traditional Republican base. Trump says of Sessions that had he known Sessions was going to recuse himself from the Russia investigation he would not have appointed Sessions as the new Attorney General. About Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein Trump says he should never have appointed Mueller as Special Counsel. The president also says Mueller should stay only with information related to Russia and not stray from that to delve into Trump's finances. During the election efforts were made to get Mr. Trump to disclose more about his finances as a real estate businessman- most of these efforts failed and not much is known about president Trump's finances. The president says he never said he would order the Justice Department to fire Mr. Mueller, yet he left open this possiblility, according to the NYT, as the president feels it has affected the first 6 months of the Trump presidency. This interview with president Trump was published on July 20, 2017, the day after an editorial in the WSJ by the Editorial Board of the Journal on July 19, 2017, calling for transparency from president Trump on the Russia investigation. This was an exceptional and powerful editorial by its editorial board telling president Trump that he must tell everything he knows now or face the risk of losing public confidence, and risk his presidency. It said that president Trump was wrong to think that his larger than life personality and social media role could insulate him from the effects of this lack of transparency. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Another significant development in this crisis, is how small businesses got addicted to credit card debt as a way to operate for ongoing expenses of the small business, from a small nursery, to abed and breakfast or a solo law practice. There are an estimated 27.2 million small businesses who are supposed to be one of the growth engines of the economy. Credit card debt when banks are tightening up credit and businesses are unable to meet expenses, is extremely costly because of the underlying usurious nature of the industry in the US and lax regulation. It will only push more businesses, that have acquired the bad habit of credit cards to finance operations, into bankruptcy. There were 5 million business credit cards in 2000. By 2009 after Visa Inc, American Express Co, and MasterCard Inc. and Discover Financial Services Inc. pushed these cards aggressively, using a new credit scoring system that looked less at the business and more at personal credit scores, the number jumped six fold to what Nilsen Reports estimates as 29 million business credit cards. The spending on these cards jumped for this period four fold, from $70 billion to $296 billion. As the average debt on each credit card jumped so did the likelihood of some of these card holders difficulties. Missed payments could lead to interest rates for some card holders jumping to 30+% from initial rates of 7-8%, all in the last 12 months. This makes small businesses less likely to create the jobs they created in the past, and one more troublespot in this economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
The French national assembly votes 551 to 6 with one abstention to extend for 3 months a national state of emergency imposed after the day of the Paris attacks in November 2015. Prime minister Manuel Valls says "the state of emergency, it's true, justifies certain temporary restrictions on liberties, but resorting to this gives us every chance to fully restore these liberties." Belgium is also taking strong action. The director of Carnegie Europe voices popular opinion when he says this is intended to regain some trust after the lax approach of Begian authorites, and lack of strong action in France in the past.

LyrArc Article Gist
Some insights into the thinking of Robert Rubin from an interview by Ken Brown and David Enrich with the former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration about the 2008 financial crisis. As Justice John Paul Stevens. the longest serving Supreme Court justice on the bench once said, those who administer the judicial system form the backbone of the law. In a like manner those who administer the financial and economic system form its backbone, which is why Rubin faces some tough questions in this interview. At the time he was Treasury Secretary, the NYT magazine ran a story on Robert Rubin, as the kind of person who liked to put things down rationally on a note pad, and think things through on the basis of this rational analysis. This is how he approached the Mexican financial crisis of 1994 and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Here is some of that note pad Rubin, in the context of CDO's and risk taking, with something gone awry. Risks that according to this NYT report Rubin encouraged at Citigroup in 2004 and 2005, on the basis of the idea that Citi's competitors were taking on more risk and making bigger profits. His note pad approach appears to have led to conclusions by Rubin that considering the additional profits that could be made by Citi by ramping up the risk taking in 2004 and 2005 and afterwards like its competitors, it could lead to losses if things went wrong, but these losses would'nt come close to wiping out the profits made during the good times. The cyclical downturn he expected to see in 2004 and 2005 when he is reported to have added his voice to others that the bank take on more risk, was a cyclical downturn of the type he had seen during the 1994 Mexican devaluation and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. He had no idea that it would be a cyclical undervaluing of risk added on to a housing bubble, and to a triple A ratings issuance that was misguided. Rubin says here that there was hardly anyone who saw that low-probability event as a possibility. Was the housing bubble a low probability event, and were the issuance of ratings by the credit ratings agencies compromised by the drive for more business a normal pattern, or would some digging up of facts and some innate skepticism of the prevailing current in favor of one's own instincts that something was overdone missed in the notepad analysis of a supposedly rational approach? Or was there a feeling that somehow the U.S. with its long tradition of technology, its work ethic and sophisticated financial system was somehow immune to something as severe as what the Asian countries were experiencing in 1997, or what happened in the 1930's. Asked about his view of what happened Rubin says that looking back there was an enormous amount that needs to be learned. Rubin is also in a quandary when he has to respond to the public concerns about excessive executive compensation. Rubin made $115 million in pay since 1999, excluding stock options, while under his purview as the highest ranking board member Citigroup let some of the problems that it faces now accumulate. As Citigroup faces $20 billion in losses in 2008, a bear raid on its stock by short sellers who ironically were able to do this because of some of the lax regulation set in motion in the Rubin Greenspan years leading to the suspension of the Uptick rule, and the $45 billion government bailout last week. Rubin may have helped Citi but in a different sort of way. He was able to persuade Treasury- Treasury Secretary Paulson was a fellow executive at former employer Goldman Sachs- through the days before the bailout, ensuring government help was on its way. Citigroup shares had dropped to $3.77 a share in the third week of November 2008, losing 50% of their value in one week, as the discussions took place. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In comparison to industrial companies digital companies such as Google and Apple have more room to find gaps in the U.S. tax system which was designed for the industrial period. Apple paid a tax rate of 9.8% in 2011 on its global profits in 2011 of $34.2 billion, a total of $3.3 billion. Wal-Mart for instance paid a tax rate of 24%, on its booked profits of $24.4 billion, a total of $5.9 billion. The issue is significant because of the large U.S. deficit and spending cuts by local and state governments for essential services, especially in California, where Apple is located. Apple is able to avoid state taxes on some of its profits by locating an office in Reno, Nevada. Nevada has zero corporate taxes, California's corporate tax rate is 8.84%. In the current fiscal year Apple is expected to earn $45.6 billion which if taxed at the rates companies paid in the 1950's - 30% in the 1950's compared to 6.6% in 2009 for corporate tax receipts according to a New York Times report- would enable the state of California to avoids some of the sharp cuts in funding to community colleges such as De Anza College only minutes away from Apple, Google and H-P. De Anza College's president says he simply cannot understand this, how the whole psychology of corporations and the public itself has changed over the years, to where a college where one of the Apple co-founders Steve Wozniak got his education in 1969-74, is now struggling to survive with funding cuts. The California college system of the 1950's and 1960's was funded by other companies tax dollars creating the educational resources which helped create todays companies- one generations responsibilities transferred to another generation that has failed to understand what this is about....

LyrArc Article Gist
Norris quotes Senator John McCain who said that when corporations such as Apple and Google do not pay their share of taxes, other companies in the U.S. and ordinary taxpayers have to make up the difference.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pearlstein raises the question, are there business leaders who believe that what's good for America, is good for business, rather than the other way around. Google, like other technology companies, pays much less in taxes than the corporate tax rate suggests. Research by the Washington Post shows this to be 18%, not 35%, for 2009.