LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the balanced budget amendment say it prevents the use of counter cyclical policies in an economic downturn.

LyrArc Article Gist
Elvira Nabiullina, head of Russia's central bank, is a think tank economist who was Economy minister before becoming chief economic advisor to Russian president Putin in 2012. She is one of the liberal economists in Russia who see the years of economic growth following ruble devaluation in 1998 as an example of how devaluation can actually help the economy. The devaluation lowers costs for manufacturing and agriculture, and is seen by some economists as having done more than oil price increases to help the Russian economy grow during president Putin's first term from 1999 to 2004. Nabiullina's position to support a free float after the sharp decline in the value of the ruble following the plunge in oil prices, is based on the need she sees to use the crisis to reduce Russian overdependence on imports. This policy had other advantages by reducing the need to tap Russia's foreign currency reserves to defend the ruble. Russia's gold and foreign currency reserves are at $385 billion. In Jan 2015 the central bank cut interest rates. A policy of increasing rates would trigger a sharper recesssion. Russia faces a unique situation in that the oil price decline and the decline in the value of the ruble occurred at about the same time of about 50%, so that the budget continues to be balanced. The number of rubles coming in from oil exports remains the same after the crisis. Nabiullina told Russia 24 television- "We have to live in a different zone, Russians should orient ourselves more toward our own sources of financing projects, and to give a chance to import substitution."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Brazilian President Lula's interview witht the Economist, just before leaving office. It is not still clear how Lula will be seen, even though his popularity at the moment is helping elect his chief of staff Ms. Rousseff, as his successor. Lula's success in office is seen as a continuation of the policies of President Cardozo, who helped tame Brazil's inflationary crisis. Lula has benefitted from the continuation of the policies of his predecessor, and also from the boom in exports to China for soya, metals and other exports. By helping expand Brazil's middle class and the aid to poorer segments of society with the Bolsa programme, he has earned credibility and wide popular support. The dangers lie in the areas of an extremely overvalued currency- see the link to the Brazilian currency Real- with the Real at 1.7 and analysts with computer models showing the Real really worth 2.65 dollars. Part of the problem is government deficits to finance increased spending which require inflow of foreign capital and higher interest rates. Brazil is very dependent on exports to China for the increased level of growth, this poses risks if China's growth slows as expected from the high growth rates of the past. This poses risks for the level of infrastructure spending the Lula and Ms. Rousseff goverments plan on developing. Brazil's educational system is weak and efforts to improve this under the Lula government have not produced results. So the longer term assessment of the Lula goverment will have a balanced score card of wins and losses, without the euphoria of the moment....

LyrArc Article Gist
An assessment of Brazil compared to the other leading emergig market countries Russia, China and India, shows that Brazil has a lot going for it. Compared to Russia and China, Brazil has a stable multiparty democracy. And the differences between the countryside and the urban areas is not quite as large as it is in China and India. Surprising as it may appear about 83% of Brazilians now live in cities. And the process of urbanization that is taking place in China and India took place much earlier in Brazil. Between 1940 to 1980 industrialization and a growth rate that averaged 7% for most of that period brough large numbers of people from rural to urban areas. And the problem of inflation which wracked the economy from 1986 to 1994 before being brought under control is now well under control at about 4.7%. Debt problems from the Asian crisis contagion effects are now behind it as Brazil is a big exporter of commodities from coffee, soyabeans, orange juice to iron ore, with the real strengthening from 68 as measured in the currencies of its trading partners in 2001 to 100 today. Brazil's growth rate has reached 5.4%. and has been at an average of 4.5% since 2004. Between 1980 and 2000 Brazil's growth was in a slump so this has been a period of great changes in Brazil. Brazil is importing more plant and equipment with a stronger currency and booming exports. Brazil invests 19% of GDP according to Vale of MB Associados and that number should reach 25% of GDP at which point it would be easier to maintain a growth rate of 5% a year. With consumer credit growing at 25% each year for the last 2 years consumption is growing. And Brazilian companies were the second largest source of foreign direct investment in developing countries after China, according to the Fundacao Dom Cabral, a business school, and Columbia University, with the stronger real helping the balance sheets of Brazilian companies. The big change is that under the Lula government Brazil has done much better for the working classes and the rural poor. The Bolsa Familias is a program of cash transfers to poor people under the poverty line but which has strings attached so that they are required to send their children to school and have them vaccinated. It reaches 11 million families and is considered a major success in reducing poverty and in helping to see that poverty is not passed on from generation to generation. A program that may be copied in India. Acccording to the Observador Brasil/ Ipsos survey 23 million Brazilians have left social classes D and E and joined class C which means that they can have a rented apartment, a car and some gadgets. This give more confidence in Brazilian democracy and capitalism as more of society's diverse groups have a stake in the future....

LyrArc Article Gist
A Wall Street Journal Survey of how the credit ratings firms have performed in prediciting looming defaults. The Journal's Matt Wirz looked at 35 years of data. He found the ratings firms did not do an effective job with predicting defaults in the 12 month period before an actual default. Of the 15 government defaults since 1975 tracked by S&P, S&P's sovereign ratings division rated 12 of the countries single B or higher in the 12 months preceding the default. S&P says a single-B rating on sovereign debt signifies that the government has only a 2% average default rate in the next 12 months. For Moody's Investors Service the figures show that of the 13 governments rated by Moody's, 11 were rated B or higher one year before an actual default. By contrast the investment grade ratings of the credit ratings firms have worked better- as no government defaulted within 15 years of having a tripe-A, double-A, or a single-A rating. Ratings firms say that the ratings indicate a relative default risk for countries and not an actual default probability, a rank ordering for different countries and their relative risk. Research chiefs at investment management firms point out that once a crisis develops the ratings firms are not much help. They also say the ratings firms use static indicators like current account balances and other critical indicators for countries in emerging markets such as political sentiment and bank deposit flows get less attention. Historically bond yields have priced in higher risk premiums into government bonds before a default and investors look at the bond yields in assessing risk conditions, and not at the ratings which change only slowly. Brazil and Argentina both had a double B-minus rating in Jan. 2001. A year later Argentina had defaulted....

LyrArc Article Gist
What can be guessed easily the less forunate or poorer sections of society are way more likely to be charged high interest rates or exorbitant interest rates by credit card companies is confiremed by a research report. Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy group, says in areport, that low-uincome and lower-middle class income cardholders were about five times more likely than the wealthiest cardholders to pay more than 20% interest. It breaks down users into 4 categories, with the last two being late payers and people with revolving balances. If this graphed out the picture would show practically the entire profit of the credit card companies coming from these two. The reason being that the other two categories are those who have cards and don't use them so don't get billed, and those who pay before the due date so they pay no charges except what the credit card companies make from the business from whom the purchase is made. This means says Singletary of the WPost that the better off well to do sections of society are actually having their annual fees subsidized by the poorer sections of society, or the lower middle class. Singletary says to a online discussion person who though his cards without annual fees were free, they were never really free, and few people think of this. As a society its like hitting oneself in the foot, because by impacting students, minorities, the lower middle class and other sections of society- which form amajority of the people in the country- at a time when they are deeply in debt, is to make for another hurdle to economic recovery. Its going to impact consumption, foreclosures and worsen the cycle that creates more unemployment. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The lack of any other opinion except an official one can be part of the problem the central committe of China's Communist party is facing in its expression of adesire for democracy. See the link to the September 2009 session of ther Central Committee. There may be afear that letting people speak may lead to unsettling the single focus on economic development. But it leaves the question how the communist party hopes to tackle corruption and lack of pluralistic democracy. In this connection see Medvedev's criticism of Russian current situation in his recent article and 2 hour question and answer session. By closing the openings for dialogue is China's leadership making amistake, considering that China has made progress in economic development, and this may be agood time for pluralism.

LyrArc Article Gist
Putin was born in St Petersburg, then called Leningrad, where his father worked in a factory making railway cars. He studied law at Leningrad State University, graduated in 1975 and went through KGB training before going to Dresden in 1985, where he remained with the KGB till 1990 and the collapse of the Berlin Wall. By 1990, the Soviet Union collapsed and from 1990 to 1996, Putin worked in St. Petersburg first as assistant and then as Deputy Mayor with Anatoly Sobchak, a law professor at Leningrad State University, and Mayor of St. Petersburg. After Sobchak narrowly lost the election, Putin left for a position in the property department in the Kremlin, joining other Sobchak associates who worked in the Kremlin. From 1996 to 1999, Putin moved up quickly in the chaotic Yeltsin years. In 1998 he was promoted to head the FSB, the successor to the KGB. And in August 1999, Yeltsin appointed Putin Prime Minister. In December 1999, Yeltsin appointed Putin acting president. Putin named Medvedev, deputy chief of staff in 2000. The five years in the St. Petersburg city administration and the years in Moscow in the Kremlin under Yeltsin were chaotic years for Russia and for Putin, as he observed first hand the lawlessness and general breakdown in Russia. This may have influenced the early Yeltsin years enthusiasm for democracy, to an appreciation of the problems for democracy in the actual environment that he was facing in Russia. He developed a distrust of the innocent enthusiasm of Americans for a wholesale transfer of American and British political institutions to the Russian environment. This was a period of great shock in Russia, as even the lifespan of Russians was declining rapidly in this period, and there was a lot of poverty. The struggles between the Mayor and the city council in St Petersburg, even as the city was facing food shortages and economic collapse, and the latter Yeltsin years may have convinced Putin of the need to combine democratic society and elections with a strong central administration, with authority concentrated in a Presidential system and not a parliamentary democracy. In bringing central direction he brought in his KGB connections, but in choosing his successor he turned to a law student at Leningrad State University of Sobchak's, who is quite different from Putin's KGB associates. Medvedev is a softspoken thoughtful administrator and intellectual compared to Putin, and his experience covers the 10 years both Putin and Medvedev spent together both in St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1990-2000, and the period from 2000 to the present day- when Medvedev served both as Putin's head of staff and as head of Gazprom. See the link to the St Petersburg Times, November 6, 2007 on Medvedev. From his St. Petersburg days Putin clearly understood the need for foreign investment and the need to create a climate for attracting foreign investment. This seems to be happening as Russia draws more foreign investment for industry and infrastructure. His background with the KGB shows up in the centralization of authority in the light of the chaotic years and economic collapse preceding it. And his days as part of Sobchak's efforts to bring democracy to St Petersburg shows up in his continuing respect for democratic elections and the Russian constitution. One compromise was made in the process- a consolidation of the media so that opposition's access to the media may not be what it could be, and at the same time it does reflect the tide of popular opinion in Russia that credits the economic recovery and progress and optimism for the future to the Putin administration. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Niall Ferguson, a history professor at Harvard, and Moritz Shularick, a economic history professor at the Free University of Berlin, coined the term Chimerica, to describe the Chinese export machine and the American overconsumption right down to negative savings. Now they call it an economic monster that needs to be given a burial. It does little good for America. For America its a 10-10 deal the authors say, 10% growth for China and 10% unemployment int the USA. The mood in the USA is no longer to go on with this arrangement they warn, and ask that the Obama administration take steps to end this arrangement. The USA should ask China to make a 30 % depreciation of the renminbi say Ferguson and Schularick. Krugman makes a similiar point and warns of dire consequences in aworld out of balance on the same page of the NYT, see the link. Ferguson and Schularick point out that unlike China, both Germany and Japan let their currencies appreciate by 60% for Germany and 50% in Japan, at a similiar period in their country's development. China's renmibi is pegged at 6.83 renminbi to the dollar, and China's government used $300 billion in reserves to keep the renminbi from appreciating this year. Throughout the 1980's and 1990's it was pegged at around 8.28 renminbi to the dollar. For the USA this has been very costly, with a distortion in the global cost of capital significantly reducing long term interest rates, and helping create the real estate bubble in the US. They point out that with Japan and Germany dollar reserves increased roughly in line with growth of American GDP at about 1% and stable before moving slighltly higher in the 1970's. By contrast China's reserves have grown from about 1% of Ameica's GDP in 2000 or $165 billion to 5% in 2005 and 10% in 2008 and headed for 12% in 2009 end. This is simply unsustainable any longer; carrying on any longer risks China losing the very basis of its economic success which is the open global trading system....

LyrArc Article Gist
Vietnam has seen rapid growth in the last 20 years as it joined the shifted away from the state planned economy similar to China in the late 1980's, joined the worlds trading system, freed up the economy and attracted foreign investment. But something doesn't seem right. Looking at the Vietnam growth curve, growth in Vietnam's GDP vs growth of world GDP the curve seems to be following a similiar pattern, there is a sharp downturn in the early 1990's with a V shaped bounce back and a sharp downturn in early 2000 followed by another V shaped bounce back in growth to this date. As America begins its first of several years of credit contraction and investment contraction followed by similiar patterns in some European economies like the UK, Ireland, Spain and a slowdown in the rest of Europe, the question hangs over growth in Asia, from South Korea and Taiwan where recent elections reflected these concerns in electing politicians who promised new ways of kickstaring their economic growth, to China, India and Vietnam where the concerns are about how to meet the growing expectations of the large numbers of people, probably the majority of the people in these countries who have been left out of the economic development experienced in urban areas and by the new middle class. Corruption, the stock market collapse or severe setback, and a slowdown in their main export markets, and are problems shared by all 3 countries China, India and Vietnam. India and Vietnam share the problems of a poor infrastructure. In this new environment Asian countries will have to come up with innovative solutions to maintain growth and quality of growth, as some of the chaotic growth of the last 20 years may have come at some cost like that of the environment in the case of China and better solutions can be found than growth that sacrifices goals in health care and other necessary goals of balanced development....

LyrArc Article Gist
By putting the credibility of 6 Republican National Chairmen in recent years on the line, including Republican figures such as Bill Brock and Bob Dole, this op-ed article in the WSJ aims to put to rest any doubts about the rule that an absolute majority of delegates is always needed to become the nominee of the Republican Party. This is true since Lincoln won the nomination on the third ballot, and who would never have been president if this was not the rule. The party coalesced behind Lincoln after the nominee on the first ballot failed to win. This also happened when Reagan won a million more votes than Gerald Ford but gracefully conceded to Ford who had the delegate lead. Eisenhower also was nominated on the second ballot after the leading candidate failed to win the first ballot. Reasons given by the party chairmen for this setup are that the party works to elect the best candidate to represent it by coming together at the convention behind the best leader for the party in the general election. Only about 17% of eligible voters voted in the Republican primaries, with a highly fragmented vote, which make the primaries only one way of bringing in public representation, the other being grassroots leaders in each state party having their views represented as delegates, leaders of the party in prevous elections also offering their views and being represented in some form. Even the general election system of electoral votes is based on winning by state electoral votes and does not simply tally up the votes in the entire country, the framework for the Senate with 2 senators for each state, 2 for California and 2 for Wyoming is not entirely on number of voters because it was the intent of the founders for the Senate to bring representation in a different way than for the House of Representatives, all the time looking for appropriate checks and balances for good government as the goal they set above everything else....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Treasury and Fed's handling of the financial markets crisis on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday as it unfolded Sept 17, 18, 19 and 20, the worst since the 1930's. With the credit markets battered, the collapse of Lehman Brothers investment bank and the rescue of AIG right on the heels of the rescue of Fannie and Freddie the previous week, and all these moves barely improving the general loss of confidence and increasing fragility of the financial markets worldwide. Steps like the ban on short selling by the SEC to stem two 400 point declines in the last few days, and the Fed setting aside $50 billion to shore up money market funds by making them whole where needed, and providing about $200 billion through the European Central Bank and the central banks of Japan, Britain, Canada and Switzerland, were tactical moves so Paulson and Bernanke had to address the real problem of removing the highly illiquid assets of risky mortgages from the financial markets. This would require working with Congress to put together the necessary legislation which is what Congress, Treasury, the Fed, and others will work on this weekend of September 21, 22, so that the legislation could be drawn up the following week and passes into law creaing some Federal agency that will buy up the illliquid mortgage assets owned by banks, investment banks, and other financial institutions before there is another series of collapses in the financial markets necessitating rescues by the Fed. Meantime Treasury has raised another $200 billion last week through sale of Treasurys and provided this money to the Fed to use as needed. The result of the most recent chaos in the financial markets has resulted finally in agreement among all parties about the need for committing taxpayer money in hundreds of billions of dollars to be used to buy up the risky illiquid mortgage assets at steep discounts to be resold later to bargain seeking companies so that the banking sector can repair their balance sheets and recover, as being much safer and less costly route than the cost of rescuing financial firms with systemic risk on an individual basis after a run on these firms or their imminent collapse. Which is why people like Laurence Meyer of Macroeconomic Advisors himself a former senior Fed official believe that this is the first serious effort to tackle the crisis by getting to the root cause of the problem and removing the illiquid mortgage assets and the Government an taxpayers spending the hundreds of billions of dollars but at the same time finally seriously tackling the crisis in a manner that will restore confidence to the markets and to the industrial economy of the USA. His comment, "the markets voted and they liked the proposal", as the Dow Jones went up 610 points at one point and ended up the day Thursday September 19 at 410 points gain for the day....

LyrArc Article Gist
Because of large cash needs with underfunded pension plan, losses in Europe, increased capital spending plans, and plans to repurchase shares held by the U.S. government, GM is in talks with banks in 2012 to increase its $5 billion line of credit to $10 billion.

LyrArc Article Gist
Coordinated action by the governments of France, Britain and Germany each with its own package depending on its own circumstances but committing over a trillion dollars to rescue plans for financial institutions. In Britain the government moved to take majority stakes in 2 of its largest banks, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the newly combied bank of Lloyds TSB and HBOS in exchange for a $64 billion capital infusion. In Berlin the German government setup a 480 billion euros package consisting mostly of loan guarantees, with 400 billon euros in guarantees for inter-bank loans and another $80 billion euros for direct injections of capital to help weak balance sheets and purchase toxic or illiquid assets of German banks that are at the brink of collapse. The French have setup their own 360 billion euros package. The French government will create a fund to raise money to guarantee debt for upto 5 years in a bid to make cash available to banks. The banks can access these funds in exchange for putting up their own collateral, including debt not currently accepted by the ECB. And a state sponsored company will provide upto 40 billion euros in direct capital injections to banks that request it in exchange for equity stakes. In addition Netherlands made $220 billion euros available for capital injection into banks and other efforts and Spain will insure upto 100 billion euros in bank debt. Britain's step are the boldest ones yet and Britain's crisis is also likely to be one of the worst because of years of leveraging and overborrowing. But the German financial system is also under heavy strain and strong swift action was necessary to keep its banking system functioning. While other countries have setup the funds for capital injection like other European countries and the USA, Britain has also take the lead in taking majority stakes in two of its largest banks by Monday, October 13, with the departure of the executives who got these banks into such a mess. Gordon Brown has shown cosiderable leadership in this crisis and has been at the forefront in proposing and acting on workable solutions and swift response while Germany and the USA lagged behind. France's Sarkozy's contribution has been in the area of global coordination which he has argued and worked for and successfully achieved during the last 2 weeks....

LyrArc Article Gist
It took a long time for the banks to understand what is in their best interests is in the best interests of the country's economy and homeowners, something Sheila Bair has been saying since the beginning of this year and implementing at IndyMac. Its just too costly for banks to use the foreclosure process to recover their money and it makes much better financial sense on the bottomline of banks and for the economy to make home payments affordable. Because the worse home prices get the worse the economy and banks do and nothing drives home prices down like foreclosures. The Bank of America settlement for Countrywide with state attorney generals to modify loans for 400,000 homeowners because of predatory lending practices also set the direction. Chase Bank is now using the Bair template to get the monthly payments down to an affordable level which is about 40% of the current payment by reducing interest rates and using a smaller loan balance and keep homeowners in their homes. Chase's plan will help 400,000 homeowners and will also help homeowners who are having difficulty making payments. It will put a 90 day hold on foreclosures till the program is put in place. Yet there is one problem. Only $350 billion of the 1.5 trillion in home mortgage it services are owned by Chase, the rest are owned by investors in the form of mortgage securities. It can do little for homeowners covered by these securites that are owned by hedge funds and other funds as a few of these funds oblivious of the overall interest including their own have threated to sue if loans are modified, and it would take some time to figure out who owns each security and what the terms are for modifying loans for that security. Its this part of mortgage securitiization that has slowed down a rational process of unwinding this problem throughout housing by making homeowners monthly payments affordable. And Fed's Bernanke did not come to grips with this point in his talk about mortgage securitization to UC Berkeley on October 31,2008, that mortgage securitization done in a way that make loan modification difficult is dangerous as it is today, and makes a crisis bigger than it otherwise would be, and turn a USA crisis into a global crisis through ricotcheting effects and a series of bad decisons....

LyrArc Article Gist
JP Morgan Chase will modify the terms of $70 billion in mortgages for borrowers who are behind in their payments or expected to be. This covers 400,000 borrowers. The focus is especially on a type of loan structured so that the monthly payment increases, and Chase inherited $54 billion of such loans with the takeover of Washington Mutual in September 2008. Some of these loans are called options adjustable rate mortgages where borrowers can make payments that don't even cover the interest costs, resulting in increasing the loan balance. Chase will replace the options ARM's with fixed rate loans.In taking over WaMU, Chase had a large exposure to the California housing market. WIth WaMu CHase ended up with $16 billion of subprime mortgages. The mortgages that Chase will modify for this plan with affordable payments make up 4.7% of the home loans it owns or are serviced by Chase's EMC Mortgage Corporation. So this is a good start but a lot remains to be done. Chase's Scharf who heads the retail division said that Chase had heard loud and clear what the thought leaders in the country are saying, and wanted to provide leadership on this issue to the whole industry as it does'nt make sense to wait. About 7.3 million American homeowners are expected to default on their mortgages from 2008 to 2010, and about 4.3 million homeowners lose their homes, according to Moody's Economy.com. While opinion leaders like FDIC's Sheila Bair and Reagan adviser Martin Feldstein have called for government help to prevent foreclosures from the early months of 2008,and FDIC has considered about 40% of current monthly payments the affordable amount for loan modification in IndyMac FDIC modifications, neither the Bush administration, banks or companies in the mortgage industry have taken any leadership on this issue. And now Scharf says it makes no sense to wait, in effect a signal to other banks to do the same. Scharf also said the stronger you are the more easier it makes to take these decisions suggesting that the $25 billion in government funds it received helped it reach this decision on this plan, which makes a lot of sense for the banks because foreclosures are the worst way to recover money with bad consequences for all parties and disastrous for the US and global economy....

LyrArc Article Gist
Putin takes the first step for Russia to join in discussions for a lasting peace. More than a ceasefire is needed, as many ceasefires have come and gone and the war is now over 15 years old, pausing for a while and then starting again many times. Russia calls for addressing the underlying issues behind the war.  It started with Russian support for Yakunovich 2010-2014 which ended with the Maidan protests in Kviv and Lviv. Russian and Putin strategy at that time was that as long as  a pro-Russian or a person leaning towards Russia with good relations to the West -as existed in some of the former states in Eastern Europe during the 1980's during the Soviet Union such as Poland and GDR- this would be acceptable. The Maidan protest led upheaval thus had a contrary effect which Germany under Merkel and France under Sarkozy and Hollande failed to grasp. Obama judged Russia by its GDP, ignoring its history and relations among European states as one of the major powers in Europe, a technological state with nuclear power. As China shifted away making the integration of Hong Kong and now Taiwan a priority under president Xi, and asserting the virtue of its state run capitalist system over free market capitalism, the fissures began to develop in the system that prevailed after World War II and which survived the fall of the Berlin Wall. These are some of the origins of the war and are also in some of its aspects geopolitical and relate to world peace,, and peace inside nations in general outside the Ukraine war. And here relate to Venezuela Mexico and US inaction in tackling borders and cartels, the US border with Mexico, Syrian war and Syrian refugees entering Germany/Europe, the anti refugee movements in Germany and the EU, refugee crime in US and Europe, all connected in some way to the unsettled borders of the Russian state with US and Western European + Eastern European states in NATO and the EU nearby. And the limiting or removal of Russian influence in Ukraine seen by Russia as unacceptable in regions nearest to Russia that speak Russian. Britain has the virtues of its parliamentary democracy, yet it is far from Russia's borders and it just like the Russian Empire had an Empire in India and a near thing to an Empire in China, as recently as 1950, over history of western colonial empires of 500 years not too long ago. Which means it is good to be starry eyed but the reality in European history since 1400 is of dominant states and colliding or co-existing spheres of influence, mostly co-existing in some balance of different states in the interests of peace and welfare of the people.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Eyal Press brings ups the issues of moral injury when physicians work under a system of corporate takeover of medicine. She cites  the situation of Emergency Room's at hospitals where the service is outsourced to private groups working only with profits in mind. Sociologist Paul Starr in his book  The Social Transformation of American Medicine said that about 50 years ago this was not the prevailing practice in America, when physicians earned the public's trust by being "above the market and pure commercialism." The trend now is to form unions such as the one at Stanford University for medical professionals, as this provides a balance when dealing with corporate interests. A 30 year old resident at Stanford is cited, who says the prestige of the profession of medicine does not any more prevent the degradation that is being experienced by workers in other sectors of todays economy. With its excesses in one direction away from the values of the past. Physicians he sees as moving to the category  of "laborers," like other workers in such an economy, that is far removed from what existed in America 50 years ago. ...