commentopia What the World Is Saying A SERVICE BRINGING YOU THE BEST READERS' COMMENTS FROM TOP NEWS SOURCES ON THE WEB
BUSINESS WEEKLY ARCHIVES [RETURN TO commentopia HOME PAGE]
DECEMBER 7, 2009 - DECMBER 27, 2009 BUSINESS IT'S TIME FOR BEN BERNANKE, "THE GREAT INFLUENCER"
I have irrational Jekyll and Hyde emotions about people like Bernanke and Greenspan. Read the article NPR/Time Person of the Year <> He's the Bankers' Man of the year, but he is not mine. Read the article U.S.A. TODAY/Obama (and Bush) nominee Bernanke, Time's Person of the Year <> Boring and predictable. But then Time Magazine has seems not to care that their selection each year becomes more irrelevant than the previous year's recipient. They ought to try putting a modicum of thought into their selection to generate some real discussion: Read the article U.S.A. TODAY/Obama (and Bush) nominee Bernanke, Time's Person of the Year WILL THE BANKERS OF WALL STREET DANCE TO A NEW TUNE?
"Can Obama Cut the 'Fat Cats' Down to Size?" I hope so, but i'm not at all sure how that happens. We no longer have a sense of collective good. Most people, it seems, are only interested in what benefits them personally. Our country is headed in a terrible direction, and it is not because of Barack Obama. It is because while we like to shout jingoistic phrases about being Americans, and country first, there are fewer and fewer of us who actually walk that walk. Nobody wants to look at what's good for the country as a whole; only what's good for them and their beliefs. And, we're impatient. Everybody wants problems that have been many years in the making to be solved instantaneously; and on the first try no less! We need to learn to start taking the long view, and understand that sacrifices must be made in order to get our nation back on a sound economic footing. I believe that is the approach our new president is taking, and he is getting trashed from both sides for not having instant solutions. I think we would all do well to sit back, quit listening to the pundits who have to fill a 24/7 news cycle, and actually try to work together. That approach got us through the first 200 years after all... Read the article ABC NEWS/Obama to "Fat Cat Bankers:" Time to start lending <> First, the banks were too loose and now the administration is criticizing them for being too tight. I'm no fan of banks but I think Obamanomics uses demonizing tactics too loosely. Loose lending and near zero interest rate got us into a major financial bubble in the first time; let's not repeat the mistake and create another one. Obamanomics, aka, swing wildly and see what hits is irresponsible and has no fundamentals to it. Unless, the administration is looking to establish another Bashing card to play in 2012. Bush Bashing has lost its novelty so I guess is now Wall Street and Big Business Bashing. Make no mistakes, big businesses create nearly 20-30% of the jobs in this country and fund much of this government. Like them or hate them, they are partners in this thing we called the US economy. Read the article CNN POLITICS/Obama: "Banks don't get it." <> As a small business owner, I have seen the effects of the credit availability now. However, i have also seen the effects of inappropriate lending including by the SBA. Even if more credit is available, e.g. looser terms, I am not sure small business would be eager to go leverage up again. Consumer spending is still uncertain, energy costs of projects is uncertain, DOL labor regulations are uncertain, and the costs of health care are uncertain. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Obama slams "Fat Cat" bankers MATT TAIBBI UNLEASHED: THE OBAMA ECONOMY, FROM BAILOUT TO GIVE-AWAY
: Matt, chill a bit. That was about the most damning thing I have seen written about the President. You are a little bomb thrower. Nothing like a liberal scorned! I was surprised at the end that you did not shout "To the barricades." Are you sure you are not a reincarnation of Madam DuFarge? Read the article ROLLING STONE/Obama's Big Sellout <> Thanks for some great reporting. Read the article ROLLING STONE/Obama's Big Sellout <> I think Taibbi has a point. I never thought Obama was a "crash the gates" progressive but I voted for, volunteered for, and donated to him because he was still much better than McCain. That being said, we still need to keep the pressure on him and the rest of the Democrats because too many of them don't have progressive values. I'm not a millionaire or a lobbyist so I have a limited number of tools to apply this pressure: my vote, my voice, and a tiny bit of time and money. All I can do is give or take away those things and I will do so as I see fit. I don't donate to politicians, I invest in them. If I don't see a return. I'll direct those meager resources elsewhere. Read the article DAILY KOS/Taibbi strikes again NOVEMBER 30, 2009 - DECMBER 6, 2009 BUSINESS OBAMA'S JOB PLAN AIMS TO GET MAIN STREET BACK TO WORK
My neighbors, who have two small children, were just evicted. Dad lost his job and has not been able to find work. The dumpster was filled with everything that they owned, including the kids' bunk beds. We live not far from Tent City and I wonder if they have gone to join families on the street. My feeling is that if the government needs to invest money to create jobs it is far better than just investing money into unemployment checks and make shift shelter and food programs. No one wants a hand out. People just want jobs and a way to support their families with dignity. This is not "Pork Barrel" spending. This is rebuilding America in a post-Bush era. And I don't know about you but what is wrong with fixing some rickety bridges, overdue levees that are bound to break and cause massive flooding (New Orleans ... Sacramento is next) or even build a proper school room so children do not have to attend class in what looks like a run-down mobile home unit. Or maybe the rich don't care that we are looking and functioning more and more like a developing country. Where is the middle class? Check Tent City. Read the article NPR/Obama says new spending necessary for recovery <> Obama says, placing a huge burden of debt on the backs of our children is wrong. And then he says: There must be a better way. And then what does he do? He places a huge burden of debt on the backs of our grandchildren. Read the article USA TODAY- THE OVAL/Obama on jobs <> When will a politician stand up and say who is really responsible for the financial problems currently facing this country? Main Street, and the American consumer, who spend more than they earn, is just as responsible for the problem as Wall Street. Individual and collective irresponsible spending and over indulgence caused this problem, but no politician will ever publicly state that because they would be committing political suicide by accusing their constituents. Give Main Street a bailout, and they will squander it away on frivolous junk, just as they have for years. God bless the big screen TV and the new SUV you can’t afford. Read the article CNN POLITICAL TICKER/Obama: Bailout for Main Street <> I work for a small business. He can cut our taxes to zero and we won't be hiring until sales improve. Simple as that. Get people working so they have more income so they buy more of our product and we'll increase production. We won't increase production by one unit even if our taxes are cut to zero or even if the government starts paying us. Taxes have absolutely no impact on our hiring decisions right now. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Obama Jobs Speech: Help for Small Businesses, Transportation, Energy-Efficient Homes <> Why do more and more of Obama's plans involve "main street" SPENDING money in order to save it? You want healthcare costs to be low, well then we are going to make every person have to buy it with money they don't have. You want money back in your pocket, well you have to go purchase expensive energy-efficient equipment for your house. I get what he's doing and it's a great idea...but not during a big recession when nobody can afford to do this stuff in the first place which is why they are begging the government to do something. People voted for change, and unfortunately they got it. Instead of fixing things, all Obama is doing is changing them. "Change" and "Fix" are completely exclusive from each other; I would think an educated person who can charm a nation could at least figure that one out. Read the article CNN MONEY/Obama jobs plan: Bailout for Main Street "ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO SELL" --RUPERT MURDOCH WANTS YOUR DOLLAR
As someone who has worked both at the LA Times for one year and HBO for 4 years, I am well in tune with the machinations of media companies. I am also well aware of the value of content. Content costs money. We all know that. That said, the attempt to restrict the flow of information so as to somehow glean more value from content is futile. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Journalism 2009: Desperate metaphors, desperate revenue models, and the desperate need for better journalism
<> I think Murdoch's fundamental point is business and not journalism orientated. Decent journalism exists outside of the capitalist sphere. Have a look at the crusading journos in Russia who get killed for doing their jobs and/or get paid pittance. Her (Huffington's) point is that journalism should be allowed to evolve into a more socially dynamic, non-corporate driven process. There are hundreds of decent journos in Russia doing the job against all survival and profit instincts. Web journalism will start to look like that: community orientated. Murdoch knows you don't need huge sums of money to power decent journalism. Investigative reporting is not built on the desire to earn more money and become famous it is also built on community zeal and to hold those in power accountable. Murdoch can't understand it and he is scared. It's understandable he is worried as he always assumes people opeate on the same principles he does, but the Web is changing the way people think about what constitutes news. He has always seen it as a product, tailored to the needs and wishes of the consumer, but at its most basic level, news /information is never that. It is the nervous system of democracy. Murdoch has done a great deal to erode that view of it as well diminish its service to democratic ends and anything which causes the man anxiety has to be a good thing. Read the article U.K. GUARDIAN/Huffington hits out at Murdoch speech
I am 100 per cent in favour of paying for news because there is no other way of sustaining the trade or its workers without changing the rules of the game. It's very easy to get all sniffy about what you class as journalism and mock Murdoch's titles. But it misses the point. What Murdoch is getting at is that there are enough readers of any titles who will be willing to pay for the service they receive. It won't be anywhere near what they were used to get - but, economically, it probably makes more sense. It is all very well boasting about the hundreds of millions of website hits you get a month but what does/has it achieved? No more journalists are being hired, no deep rooted losses are being eased. But when pay for content models are introduced, even if only 10 per cent of a readership sticks with the title online, then it's worth doing. Let those who scoff about the BBC News site go and enjoy it. They'll soon realise the limitations. Read the article U.K.GUARDIAN/Rupert Murdoch: "There's no such thing as a free news story " <> There are a couple of real problems with "news" being put into the context of a product. First, is that news consist of (at least in theory) facts. Fortunately, facts, unlike processes and works of art, cannot be protected from unauthorized distribution. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Journalism 2009: Desperate metaphors, desperate revenue models, and the desperate need for better journalism NOVEMBER 30, 2009 - DECMBER 6, 2009 BUSINESS
What happened to the concern about media consolidation? Are those concerns simply antiquated: anachronisms of an age where control over our media (both content and distribution) was once diverse? Comcast, lest anyone forget, controls a significant portion of our digital roadways, and now, with this deal, controls a fast-growing and non-trivial amount of the traffic and content on that roadway. This is the same Comcast that tried to thwart certain types of traffic on the internet! Should we be happy now that Comcast can now further its control and reach? Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/G.E. makes it official: NBC will go to Comcast <> Why is it that every time there is a mega-merger, the same hollow promises (more choices, better quality, lower costs) are trotted out, and then the exact opposite occurs. There has never, ever, been a consolidation of two competing companies, that has worked to the advantage of the consumer. Comcast will now control what you see, how you will get to see it and how much you will pay for it Read the article USA TODAY/Could Comcast deal change TV as we know it? <> Not to defend Comcast but they aren't evil, they are capitalists. You may not get what you pay for, but you pay for what you get. Comcast already offers same day as dvd or same day as in theaters for independent films, so adding Universal isn't a big stretch. Some people still like to go to theaters and some people have home theaters. No one is forced to press the "buy" button. <> The Mega-media era began a long, long time ago. Time-Warner, Disney Media Associates and News Corp aren't broadcasting from a ham radio in a basement somewhere. And if they are it's in addition to just about everywhere else on the planet and geosynchronis orbit.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Comcast to buy controllng stake in NBC/Universal for $13.75 billion PAUL KRUGMAN ON JOBS: DO WE NEED A NEW W.P.A?
Yes, we can create more jobs. The W.P.A. and the C.C.C. are good examples of job creation during the depression that resulted in general economic expansion for the nation's economy via increased production of goods and services. But would similar programs have the same effect today? Considering our relatively weak manufacturing sector, particularly as regards consumer durables, the creation of make-work projects a la New Deal would mainly result in greater demand for imports -- items sold by Walmart, Best Buy, Costco, Amazon, etc.-- and in demand for more outsourced customer service (for PCs, smart phones, etc.) boosting our foreign suppliers and creditors rather than our hard-pressed domestic producers. Unlike the 30s and 40's, when virtually all our consumer goods and services were produced at home. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman: "The Jobs Imperative"
A public works jobs program would be like applying a band-aid to a severed limb. It might be better than nothing, and on that basis I would support it, but it still does nothing to address the much larger and deeper causes of unemployment, namely our failing consumer markets and our increasing trend of exporting jobs overseas. Considering also that we have an obstructionist wing of hard line GOP conservatives in Congress who will rabidly oppose any legislative effort to curb employment outsourcing, it seems like we are stuck. A band-aid is the best we can hope for...if we can even manage that much.\ Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Paul Krugman: "The Jobs Imperative" THE NUMBERS GAME: COUNTING JOBS CREATED AND SAVED
On my way to work today, I stopped at a red light. I figure I created or saved about ten lives today! You certainly probably saved lives by not running the red light. However, What was going on during that red light that may have created 10 lives? :-) Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Agency stands pat on stimulus jobs <> I sure do wish a job would come my way! Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Errors riddle accounts of stimulus spending <> Explain to me how all the geniuses in the administration, Congress, and the MSM can believe the elusive reality of the climatic "hockey stick" effect and at the same time not believe the lesson of the Laffer curve, which has been demonstrated quite convincingly at least four times in the last half-century that when the government reduces tax rates, tax revenues go up significantly? So, Hockey Stick but no Laffer Curve? I have never in my adult years seen such a bald display of naked power-mad politicians as in the near-carnality of Washington in the last 10 months. Frankly, it doesn't seem to me that what NancyHarryBarneyBarry is doing is an actual tilt toward Socialism--intentionally. Rather, I see it as an exercise of power by politicians who want to revel in their power, and the easiest and best way to achieve that goal is to pander to the public, abetted by the bacchantes of the press who follow the emanations of power from Congressional leaders as if they were pheromones. The result will be some kind of Nanny-State Socialism promoted on the idea of the Nail Theory, that is, that everyone will be made equal, just as when you see a nail stick up above the rest, you hammer it down so that all the nails are level. Read the article NEWSBUSTERS/New York Times: New consensus sees stimulus as working.
NOVEMBER 23, 2009 - NOVEMBER 29, 2009 BUSINESS MORTGAGE CRUNCH - 14.4% OWNERS AT RISK OF LOSING HOMES
There is a group of us being devastated out here. Those who bought RESPONSIBLY in 2005-2007. We do not qualify for ANY of these so-called programs... the credits, the modifications, the re-fi... AND our jobs have or are going to end. We have paid our mortgage every single month while the neighbors squat in their home across the street. We are going more underwater each and every month through no fault of our own. How can you turn down a job offer someplace else? The house will go. It's that simple. Nobody has $40,000 cash to close and that's IF you can find a buyer. We are chasing a constantly moving target. Never had a late bill in our lives, but we will put the job offer first and mail in keys, because I don't see anything changing by spring Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Foreclosure, delinquency rates spike amid growing unemployment <> Bank of New England failed with 8% of its loan portfolio souring. Once a homeowner gets behind, its hard for them to get out of the process. Even if half of these mortgages get back on track (highly unlikely), there will be significant ramifications to the financial system that will be beyond the capabilities of any potential bailout. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/More homeowners falling behind on mortgages
The difficulties which many of us are having with mortgages and credit cards are the products of greed, deception and ignorance. There is no way that anyone earning $40,000 a year should have been able to buy a $200,000 house with no down payment and carry credit cards with $5,000 limits. The Banks who survive this recession without any bailout money are the banks who were consistently principled in their lending. The same thing is happening in healthcare, education and many other areas where there is often an assumption of trust on the part of the consumer. There is no reason to trust many of these businesses. Hopefully we may learn from this ongoing debacle. Whether we talk about healthcare, mortgage, banking, credit cards or Congress we must never trust without good reason. The Lottery is a better investment at odds of millions to one. These sweet talking, botoxed, tooth implanted, jacketed liars and thieves are more detrimental than the prototypic pickpocket often featured on the news and in sitcoms. Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Foreclosure, delinquency rates spike amid growing unemployment <> Mortgage Restructuring job growth: Please connect the dots. The government pays an up front lump sum of $1,000 to loan modifiers plus smaller amounts in "pay for success fees" totaling up to $1,000/yr for 3 years, plus subsidizes the lowered monthly mortgage payment in direct monthly payments to the bank. Another kick the can down the road scheme. Pretend you are a bank and hold the mortgage on a client who has a very good chance of going into foreclosure, Door A is to go into foreclosure. Door B is take up to $4,000 in government money, let the government pay you to lower the consumer's monthly payment, and kick the can down the road and worry about forcelosure at some future point in time. Really what is there to lose with Door B? If it ends up in foreclosure in the end, you've collected fees and mortgage payments that you otherwise wouldn't have. So why wouldn't banks hire as many people as they can while the government is handing out free candy? The employees essentially cost nothing to the banks thanks to the government fees and mortgage money they bring in. Read the article NPR/Mortgage defaults hitting record high NOVEMBER 16, 2009 - NOVEMBER 22, 2009 BUSINESS GENERATION X'ERS CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE
The Boomers aren't the "Me" Generation for nothin'. I watched my Boomer parents go through the recessions of the early 1980's and 1990's, complaining about the lack of money and how poor we were, but never really seeing them alter their lifestyle in any way. My dad worked for 35 years for the automotive industry (making $60/hour...) and my mother had a white collar job. Now (divorcing after 30 years of marriage--another Boomer habit which me and my GenX friends have noticed...,) they are struggling. The reality is, they rarely had to sacrifice, born into a post-war culture of excess and entitlement. My own grandmother (part of the Greatest Generation..,) one day commented that it was their generation's fault for the excess and irresponsibility of the Boomers -- "We gave them everything we didn't have; we spoiled them." Now the Boomers are scraping to make up for all the frivolous spending of the past 40 years by clogging up the employment pool, so to speak. As GenX'ers, we've got at least another decade to wait. Thanks Mom and Dad. Read the article CBS NEWS/Generation X grows antsy in job market <> The "boomers" hate GenX because GenX makes them feel guilty for abandoning them in droves as children, while they were off having free love, getting divorced and being greedy. That's why they turned around and coddled GenY. You know, the ones who got the "baby on board" stickers, and got raised with "self esteem." The "boomers" took all they could for themselves at the expense of GenX and when GenY came along, once "boomers" had "real jobs" and "real families," they spoiled them rotten out of pure guilt from how they KNOW they screwed GenX. GenX grew up in the only era of modern America when the adults were at it for themselves and did nothing for the next generation.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Recession intensifies GenX discontent at work: Gen X vs Baby Boomers, Gen Y <> Gen-X'ers don't feel that they're owed anything. They're the ones who will be tasked with cleaning up the mess created by the boomers. Meanwhile, Gen-Y'ers are stuck growing up in a world where they believe everything is free. Y'ers have no idea what it took to get to the point where their generation could gain virtually limitless access to information. This attitude will likely lead dangerously down a path towards selfish greed, not much different from the one taken by the boomers. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Recession intensifies GenX discontent at work: Gen X vs Baby Boomers, Gen Y
Growth you can believe in - based on DEBT!!!!!!! <> Since recovery is underway, we MUST work quickly to get our workforce and factories back to work. Oh wait... I forgot we outsourced 98% of them to China, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia decades ago. This makes it extremely hard to jump start the economy with idle factories and disgruntle workers. We can not continue to trade paper assets, and have our "service" jobs outnumber production jobs 5 to 1. Ever wonder why we continue to run trade deficits yearly? It's because we are CONSUMERS and not PRODUCERS. Oh wait I forgot there is one thing we do produce quite well, actually two, Debt, and "snuggies." Read the article MARKET WATCH/U.S. trade gap widens sharply in September
NOVEMBER 9, 2009 - NOVEMBER 15, 2009 BUSINESS
Let's see, you pay for cable/satellite, newspaper, magazine etc. for content every day. These people provide a service which they expect to be paid. We have raised an entire generation of idiots who think everything is/ should be free. Would these same people care to give their work away? I think not, yet they are the same people who have no moral boundaries about taking other folks hard hard work for their own personal pleasure. That Mr. Murdoch wishes to pay his employees a different way is his business. If it means I don't have to deal with "pop-up" ads every 10 seconds, I'm all for it! I have no use for Google or any other company who thinks it's "O.K." to steal other peoples work for their own profit. Read the article CNET NEWS/Google may lose WSJ, other News Corps sites <> " What he is saying is he will start charging AND start going after the people stealing News Corp. stories." Successful media sales will be tied to advertising or subscription services that are tied to electronic devices and the ones who design the devices and software services will be ones in control of the profits. I think the real outcome will be that companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft will directly or indirectly take over content providers for most forms of media, such as news, movies and music. Read the article CNET NEWS/Google may lose WSJ, other News Corps sites
Excluding yourself from the single largest source of web traffic? What could possibly go wrong with that plan? *facepalms* Seriously, I sometimes wonder how some of these people ever managed to reach such heady heights in business when it's their inadequacy of cerebral competence is so obvious... Read the article U.K. GUARDIAN/Murdoch could block Google searches entirely
Dismissing Murdoch as a greedy monster, and crowing that you don't want his content anyway, neatly sidesteps the point. One by one, the internet is destroying established business models in the media sector (with the possible exception of the beeb, which relies on state support for its funding). Every single operator in the market, from music distributors and movies studios down to newspapers, is looking for ways to reinstate the value of the content. Murdoch's proposed model may not work (especially this Google thing), but someone will figure out a mode of copyright protection and online payment that does - otherwise the third estate is basically doomed. This is the first major salvo in a conflict between commercial news organisations who want to continue in existence, and consumers who are so detached from the real conditions whereby the content is produced, that they don't want to pay for it. Much as I dislike what he represents politically, I can see where Murdoch is coming from. Read the article U.K. GUARDIAN/Murdoch could block Google searches entirely
OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AT 10.2%; - UNOFFICIAL TALLY TOPS 17.5%
Those whose unemployment has expired are not included in the Thursday numbers, which include first time unemployment claims and those continuing to draw unemployment. However, if one of these long-term unemployed is still looking for a job, he's listed as unemployed in the U3. The underemployed and those who have quit looking are included in the U6, which stands at 17.5%. The U6 includes part-time workers who want to work full-time but can't find full-time work, discouraged workers (i.e. folks who have quit looking), and the 'marginally attached' to the labor force. Read the article DAILY KOS/Layoffs slacken, U6 soars to 17.5 % <> These numbers are not surprising. Government cannot create jobs but should be focused on creating an environment for job creation in the private sector. The stimulus bill was pork and payback and this administration pushed it through anyway. They are doing the same thing with Cap and Trade and the health care bill. These are divisive bills and will adversely effect every citizen. It is clear, ideology is more important to this administration than solving the problems we face. Read the article NPR/Jobless rate 10.2%, casts doubt on recovery <> This is just more evidence, along with corrupt largesse and greed, that show how capitalism has failed us - miserably - in the past few years. Even the so-called Bush recovery was never a robust one. His tax cuts for the wealthy went mostly for gargantuan bonuses, exotic corporate perks, hoarding and sending jobs away instead of real job creation and innovation. No wonder America is not even in the top ten among countries for standard of living. I'm not anti-capitalism or free enterprise. But until we get over our penchant for greed and arrogance and truly care about our fellow man, reign in big business, do way with trickle-down economics and focus on improving our planet, we will continue to decline. No matter how many tax breaks and money you give them, companies are not going to create jobs when people have no $ to buy their product. A country grows strong from the bottom up, not the top down. Read the article CNN MONEY/Unemployment hits 10.2% <> As a small business owner with 10 employees, I can explain the problem: profits have disappeared. If I could sell more, fine -- but I can't in this economy; everyone is broke. That leaves me to cut expenses and THE major variable cost I have is payroll. So, how can we help small businesses (the major source of jobs) hire people and start spending? Simple. Cut my taxes. Then I have more money. I can market or hire or just buy money junk at Walmart. All of those things create profits and jobs, raise taxes and start the recovery. If Gov't could spend us into prosperity, Socialism would have worked. It doesn't. Love it or hate it, tax cuts work b/c they help small businesses create jobs. Read the article NPR/Jobless rate 10.2%, casts doubt on recovery
We are quickly approaching the renaissance of the rails. Read the article DAILY BEAST/Warren Buffett to buy railroad <> You could say it's a "hedge" against the volatilities of road & air transport & their perceived future overheads.
Read the article CNN MONEY/s Warren Buffett calling a 'bottom'? NOVEMBER 2, 2009 - NOVEMBER 8, 2009 BUSINESS NO HARD TIMES FOR MILLION-DOLLAR PRIVATE COLLEGE PRESIDENTS
There is no justifying these kind of wages. By and large these universities, both public and private, are receiving handouts from the Government in the form of "research" contracts and outright gratuities. This is Wall Street mentality, pure and simple. Read the article WASHINGTON POST/Ex-president of GWU leads in pay survey <> After a lifetime of college teaching, I would say my experience of administrators is that they are incompetent meddlers, petty tyrants, failed teachers, sycophantic schmoozers, unctuous grafters, strutting martinets, pompous bores, and just generally triumphant mediocrities. So, in America today, how could it be in any way surprising that they earn between ten and fifty times what their teachers do? Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/23 Private college presidents made more than $1 million <> As a retired college professor from a prestigious elite school, I can say that this is only a small part of the story. How about looking into the increase in so-called vice-presidents (and their staffs) as well. What you will see is a bloated and highly paid administration busy making work for an over-worked faculty, now less and less reimbursed and more and more marginalized. Parents, the tuition is outrageous and you are not paying it for the faculty, but for the administration which, with a few exceptions, is devoted to keeping up the image and gathering in the money for the endowment. Next time you visit a college, try to find out the real financial facts about the institution. Good luck. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/23 Private college presidents made more than $1 million <> I don't have a problem with it. GDP'S 3.5% GROWTH, A SLOW BOAT TO RECOVERY
This is going to be a long slog. Consumers simply are not as wealthy as they thought they were a little more than a year ago. They need to save and build up their assets before they can spend again. Unfortunately our financial markets are not connecting consumers with investors who could turn the money that they are saving into real investments. Instead it sits in the banks and gets eaten away by fees and charges. In these circumstances the government should become the investor of last resort. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/GDP expands by 3.5 % <> Good to know the recession is over. I'll let my employer know even though business is in the proverbial toilet. I'll let my checking account know so it will better deal with rising prices as I look forward to yet another year without a raise. I'll remain confused as gas is up to 2.69 a gallon; my home is worth less than half; Citi says my interest rate is now 29.9% - up from 7.9 (bye-bye Citibank); I'll let my unemployed daughter know as we struggle to pay her college loans; and the list goes on. In fact... perhaps will just throw a big party and celebrate as our contribution to the growing economy. Anyone have a good recipe for bologna hors d'oeuvres? Read the article NPR/U.S. economy grows, at last, but jobs are elusive <> I believe some people are quick to judge the growth in GDP as fictional because of the unemployment situation. Well, aren't you the glass half full?. Nobody has said the economy is healthy and strong as of yet. What they're saying is that the economy is probably acknowledging all the stimulus programs and all the efforts to improve it. This is going to be good in the near future, because it means that maybe, just maybe, companies will not be so skeptical to hire later on. Of course, it will not happen right now. It will probably not happen in the first quarter of 2010. Don't people see this was the freakin' great recession? Do you think everything will be fine and perfect after a few months?. It takes a long time to repair the damage of several bad decisions that many people made. This is not a government conspiracy. This is not the fault of contemporary globalization. That ship has sailed. The world has become a competitive environment and people want to stay living in the 1950s. Read the article CNN MONEY/GDP bounce won't mean economy is out of the woods.
HARDER TIMES: U.S. NEWSPAPERS CONTINUE TO BLEED CIRCULATION
Some of the reason for the decline is likely the internet, but there is a much bigger reason. Most newspapers have abandoned their primary responsibility to protect the truth and instead have become biased mouth pieces for various causes, Obama, Al Gore, environmental groups, labor unions, etc. As a result they apply no thinking to what they report and it shows. Read the article DAILY FINANCE/Newspaper circulation losses accelerate -- except at the Wall Street Journal <> Is information or analysis what we buy when we pay to read something that everyone else can read? Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/U.S. newspaper circulation falls sharply <> The only thing that will work over time, the only thing, would be to skip the national and international news (people go online for that), and go to unique local content that people will pay for. That means columnists, local events, and actual journalism such as Chip Johnson. Read the article SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE/Chronicle's strategy shift starts to pay off
OCTOBER 26, 2009 - NOVEMBER 1, 2009 BUSINESS THE QUESTION REMAINS: "IS IT THE '30'S AGAIN?"
It might be worse than the 1930's as this era could see a change in the American character. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Eighty years after the Great Crash: 'Is it the '30s again?' <> I lived through the Great Depression and it is difficult to try and make any sensible comparisons. The greatest differences were from the lack of communication (personal and business) and transportation (personal and business). Few people had telephones or radios in 1930. Local or regional newspapers were the only way of finding out what was happening locally. Most businesses were privately owned small businesses and had almost no contact outside of their business geographical area. Most people in cities or small towns (greater than 5,000 people) relied on buses or street cars for transportation. Most people did not have cars. Businesses relied on train transportation or distributor trucking from warehouse distribution centers (e.g. St. Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City). An individuals’ business was done on a barter, cash or specific business credit basis (grocery, bakery, butcher, lumber yard). Store business was done on a cash, local bank loan or Distributors credit basis. Rural purchasing relied heavily on the Montgomery Ward or Sears Roebuck catalogs mail order.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Eighty years after the Great Crash: 'Is it the '30s again?'
OCTOBER 19, 2009 - OCTOBER 25, 2009 BUSINESS THE PROFESSOR AND THE BOARD GAME
I personally know Professor Anspach and was his colleague at San Francisco State University and if you think that he tried to simply "piggy-back" on the name Monopoly then you are sadly mistaken. The original name was "Beat the Trust" and it was only later that it morphed into "Anti-Monopoly". Its origins are detailed in The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, as is the discussion of the whole Monopoly versus Anti-Monopoly battle. WALL STREET JOURNAL/How a fight over a board game monoplized a professor's life PAY CZAR WILL SLASH EXECUTIVES' COMPENSATION
History has proven that unregulated capitalism is not a great economic system, nor is socialism. It is regulated capitalism that generates the most wealth in a society by growing the largest and most prosperous middle class. That is what's been under "attack" in the past 10 years or more, and not even the wealthy will do well long term if there's not a large, prosperous middle class. <> On the one hand, I shed no tears whatsoever that compensation is being limited at companies that took my money via the TARP. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. The executives of these banks and other institutions should rightly be on soup lines right now, instead of happily making do with only half of a multi-million dollar salary preserved for them with your money. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/U.S. unveils new rules on banker's pay
"GOLDEN" SACHS -- A QUARTERLY PROFIT OF $3,190,000,000
*Sigh* Read the article CNN-MONEY/FORTUNE/Golden quarter for Goldman Sachs <> So, GS makes a profit, a big one, and everyone complains. Would you prefer that they lose money and ask for another bailout? They repaid the US Treasury WITH INTEREST so they are "off the hook." Just like Chrysler back in the '70's. I do not understand why people get upset when a corporation makes profits, pays its employees, and has so many of its officers working for peanuts for the federal government after they have done a good stint at GS. If they are smart players at GS, then the government must be delighted to have them work in DC. They are clearly smarter than many a Congressman. Read the article CNN-MONEY/FORTUNE/Golden quarter for Goldman Sachs <> Wall Street is doing just fine, thanks to its cozy relationship with the federal government. The recession is only affecting Main Street at this point. One wonders how long the average American will countenance having Washington use its tax money to bailout and enrich Wall Street bankers. It will b good times again when bonuses start flowing through New York. But while corks are popping on Wall Street, the rest of us will be trying to figure out how to pay the check. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Goldman Sachs profit climbs on strong trading operation.
OCTOBER 12, 2009 - OCTOBER 18, 2009 BUSINESS IS THE WRITING ON THE WALL FOR E-MAIL?
I love it when businesspeople declare something "dead". Unlike texting, you can take your time and think things through. Not only that, it's far easier to save a record of emails as "official correspondence" than you can with text messages. A lot of text messengers still don't properly save history log files, which basically means it's still unreliable for business. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/ The end of the email era <> As one over 40, I'm still trying to get a handle on Facebook & Twitter. Negatives re Facebook: too many relatives have too much time on their hands and clog up my wall; relatives who send personal emails via facebook which requires me to then log on to Facebook to respond and who knows who all will see my response. Seems easier and more personal to send regular email when contacting one person direct. I don't have much to say that I need to broadcast to everyone (except when I'm commenting on articles like this!) As one friend said, Facebook can be a real time suck. Facebook positive: easy to see what's going on with friends and family. Email negative: can't really think of any other than you can't really post a photo album for family to easily see whenever they want. Read the article DAILY BEAST/The end of email
I don't do Twitter and I don't do Facebook. I have more to say than fits within a few characters, so I don't text or tweet. And I appreciate the English language too much to resort to ridiculous geek-language terms like 133t or whatever just to fit it into their silly limits. How smart is it to dumb down a language? Seems to me we are regressing rather than evolving. And yes, Email suits me fine.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/ The end of the email era
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING — RAISING THE BAR ON BLOGGERS
I have a feeling ms. Padilla would be very much in favor of full disclosure from the product manufacturers. Why does she feel others should expect less from her? For years bloggers have been insisting that they're just like journalists but they always seem to choke when someone wants to hold them to ethical standards. Read the article ABC NEWS/Mommy bloggers could be held liable for product reviews <> Am I missing something here? Having read through all 81 pages of FTC 16 CFR Part 255, as far as I can tell, the author of the article has it totally wrong. Far from creating a double-standard for bloggers, the new guidelines specifically treat statements by bloggers about products in which they have a financial interest exactly the same as statements by any other author who has some financial interest. The guidelines say that comments by bloggers or consumer reviewers, where the writer has received something free or some remuneration, shall be treated as product endorsements, and as such the financial interest must be declared just like they would anywhere else. The exact same rules already apply to any other media outlet where the reader is likely to believe that they are reading the opinions of the writer and the writer has a financial interest. Bloggers are always saying that they want to be treated as real journalists. The new FTC rules say that they should be treated the same as real journalists when it comes to having a financial stake in the products they review. Stop whining; you got what you asked for. Read the article WIRED/FTC tells amateur bloggers to disclose freebies or be fined
OCTOBER 5, 2009 - OCTOBER 11, 2009 BUSINESS MONA LISA: "UN ROYALE DU' FROMMAGE, MERCI!"
A McDonald's close to the Louvre would probably strike most of the French as the equivalent of serving a burger to the Mona Lisa. Different cultures are outraged by different things. Attacking the barbarity of bull-fighting in Pamplona would provoke violent rage, and perhaps something beyond it. Americans would not be revolted by a McDonald's near one of their own august museums, though not all would approve of it. Henry Ford captured one side of America when he declared history bunk. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/French angry over McDonald's at Louvre
Well if you've ever been to the Louvre you will know that there a variety of restaurants situated in the foyer under the I.M Pei's pyramid and throughout the museum complex. The spokesperson didn't say that McDonalds was "rich and varied" he said that there was a "rich and varied restaurant offer", meaning that there are a wide variety of restaurant choices. I don't see what the problem is McDonalds is also a part of culture, it's a very good part of culture because say what you will about the quality of their food they still revolutionized how we eat in public and therefore are an important part of 20th Century culture. There are other franchises operating in the Louvre and in other museums around the world so what makes McDonalds so different and against culture? Because they're the biggest? Or the most offensive? Well that's not really fair, if your argument is against capitalism/globalization and culture intermixing then clearly no restaurants should be allowed to operate in museums. Read the article CBS NEWS/Le Big Mac Hits the Louvre
ROBERT PARKER'S VERY "BLIND" WINE TASTING
I have read Dr. Vino’s report of the Bordeaux tasting, and while it must have been humbling for Mr. Parker not to have guessed a single chateau correctly, this (alas not uncommon) outcome does not in my mind invalidate blind tasting. All the wines in this Bordeaux tasting were originally rated at 95 points or higher. That fact was known in this tasting. I would be more interested in the results of a second blind tasting if the original scores were not known, and were more heterogeneous. Would all the ratings again fall into the same score bands? And would the tasting notes be consistent? That to me would suggest a “good judge.” Or say the original scores were given non-blind, while the subsequent tasting was blind. A “good judge” would give consistent ratings and tasting notes. Any significant inconsistencies between the two might be attributed to the externalities blind tasting eliminates (and might cast doubt on the quality of the judge). Since neither case applied, the tasting Dr. Vino describes does not seem to be a good test of the validity of blind tasting. I will say, however, that if the tasting notes Dr. Vino supplied in his report were written before the wines were disclosed, then based simply on his descriptions, I would consider him a “good judge” of young Bordeaux.(Thomas Matthews, Executive Editor, Wine Spectator) Read the article REUTER'S BLOGS-FELIX SALMON/The humbling of Robert Parker <> No general wine critic can really identify the vintage of a wine, that’s pure myth. And the fact that a wine might be a 98 one day and a 97 the next is something Parker is completely open about,though admittedly a lot of readers treat his ratings like a baseball score. Felix is completely misunderstanding the event if he thinks differently. What I really want to see in these blind tastings is whether he would fail to identify an 89-rated wine against a bunch of 98-rated wines. That’s the thing that would really show these magazines to be worthless. Read the article REUTER'S BLOGS-FELIX SALMON/The humbling of Robert Parker
I have been a devotee ever since I picked up an issue at the home where I was babysitting 41 years ago. While I groaned at riz l’imperatrice and oeufs en gelee — get real . . . I savored the articles and, of course, the stunning photography. Better than a course in world civilization. Tasteful explorer of what is, might be and has been. This is a loss of culture that I fear will not be replaced. Read the article EW.COM/POPWATCH/Goodbye Gourmet magazine. <> Gourmet provided me the recipes for delectable meals, the jumping-of point for dozens more, and the stuff of fantasy for dinner parties I never held. Plus, in recent years, the magazine has edged into the world of advocacy, helping to educate me and other Americans about eating locally, deliciously, and ethically. Was it perfect? No. But it was an integral part of this country’s re-awakening to the joy of eating, cooking, and food over the last sixty-eight years. And it was an integral part of my kitchen, and therefore, my life. I will miss you, Gourmet. Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/DINER'S JOURNAL BLOG/ Gourmet, 68, to die
SEPTEMBER 28, 2009 - OCTOBER 4, 2009 BUSINESS
I work at a Saturn Dealership in Tempe, Arizona and I thank those of you who support us. This is a huge blow to one of the greatest brands ever designed. Many people never understood what GM designed Saturn for. We were made to compete against the overseas brands. We were never designed to be a money maker like everyone keeps crying. We were to keep one more American family in an American car to have the chance for them to grow into other GM brands. Our cars if you take the time to look have identical feature and options as the Toyota, Honda and Nissan. GM's mistake is to believe Saturn owners are just going to find another GM brand. That customer that we saved from buying the other brand for years and years will be buying the other 3 brands now. They didn't buy into the belief of GM they bought into the belief of Saturn. Read the article CNN MONEY/GM kills Saturn after Penske ends deal
<> I think its funny that Saturn was never "Profitable" for GM. First off,they were the only car GM made that people were actually happy with (Product and Service) and every time I drive down the road I see a ton of them! I have owned Saturns for over 16 years and I would never buy anything else. Unfortunately I will now buy a Honda because nothing else in Saturns price range is as dependable. Kind of ironic isn't it? GM kills off an American Brand and that forces me to buy Foreign. What a shame to lose such a great company! Read the article CNN MONEY/GM kills Saturn after Penske ends deal
THE EMPTY PROMISE OF A JOBLESS RECOVERY
"Jobless recovery" It's more than an oxymoron it's just a plain lie. They keep talking about how employment is a trailing indicator. Maybe that is true but unemploy-ment is also an indicator of actual commerce throughput just like tracking transportation or the Baltic index. How can a company be growing when they are shuttering labor? Somehow Wall Street rewards these companies but to me it's a major red flag. Read the article MARKETWATCH/The jobless recovery <> Both employers and the government should recognize that their well being depends on people earning money.
The only way to expand would have been if they kept the western workers and paid enough for workers in developing countries to be able to buy the products they make. Now we are in a downward spiral and nothing will stop this. There is no such thing as a jobless recovery. Greed is always a poor adviser. Read the article GLOBE AND MAIL, TORONTO/The perils of a jobless recovery <> I wish I could be positive on the job market, but you have to be blind not to see what's killing the American worker for the last 15-20 years, 1. NAFTA, 2. Outsourcing, 3. New American plants opening on foreign soil, 4. Manufacturing almost nil, 5. Specialized Industries gone. etc etc
Read the article MARKETWATCH/The jobless recovery
TWITTER -- A BILLION-DOLLAR BIRDIE FEATHERS ITS NEST
Although a 100M financing round is certainly high for a company like Twitter, I’m interested to see what justified these valuations. Most of you act like you actually have any idea what Twitter is planning and that these investors are stupid. I’m sure these is some sort of significant revenue model in the works - while not necessarily unemotional, these investors are shrewd, and the same ones who have invested in profitable companies such as Netflix and TiVo (Institutional VP), Newegg.com (Insight VP), among others. This is not saying I actually like Twitter, because I don’t, or that these valuations aren’t derived by some coked-up redbull-spazzing 2nd year IB analyst at 3 AM on a Saturday morning, because hey they probably are (!). But I’m also betting there’s definitely something planned out which requires the capital, and it probably has something to do with harnessing their considerable traffic to create a real revenue model. Let’s see what happens before we pass judgment Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/Twitter's latest valuation: $1 Billion <> Wake up people, it's not about the medium, it's about the users ! It's about the content, that's worth the money ! They create an infrastructure to communicate, investors want to be part of that deal, the top of the food chain, believing in what twitter already means to the community participating, it's role in the worlds' economy, the power of open, authentic communication. Read the article MASHABLE/Wow Twitter to raise $100 million in new funding.
NET NEUTRALITY: FUTURE PROOFING A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET
I’m not sure we all understand just what net-neutrality is. Say you have just gotten Comcast to be your ISP, and you get on your browser and attempt to go to http://wsj.com , but Comcast redirects you to http://www.comcast.net/news/ , because Comcast gets advertising revenue from their own new page. You find that no matter what you do, you end up on Comcast’s page instead of where you want to go. Or you find that whenever you try to download a new Linux distro using BitTorrent, part way through the transfer, Comcast re-set the link and you have to start over, never to get the distro. So you change to Verizon FIOS as your ISP, because it is supposed to have blazing fast speeds — of course you couldn’t sign up on-line because Comcast blocks the Verizon web site. You get FIOS and find similar behavior, they block the Fox News web sites, because they think that Fox is biased, they block Google, because Verizon has it’s own search engine from which they want to get Ad revenue. And there aren’t any other ISPs available in your area, sorry. Net Neutrality is simply a rule that says that they, Comcast and Verizon for instance, cannot do that. These are extreme examples, the likelihood would be that they wouldn’t block traffic from specific sites, but that they would cripple the throughput of those sites, and prioritize their own traffic over those others at all times. Net Neutrality stops that behavior. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/ Net neutrality in the spotlight. <> Net Neutrality is wonderful, right? Not so much. As much as we'd all love to have free and clear Internet access at little or no cost, the fact of the matter is that this service costs. The only way to make it "worth" the providers' effort is to allow them to run it as a business. That means they have to make the hard decisions to remain profitable. The more profitable, the more interest they'll have in developing and NOT the other way around. I'd love for the carriers to open up everything to everyone and make it darn near free, but that's just not reality. Heck, maybe that Porsche I've been looking at will cost me the same as a Scion. They're both cars, right? Read the article PC WORLD/FCC "net Neutrality" rules are a win consumers. <> While I'm generally in favor of net neutrality, I can understand why ISP's would want to limit some access. Read the article USA TODAY/FCC moving to require net "neutrality' by providers.
PUTTING THE REINS ON EXCESSIVE BANKERS' PAY
I fully understand why this is being done, and I am even okay with it to a certain degree. If certain institutions are so big that their downfall would cause so much havoc and cause tax money to be pumped in to keep them afloat then I can see the government, through the Fed, having some say in limiting their risky practices. But I will admit it makes me a tad uncomfortable to see any government agency cutting into a private company this far. I'll be more comfortable with it if they very, very clearly define exactly what they mean by "excessive risk" and "appropriate incentives." The more subjectivity and discretion is given the more I will fear this being a major step down a very dangerous path. Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Fed planning sweeping curbs on banker's pay <> Any time you pay someone based on production the quality of the last units in falls as the person tries to overreach. This is true in all pay per unit scenarios not just banking. In a perfect world your scenario is valid, however I think it is obvious someone was asleep at the wheel. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Bankers face sweeping curbs on pay
<> Clearly there are many lesson to be learned form the past year. Regulations need to be refined and enforced to better address risks to the system. However, this proposal by the Fed is clearly a step in the wrong direction, and does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the big picture. Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Bankers face sweeping curbs on pay |
I believe newspapers should disband, refocus and see themselves instead, as news gathering organizations and news analysis sources. True investigative reporting should also be revived, the kind of news that uncovers fraud, danger, opportunity, waste, etc. 
ARCHIVES -- JULY, 2009 — SEPTEMBER, 2009