Wednesday, December 30, 2009

In Emerging Markets, Rapid Growth and Hints of Uncertainty - NYTimes.com

In Emerging Markets, Rapid Growth and Hints of Uncertainty - NYTimes.com

Published: December 29, 2009
...

While the broad American market lost about a fifth of its value in the last 10 years, emerging markets like Brazil, Russia, China and India powered ahead with gains in the double or even triple digits.

The numbers are staggering. On Ukraine’s PFTS Stock Exchange — a Wild East of investing that did not even exist until 1997 — shares soared more than 1,350 percent over the last decade. In Peru, stocks jumped more than 660 percent. Here in India, the Sensex index leaped more than 240 percent.

To believers, those heady gains underscore profound shifts taking place in the global economy, where investment dollars, euros and yen whiz across borders and time zones with the stroke of a computer key. As many Americans wait for an economic recovery, money is pouring into the fast-growing economies of Asia and Latin America, as well as into oil-rich Russia and the former Soviet bloc.

“What we’re living through now is something of epic proportions,” said Allan Conway, the head of emerging markets equities at Schroders, the big money management company in London. He likened the economic rise of nations like Brazil, Russia, India and China — the so-called BRIC countries — to that of postwar Japan.

...

As long-term investments go, emerging markets seem to have a lot going for them. On average, developing countries have less sovereign, corporate and household debt than developed countries. Their economies are also growing faster than industrialized ones. Merrill Lynch predicts that emerging market economies will grow 6.3 percent next year, while the global economy expands by 4.4 percent.

Emerging markets are eclipsing their developed peers in other ways as well. Imports to the BRIC nations are likely to surpass imports to the United States for the first time ever in 2009, according to Morgan Stanley. ...

Precious Medals � SEEDMAGAZINE.COM

Precious Medals � SEEDMAGAZINE.COM
...

Over the past 10 months or so, a steady stream of distressing numbers and facts has created alarm about the future of American science: A recent study found that out of 39 countries surveyed, American 15-year-olds placed 27th in math literacy. In a measure of science literacy among high school seniors, the U.S. placed 42nd out of 44 countries. According to a 2002 poll by the National Science Foundation (NSF), only half of the American public knows that dinosaurs and humans never coexisted or that atoms are larger than electrons.

Nonetheless, according to Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, a lack of public science literacy is neither a new phenomenon nor a cause for alarm.

“We basically have a scientifically illiterate public,” he said. The Nobel Prize winners, he said, were members of the country’s scientific elite, and America’s future ability to win Nobels “has nothing to do with the average level of scientific literacy.”

...

As long as American institutions remain rich in cash and committed to the free exchange of ideas, the U.S. will remain a destination for the best and brightest scientists, no matter where they were reared. And, as a result, the Nobels will continue to roll in.

After all, who cares if our next generation of Nobelists aren’t U.S.-born? Isn’t that what America is supposed to be about?

03.19.2009 - U.S. economy spurs foreign students to return home, study says

03.19.2009 - U.S. economy spurs foreign students to return home, study says

| 19 March 2009

Most foreign nationals studying at universities in the United States say American higher education is the best in the world, but few plan to remain permanently in this country after graduation to pursue their careers, according to a new study co-authored by a University of California, Berkeley, authority on technology and the global economy.

AnnaLee Saxenian, dean and professor of UC Berkeley's School of Information as well as a professor of city and regional planning, said the research findings released today (Thursday, March 19) offer a snapshot of students' intentions and reflect not just their desire to return to family and friends overseas, but also their assessment that there are better economic prospects abroad.

Foreign students' perception of U.S. economic future
Chart showing forei
"Foreign students have a sense that the United States is closing down as a land of opportunity," said Saxenian, author of the book "The New Argonauts: Regional Advantage in a Global Economy" (2006) and a landmark report, "Local and Global Networks of Immigrant Professionals in Silicon Valley," published in 2002 for the Public Policy Institute of California.

This is happening, she said in an interview, even though "the U.S. has long been a magnet for the best and the brightest from around the world, and even though we have benefitted from many of these students — who are the cream of the crop — starting businesses that generate net wealth and expand opportunities for everyone."

Saxenian and her fellow researchers noted in their report that foreign nationals are represented disproportionately as co-founders of U.S. technology firms, including giants such as Google, Intel, eBay and Yahoo.

For the new report, some 1,224 foreign nationals from India, China and Western Europe studying at U.S. universities and colleges - or who had graduated by the end of the 2008 academic year - were surveyed last October via the Facebook social networking site in research commissioned by the Ewing Marion Kaufman Foundation, a private, nonprofit foundation established to improve economies and human welfare through entrepreneurship and innovation. The students' fields of study primarily included engineering, business and economics, computer science and biological sciences.

Past surveys by the National Science Foundation of doctoral recipients in science and engineering showed that 92 percent of Chinese students intended to stay in the United States to work or conduct research for at least five years after graduating, while 85 percent of students from India intended to do so.

But the Kaufman study revealed a different picture. Among its key findings:

  • Just 7 percent of Chinese students and 25 percent of Indian students surveyed said the best days for the United States economy lie ahead.
  • Approximately 74 percent of Chinese students and 86 percent of Indian students said their home countries' economies will grow faster in the future than they have in the past decade.
  • Most foreign students said innovation will occur faster over the next 25 years in India and China than in the United States.
  • Some 76 percent of Chinese students and almost 84 percent of Indian students said it would be difficult to find a job in their field in the United States.
  • While 58 percent of Indian, 54 percent of Chinese and 40 percent of European students want to stay in the United States for a few years after graduation, only 6 percent of Indian students, 10 percent of Chinese students and 15 percent of European students said they wanted to remain permanently.

Vivek Wadhwa, lead author of the report and a technology entrepreneur who also is an executive-in-residence at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering and a senior research associate at Harvard Law School, said these numbers are alarming because foreign students comprise almost 60 percent of all engineering doctorates and more than half of all math, computer science, physics and economics doctorates awarded in the United States. ...

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Census: U.S. population at 308.4 million - UPI.com

Census: U.S. population at 308.4 million - UPI.com

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- The total population of the United States is projected to reach 308,400,408 on Jan. 1, 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday.

If accurate, the projection -- issued on the eve of the 2010 Census -- would represent an increase of 2,606,181, or 0.9 percent, from New Year's Day 2009, officials said in a release.

[i.e. economy needs to grow at ~0.9 % per year to offset population growth ... ed.]

E-books spark battle inside the publishing industry - washingtonpost.com

E-books spark battle inside the publishing industry - washingtonpost.com
...

But publishers have ignored this demand. In response, several conglomerates have aggressively moved to protect their legacy. Macmillan recently announced a plan to delay the publication of e-books and offer enhancements that will justify a higher price. This tactic is aimed at Amazon's policy of trying to set $9.99 as the expected price for an e-book. Most are priced much higher -- but that's beside the point. Amazon and publishers are fighting over this fiction, not the reality. Because Amazon's customers have made it clear that $9.99 is still too high for their taste. Most titles in the company's list of top 100 Kindle bestsellers are priced below $9.99, and the most popular price point is $0.00. But publishers can't hear this, because they're a little distracted right now.

The New York Times recently played up friction between publishers and agents over the electronic rights to backlist books. Random House has sent a letter to literary agents claiming to hold these rights even though it lost a court case on the subject. But agent, e-book publisher and blogger Richard Curtis puts the issue in perspective when he points out that few books are actually at stake here, because electronic rights became a contractual standard in 1990.

The real battle here is not over who controls the backlist rights but what royalties the publisher will pay. Stephen Covey caused a lot of consternation at Simon & Schuster last week when it was announced that he was taking his best backlist titles and publishing them with RosettaBooks, the e-book publisher that tangled with Random House on the issue and won. RosettaBooks is offering Covey half of the publishing proceeds, not the 25 percent or less he'd get from Simon. Publishers want these backlist books to add dollars to their bottom line; authors want to get a higher royalty for the backlist titles because the publisher doesn't need to make any further investment to generate sales. There's not a lot of room here to meet in the middle.

The stalemate ignores an important shift that digital publishing accelerates. The success of the book business over the past two decades was about expanding the supply of books. Growth came through increased volume, more titles and more title availability. That's the story of the six big conglomerates and the growth of the superstores. But digital publishing inverts that formula -- its magic is in the way it meets demand efficiently. ...

Op-Ed Columnist - The Big Zero - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist - The Big Zero - NYTimes.com
...
But from an economic point of view, I’d suggest that we call the decade past the Big Zero. It was a decade in which nothing good happened, and none of the optimistic things we were supposed to believe turned out to be true.

It was a decade with basically zero job creation. O.K., the headline employment number for December 2009 will be slightly higher than that for December 1999, but only slightly. And private-sector employment has actually declined — the first decade on record in which that happened.

It was a decade with zero economic gains for the typical family. Actually, even at the height of the alleged “Bush boom,” in 2007, median household income adjusted for inflation was lower than it had been in 1999. And you know what happened next.

It was a decade of zero gains for homeowners, even if they bought early: right now housing prices, adjusted for inflation, are roughly back to where they were at the beginning of the decade. And for those who bought in the decade’s middle years — when all the serious people ridiculed warnings that housing prices made no sense, that we were in the middle of a gigantic bubble — well, I feel your pain. Almost a quarter of all mortgages in America, and 45 percent of mortgages in Florida, are underwater, with owners owing more than their houses are worth.

Last and least for most Americans — but a big deal for retirement accounts, not to mention the talking heads on financial TV — it was a decade of zero gains for stocks, even without taking inflation into account. Remember the excitement when the Dow first topped 10,000, and best-selling books like “Dow 36,000” predicted that the good times would just keep rolling? Well, that was back in 1999. Last week the market closed at 10,520.

...

So here’s what Mr. Summers — and, to be fair, just about everyone in a policy-making position at the time — believed in 1999: America has honest corporate accounting; this lets investors make good decisions, and also forces management to behave responsibly; and the result is a stable, well-functioning financial system.

What percentage of all this turned out to be true? Zero.

What was truly impressive about the decade past, however, was our unwillingness, as a nation, to learn from our mistakes. ...

Monday, December 28, 2009

Seed behemoth Monsanto stumbles into antitrust trouble | Grist

Seed behemoth Monsanto stumbles into antitrust trouble | Grist
...
Even as it bombards the airwaves and magazine ad pages to tout its commitment to “sustainable agriculture,” GMO seed giant Monsanto has been having a rough go on the PR front of late.

First came a report (PDF) from the Organic Center showing that the company’s core Round Up Ready products have sparked a veritable monsoon of herbicide use. According to the report, since the introduction of “herbicide tolerant” corn, soy, and cotton in 1996, farmers have sprayed 382.6 million more pounds of herbicides than they otherwise would have—the overwhelming bulk of it Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand glyphosate.

And the gusher is only growing larger. As farmers have come to increasingly rely on Roundup applications, glyphosate-resistant superweeds are spreading—inspiring farmers to both spray more Roundup and add other toxic chemicals to create herbicide cocktails. “Herbicide use on [herbicide-tolerant] crops rose a remarkable 31.4% from 2007 to 2008,” the report states.

Now that’s sustainable agriculture!

Meanwhile, Monsanto’s dominance over the GMO seed market—and thus over U.S. corn, soy, and cotton production—has become so intense and obvious that “U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices,” AP reports.

The DOJ is also gearing up for a public workshop on competition in the seed industry, to be held in Iowa next March 10. The workshops, designed to hear farmer concerns over consolidation in the agriculture industry, will be co-directed by the Department of Agriculture. If U.S. authorities actually did crack down on companies that use their market power to squeeze farmers, it would would mark an epochal shift in antitrust policy, as Barry C. Lynn shows in this classic 2006 Harper’s essay.

Monsanto execs better hope that DOJ lawyers don’t get their paws on a devastating recent report (PDF) from the Farmer-to-Farmer Campaign of Genetic Engineering.

The report establishes two facts that would, under any reasonable criteria, force the DOJ to take antitrust action: 1) Monsanto utterly dominates the market for GM traits in corn, soy, and cotton; and 2) it is using its market power to raise prices to farmers and limit their access to non-GM seeds.

To make a long story short, Monsanto supplies proprietary traits to 85 percent of corn planted in the United States, and 92 percent of soy. Corn and soy are the lifeblood of the U.S. food system. If you eat a standard diet, you’re ingesting a Monsanto-originated product with just about every bite you take.

Nor is the company a benign monopolist, the report shows. GMO corn seeds have jumped from $110 per unit in 1999 to upwards of $190 by 2008; for soy, prices soared from less than $25 to more than $40. A huge portion of those jumps can be explained by the so-called “technology fee”—the price Monsanto charges for its proprietary traits. For Roundup Ready soy, the fee has tripled since 2000. As the report puts it:

This means a farmer who plants one bag of Roundup Ready soybeans per acre on 1,000 acres of soybeans has seen his production costs rise by $11,000 in five years due to the trait price increase alone.

Microsoft, in all of its ‘90s-era brazenness, never dreamt of such price hikes for operating system software ...

OpEdNews - Article: The 2010 Elections: Bring "em on!

OpEdNews - Article: The 2010 Elections: Bring "em on!
...
Like in 2008, the elections in 2010 give us an opportunity to point out the failures of long conservative reign and dare conservatives to try to take us backward.

• Don't like the deficit? Three times as much of it came from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (unpaid for) and the Bush tax cuts (without offsets) as from the Obama's Recovery Act.

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

• Don't like the job situation? We lost 11,000 jobs in November. That's bad. But we lost533,000 jobs in November of last year, the crowning achievement of Bush's presidency. It will take a long time to turn this around. But at least we're turning.

Source: AFL-CIO

• Frustrated about health care reform? Me too. But don't forget how bad it was. Health care spending rose from 13.8 percent of GDP when Bush took office to 16.6 percent last year -- even as the number of uninsured grew by a million people every year. So we spent more every year but got less for it. In personal terms, the cost of a family premium more than doubled, from $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008.

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation

A few years ago, guaranteed, affordable health care for all was an impossible dream.

Public-sector unions: Welcome to the real world | The Economist

Public-sector unions: Welcome to the real world | The Economist
...

The trouble is, the city is broke. Mr Bing’s office sits high above Detroit’s barren streets. “We have not made the structural changes we should have made,” he explains. Few cities have such a sprawling workforce—50 bargaining units in all—or so little money to pay for it. But Detroit is not alone. Most cities and states will collect only meagre revenues for at least the next year. While politicians mull tax increases and service cuts, public-sector workers continue to gobble up money—in Philadelphia, they account for 61% of spending. The crisis, however, at least illuminates a simple fact. The status quo is unaffordable.

For years, public-sector workers have basked in an alternative reality. Nevertheless, as private-sector unions have faded, public-sector ones have thrived. In 2008 37% of government workers were unionised, nearly five times the share in the private sector (see chart), and the same share that was unionised 25 years earlier. Over that period, the share of unionised private-sector jobs collapsed from 17% to 8%. In 2009, for the first time, public workers comprised more than half of America’s union members. Democrats in particular have little incentive to anger workers, who are often their electoral foot-soldiers, and neither party wants to prod them to strike, since they hold monopolies. Those who defy unions do so at their peril. In 2005 Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California, tried to curb the unions’ power. His effort was quickly terminated.

As a result, public-sector workers are spoiled rotten. Government employees earn 21% more than private ones and are 24% more likely to have access to health care. Only 21% of private workers enjoy a defined-benefit (DB) pension, which guarantees retirement income based on years of service and final salary. But 84% of state and local workers still receive DB plans.

All this might be grand if states and cities could afford it, but they cannot; unlike the federal government, they have the pesky obligation to balance their budgets. The recession has already drained pension funds. The National League of Cities (NLC) expects municipal revenue to continue to drop in 2010, 2011 and even beyond. States will have faced $256 billion of budget gaps between fiscal years 2009 and 2011, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO).

Frustration is beginning to boil over. Last year Vallejo, in California’s San Francisco Bay Area, sank into bankruptcy under the weight of its labour costs. In California itself, the unfunded liabilities of retirement programmes are expected to exceed $100 billion through 2015. One local blog tracks coddled public-sector pensioners: a former police chief in Newport Beach scrapes by on $221,554.56 a year.

...

Northeastern’s Mr Bluestone, a former lineman at Ford, argues that public-sector unions are at a point of decision. They must, he says, “improve productivity, improve the services they offer and find innovative ways to deliver them.” Otherwise, taxpayers will turn elsewhere. Teachers’ unions, for example, can blame only themselves for the rise of charter schools. It took the UAW years to adapt to global realities. Compared with the public-sector unions, it looks nimble.

America's Race to the Bottom : Information Clearing House -� ICH

America's Race to the Bottom: Information Clearing House -� ICH
...
My guess is that "The Great Recession" - as some are calling the current disaster (presumably to avoid using the "D" word) - will be followed by what history will record as the "The Tepid and Rather Jobless, Thank You Very Much, Recovery". If that.

And, more importantly, my guess is that this will be the latest and greatest click yet of what is the most massive ratcheting project of the last three decades, perhaps the most wholesale redistribution of wealth in human history.

Consider the numbers...

The ratio of executive salary to the average paycheck during the mid-twentieth century was about thirty to one. In the last decade it has ranged from three hundred to over five hundred to one.

The richest four hundred Americans were worth an average of about $13 million each in the middle of the century, using today's dollars. Now they average over $260 million each.

The top taxpayers in America now pay the same proportion of their income in taxes as those earning less than $75,000 per year. Those taxes on the wealthy went from being more than half of their income fifty years ago to about a sixth today.

In the past three decades, the income of the richest Americans quadrupled, while the income of the lowest ninety percent actually fell. Today, the median wage is lower than it was in the 1970s, even though productivity has grown by nearly fifty percent.

All told, from the 1930s through the 1970s, America produced the biggest and richest middle class in human history. But then many of us made the mistake - as I did - of assuming that this had become, based on a solid society compact, the default status quo for the foreseeable future.

In fact, it was instead an aberration. And it was contingent.

It was an aberration because we are now speedily returning (if we haven't already arrived) to the days prior to the New Deal, when the rich had everything and the middle class was small and insecure. And it was contingent because the good old days depended on a combination of elite satiation and/or a strong progressive defense of an equitable economic order.

But both have disappeared in the Age of Reagan. Today, there are seemingly no bounds conceivable to what the already astonishingly wealthy will do in order to further magnify their holdings. No suffering of the struggling middle class - let alone impoverished brown people inconveniently sitting on top of desirable resources somewhere abroad - represents the slightest impediment to a greed which long ago ceased to have any passing relationship with utility. We are simply talking here about sociopaths - people who cannot fathom a reason to alter their predatory behavior under any circumstances, even when the lives of millions are at stake, and even when another pile of millions of dollars in their investment portfolio does nothing to improve their condition because they are already so rich to begin with.
...
If you adopt policies that decimates unions, you're gonna wind up decimating unions. Never particularly high in America, and peaking historically at about thirty-five percent, the share of workers who are organized in this country is now down to about seven percent. Guess what sort of effect that is going to have on worker negotiating power over wages, benefits, safety, general treatment and respect?

If you adopt trade policies that undermine labor at every turn, you're gonna wind up with a lot of unemployed Americans competing against low-wage Mexican, Chinese and Indian workers overseas. This wasn't exactly hard to see coming as NAFTA and the WTO were being negotiated, two of the biggest priorities of the Clinton administration. It was even less hard to see when Republicans created tax incentives for companies to ship jobs outside America, and when John Kerry was either too stupid or too fully coopted to turn that slam-dunk issue into the Willie Horton of the 2004 presidential campaign.

If you adopt policies that slash taxes on the already wealthy, guess what that's going to do to the distribution of wealth in the country? Guess what impact it will have on the federal government's revenues and debt? Guess who will be stuck, in the future, paying for the loans to finance the share of revenue that the wealthy are excused from today? Plus interest, of course.

And guess what that will mean for social needs spending as the government grows so deeply indebted that its creditors force it to make cuts in outlays, like some banana republic getting the whip hand from the IMF? Will those cuts be on the military, or on healthcare? Wars or food stamps? We know they won't be on service to the debt. That interest we now pay on the $12 trillion or so we've already borrowed is currently one of the biggest single items in the federal budget, and cannot be defaulted upon without producing disaster. We already know from the Clinton administration the answer to these questions about spending priorities. Even in the flushest of times, this supposed Democratic president slashed welfare spending.

So how shocking is it, when you add it all together, to find that anti-American labor, trade, tax and spending policies turn out to hurt the middle and working classes?!?! The only thing really shocking about the entire affair is that voters have been swallowing whole that baited hook for thirty years now. And that they will likely do so again, in 2010 and 2012, as they perceive the failure of Democratic Party ‘liberalism', and knee-jerk their way into a reign of repeated GOP pillaging, after just rejecting it in deserved disgust only a year or two ago.

Of course, new Republican governments won't be any more successful at generating public prosperity than Democrats, not least because neither has much interest in doing so, except perhaps incidentally. What the Grand Old Pricks might be able to pull off, however, is some more raghead slaughtering, fag bashing, or terror traumatizing in order to keep the hoi polloi focused on anything and everything but the emptying of their wallets.

Ultimately, the game will end, and we'll wind up looking like the British following the Second World War - a great empire bled dry, all its people running around with bad teeth. Right now, Republicans and Democrats are essentially competing, as in a game of musical chairs, to avoid being the party in charge when the fictions of our economic condition can absolutely no longer be sustained. Kinda like what you see in California, the once great state. Looks to me like the Democrats lost. Now there's a shocker, huh? - the party of Obambi getting reamed by the party of Tom "The Hammer" DeLay.

Politicians continue to play the same old cards about resurrecting the same old prosperity. No one will say the truth about how the US standard of living will probably never be restored for the bottom ninety-eight percent, while elites now have the kind of wealth that European kings once had to conquer entire continents in order to acquire. In fact, none of our courageous politicians will even tell you that you can't afford to have tax cuts and full governmental services at the same time. They're too busy borrowing it all from their kids and ours. Well, really just ours. Anyhow, isn't responsibility kinda boring? Isn't that whole honesty thing so twentieth century?

The simple and sad fact is that greedy elites will always use their power to acquire unseemly quantities of wealth, unless one or both of two conditions obtain. The first is that they are socialized to be slightly less greedy, slightly more patriotic, and remotely compassionate about those who have nothing. They may also recognize, as Henry Ford did, that their long-term prospects are rather heavily tied to those of all the rest of us. ....

Despite U.S. laws, thousands still virtual slaves in America | McClatchy

Despite U.S. laws, thousands still virtual slaves in America | McClatchy

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude…shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." — 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified Dec. 6, 1865

KANSAS CITY — Sebastian Pereria told a friend last year about his life in America.

How he wanted to see his wife and children in India, but his boss kept his identification papers and wouldn’t let him go.

Other waiters who worked with him at a restaurant in Topeka, Kan., told of how they were forced to work 13-hour days, six days a week. They talked of how the boss underpaid them and pocketed their tips.

In the end, Pereria, 46, got his wish. He finally arrived home last year.

In a coffin.

The U.S. government could not help Pereria, even though they said he fit the criteria for being a human trafficking victim. Other waiters he worked with got help and were rescued from the Globe Indian Restaurant. But for Pereria, even in death, a judge remained unconvinced.

America declared war on human trafficking nearly a decade ago. With a new law and much fanfare, the government pledged to end such human rights abuses at home and prodded the rest of the world to follow its example.

But an investigation by The Kansas City Star found that, in spite of all the rhetoric from the Bush and Obama administrations, the United States is failing to find and help tens of thousands of human trafficking victims in America.

The Star also found that the government is doing little to stop the flow of trafficking along the porous U.S.-Mexico border and that when victims are identified, many are denied assistance.

The United States also has violated its own policies by deporting countless victims who should be offered sanctuary, but sometimes end up back in the hands of traffickers. ...

Verizon Forcing Microsoft Bing Search on BlackBerry Users - CIO.com - Business Technology Leadership

Verizon Forcing Microsoft Bing Search on BlackBerry Users - CIO.com - Business Technology Leadership

U.S. wireless carrier Verizon wants its BlackBerry customers to employ Microsoft's Bing search engine, and it's not-so-subtly pushing some of its users in the Bing-direction by removing all other default search-engine options from their BlackBerry Browsers' "Start" or "Go to" pages.

Gone are the Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO) and Wikipedia options that were available just days before--though Verizon BlackBerry users can still manually access any search engine they please by typing the corresponding URL into the BlackBerry Browser.

The oft-criticized BlackBerry Browser launches with what BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion (RIM) has labeled a "Go to" screen. The BlackBerry Go to screen is a home page of sorts, with an option to search the Web directly from the page, along with both BlackBerry Bookmarks and Internet navigation History.

Typically, BlackBerry users can select their own search engines of choice from the BlackBerry Go to pages and search the Web from there. But as of last week, Verizon decided to eliminate all the search options and now a number of its wireless customers are, in effect, being force-fed Microsoft's (MSFT) Bing.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

THE REINCARNATION OF THE DARK AGES | TPJmagazine

THE REINCARNATION OF THE DARK AGES | TPJmagazine
By Loren Adams, 27 December 2009

The king taxed the peasants to poverty while the royals were exempt from paying any. Reason? Unjust tax codes were a design of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. That was the “targeted tax-cut” which invariably became law. “He who hath the gold maketh the rules.”

The Dark Ages was the birthplace of “Trickle-Down Economics.” The caste system was embraced, the church was simply a ruling arm of the monarch, and slavery was legitimatized by the religious righteous.

Republicans constantly decry labor’s “class warfare,” but this is the real war being waged across America. The cultural war is basically a derivative of class warfare – where the ruling class has employed white evangelicals to do their bidding: divide and conquer.

During the Dark Ages, wealth was exclusively inherited, not earned. The legal system was purchased like a commodity resulting in juryless trials, military tribunals, pronouncements by a king acknowledged as sovereign and commissioned by God to rule as if the voice of Providence Himself, executive orders usurping representation, taxation without representation, etc. Anyone disputing the monarch’s sovereignty was designated a traitor and summarily executed, tortured or banished to dungeon. These were the markings of the Dark Ages. Are they not similar to contemporary Republicanism so glaringly demonstrated during the Bush years? ...

...

Prosperity is the result of healthy circulation of currency where the vast majority have robust purchasing power. When wealth fails to circulate but is dammed up by a concentration at the top, the economy falls and results in depression or severe recession. When the rich accumulate an overwhelming portion of the wealth, their house of cards comes tumbling down because there remains few to buy the goods sold by the wealthy to sustain the lifestyle.

Sure, other factors – such as over-speculation, Wall Street insider trading, anti-labor trade agreements, deregulation, and tax policies determined by greedy special interests – drive the economy into the ditch. But are not these all related? The world is loaded down with the cancers of Bernie Madoffs and Kenny Lays before downturn metastasizes itself into poverty, crime and collapse.

Consider this ominous fact: The average American’s income has remained flat since 1977 — 33 years ago, while the income of the richest 1% has more than tripled — 228% (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). CEOs (corporate executive officers) incomes rose 400% in the 1990s to $10.6 million annual income per capita, while take-home pay for the average American, the 80%, rose zero percent.

Real life experience bears it out. Most Americans don’t enjoy the purchasing power they once did when a one-income family could raise children, purchase a home, car and college education for their kids. Now both parents work (if lucky enough to have a job) and still can’t keep up, resulting in less quality education, poor family relations, rising crime, and an eroding moral foundation.

Some in this country never learn from history. The greedy are blinded to the fact that refusing to care for others less fortunate ultimately leads to their own demise. The underlying truth may be that these tightfisted characters are not so much concerned about accumulating wealth as widening the gap. Yes, they delight in seeing the difference. Class consciousness means more to them than money in the bank. Thus, the motive defines the power struggle.

Thom Hartmann’s depiction of America’s economic and educational decline is accurate.

according to the rules, Republicans don't have to pay for their programs, and Democrats do. Republicans can build up massive debts ...

The Washington Monthly

December 27, 2009

THE RECORD SOME WOULD PREFER TO FORGET.... Just six years ago, congressional Republicans approved a major expansion of the government's role over health care, adding a massive amount of money to the national debt in its first decade.

The AP's Charles Babington reports that most GOP officials no longer want to talk about their own record.

Six years ago, "it was standard practice not to pay for things," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "We were concerned about it, because it certainly added to the deficit, no question." His 2003 vote has been vindicated, Hatch said, because the prescription drug benefit "has done a lot of good."

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, said those who see hypocrisy "can legitimately raise that issue." But he defended his positions in 2003 and now, saying the economy is in worse shape and Americans are more anxious.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said simply: "Dredging up history is not the way to move forward."

Seriously? Is that how we're going to play this game?

Snowe's quote is hard to take seriously -- as if her own record isn't relevant right now -- but it's Hatch's quote that's especially ridiculous. For Republicans, supporting huge new programs without figuring out how to pay for them "was standard practice." Six years later, this is justifiable, just so long as the huge new programs do "a lot of good."

Just so we're clear, according to the rules, Republicans don't have to pay for their programs, and Democrats do. Republicans can build up massive debts, and Democrats can't.

Let's cut the nonsense. Republicans supported Medicare Part D (Karl Rove saw it as a way of creating a "permanent" GOP majority). It was the biggest expansion of government into the health care industry since Medicare. By any reasonable measure, it was a huge giveaway to private industries, and came with a price tag of at least $1 trillion -- far more than this year's Democratic health care reform plan. It was "complicated as hell," and left a huge doughnut hole that screwed over millions of seniors. It included end-of-life counseling, which Republicans now consider "death panels." The Republican bill, which passed under almost comically corrupt circumstances, was financed entirely -- literally, 100% -- through deficit spending, leaving future generations to pick up the tab. ...

Poll Reveals Havoc of Unemployment on Workers and Family - NYTimes.com

Poll Reveals Havoc of Unemployment on Workers and Family - NYTimes.com

More than half of the nation’s unemployed workers have borrowed money from friends or relatives since losing their jobs. An equal number have cut back on doctor visits or medical treatments because they are out of work.

Almost half have suffered from depression or anxiety. About 4 in 10 parents have noticed behavioral changes in their children that they attribute to their difficulties in finding work.

Joblessness has wreaked financial and emotional havoc on the lives of many of those out of work, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll of unemployed adults, causing major life changes, mental health issues and trouble maintaining even basic necessities.

...

With unemployment driving foreclosures nationwide, a quarter of those polled said they had either lost their home or been threatened with foreclosure or eviction for not paying their mortgage or rent. About a quarter, like Ms. Newton, have received food stamps. More than half said they had cut back on both luxuries and necessities in their spending. Seven in 10 rated their family’s financial situation as fairly bad or very bad.

But the impact on their lives was not limited to the difficulty in paying bills. Almost half said unemployment had led to more conflicts or arguments with family members and friends; 55 percent have suffered from insomnia.

“Everything gets touched,” said Colleen Klemm, 51, of North Lake, Wis., who lost her job as a manager at a landscaping company last November. “All your relationships are touched by it. You’re never your normal happy-go-lucky person. Your countenance, your self-esteem goes. You think, ‘I’m not employable.’ ”

A quarter of those who experienced anxiety or depression said they had gone to see a mental health professional. Women were significantly more likely than men to acknowledge emotional issues. ...

The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Monsanto seed business role revealed

The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: Monsanto seed business role revealed: "AP IMPACT: Monsanto seed business role revealed

By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD (AP) – Dec 13, 2009"
...
Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.

Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes.

Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.

The company has used the agreements to spread its technology — giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.

For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission — giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.

Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit. ...

...

The benefit of Monsanto's technology for farmers has been undeniable, but some of its major competitors and smaller seed firms claim the company is using strong-arm tactics to further its control.

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."

At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies.

The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers. ....

Time for change's Journal - Extravagant CEO Salaries and Ballooning Income Inequality in the U.S.

Time for change's Journal - Extravagant CEO Salaries and Ballooning Income Inequality in the U.S.

Grossly excessive CEO salaries in the United States have in recent years generated much wonderment and displeasure. With the coming of the severe recession or depression of 2008/2009, that displeasure has turned to outrage in many quarters. 77% of Americans believe that that CEOs are paid too much money, whereas only 11% of Americans admire “those who run” America's "largest companies" either "a great deal" or "quite a bit”.

In 2008, the average annual pay for a CEO of a Standard & Poor’s 500 company was $10.9 million. Those at the top, our nation’s financial elite, make hundreds of millions of dollars in a year. In 2004, the average CEO pay in the U.S. was 431 times that of the average production worker. That compares with a ratio of only 42 to 1 in 1982.

Congressional hearings into this issue in recent years reflect the public outrage, though Congressional Republicans are not comfortable about digging too deep:

The questioning mainly fell along party lines, with Republicans apologizing for hauling such distinguished corporate officials before the panel, and Democrats questioning everything… Many Republicans on the committee fought the very premise of the hearing. “This is a hearing in search of bad guys,” said Darrell E. Issa, Republican of California. “Are there bad guys in front of me? I’m not seeing it.”

Many Congressional Democrats have expressed a very different view. I think Henry Waxman nailed it with this statement:

There seem to be two economic realities operating in our country today. Most Americans live in a world where economic security is precarious and there are real economic consequences for failure. But our nation’s top executives seem to live by a different set of rules.

Yes, two economic realities. One reality for… some people, and another reality for other people. One reality for those who face long prison sentences for possession of a small amount of marijuana and another reality for those who commit treason with impunity.

An article by Gabriel Thompson titled “Meet the Wealth Gap” summarizes the roots of these different realities:

It’s about the vast political power conferred by wealth, which can be deployed to support institutions pushing policies that, in turn, magnify the wealth divide. (These institutions) subsidize senior fellows who … see something sinister in a living-wage movement that “seeks to force urban firms to pay up to double the minimum wage.”… (They) call the movement a “sneaky way of bringing socialist economics to America’s cities”.


THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEVERE INCOME DISPARITY ...
...
Depression

Inside of Gabriel Thompson’s article is a graph titled “Plutocracy Reborn – Re-creating the Gap that Gave us the Great Depression”. Here it is:



This chart plots income inequality, measured as the ratio between the average income of the top 0.01% of U.S. families, compared to the bottom 90% (that would be most of us at DU). Note that preceding the great stock market crash of 1929, which plunged us into depression, the ratio rose from about 250 at the start of the 1920s to a peak of about 900 by 1929.
...
Consider the graph on page 11 of the U.S. Census Bureau publication, “Income Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006”. That graph shows that beginning with President Lyndon Johnson’s much maligned “War on Poverty” in the early ‘60s, poverty in the United States declined precipitously, from about 22% to 12%, before leveling off beginning around 1970. Then, with the onset of the “Reagan Revolution” starting in 1981, poverty began to rise again, reaching a maximum of about 15% twelve years later, just prior to the Clinton Presidency. The poverty rate then began a slow steady decline, to about 11% by the end of Clinton’s presidency, followed by another rise with the onset of the Bush II administration, to 12.3% by mid-year 2006. It then climbed to 12.5% in 2007 and 13.2% in 2008. However, that is not the end of the story, by any means. The current recession/depression will in all likelihood (and it’s probably already started) send another 5-10 million Americans into poverty, thus raising the poverty rate in our country another 1-4%.

These statistics are no accident. They are the result of federal legislation and policies meant either to help the poor or to help the wealthy. President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” reduced poverty substantially in our country. The only rises in poverty rate we’ve seen in our country since FDR’s New Deal (which decreased poverty) began with the Reagan and Bush II administrations, which are the only two presidential administrations since that time to substantially lower the top marginal tax rate, along with other fiscal policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the working and middle class.
...
Pricing the rest of us out of the market

Severe income inequality means that everything that rich people want will be priced to reflect the amount of money that they’re willing to spend on in it. Barbara Ehrenreich, in an article titled “This Land Is Their Land” discusses what severe income inequality means to the rest of us in practical terms. First, she notes a recent vacation of hers that was going pretty well until she found out that even with a 60% discount she couldn’t find a sleeveless cotton shirt for less than $100. That experience made her recall the first rule of today’s income inequality, which is “If a place is truly beautiful, you can’t afford to be there”. For example, on the subject of Key West, Florida, for which that rule did not apply as of 1986, Ehrenreich notes:

Then, at some point in the ‘90s, the rich started pouring in…. They drove house prices into the seven-figure range. They encouraged restaurants to charge upward of $30 for an entrĂ©e. They tore down working-class tiki bars to make room for their waterfront “condotels.”… As for Key West’s characters – with the traditional little conch houses once favored by shrimpers flipped into million-dollar second homes, these human sources of local color have to be prepared to sleep with the scorpions under the highway overpass…
...
Corporate tyranny prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s

Our current economic plight is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Because of President Hoover’s ideological inflexibility, he was unable to make any progress in fighting that depression, which led to FDR’s landslide victory in the election of 1932. FDR’s New Deal resulted in a reversal of the steep slide in GDP and the largest rate of job creation (5.3%) in any presidential term in recorded U.S. history to this day.

In his 1936 address to the Democratic National Convention, FDR explained the role of corporate tyranny, with the never-ending striving for greater corporate profits, as the major cause of our nation’s economic plight. He called them “Economic Royalists”.
...
Incestuous methods for determining CEO salaries

Thus it is that today the salaries for corporate CEOs are determined by a corporate Board of Directors, with little oversight. A principle method that these boards use to determine executive pay is to tie it to the average pay for executives in similar companies, which are referred to as “peers”. But research has shown that for the purpose of determining executive compensation, peers at the high end of the income scale are typically identified, resulting in an over-estimation of CEO pay of several hundred thousand dollars, with a corresponding overpayment of the CEO in question. This generates a positive feedback loop, wherein executive pay is continuously raised by comparing it to salaries that have been previously raised by the same process.

Why do the boards routinely overpay the executives whose pay they are charged with determining? There are many related reasons, all centering on the fact that they and the CEOs are part of the same club and there is little oversight. One problem is that many CEOs sit on each other’s boards. If that doesn’t represent a conflict of interest, then what does?
...
We now live in a country where lower class “criminals” are imprisoned for possession of small amounts of drugs, contributing to the largest imprisonment rate of any country in the world, while barriers to swindling perpetrated by the rich and powerful have been removed one after another, facilitating their legal accumulation of vast riches. And even when they cross the line and break what legal barriers remain they are often pardoned or their crimes simply ignored – sometimes with the rationalization that we must look towards the future.

We are constantly told that the economic foundation of our country is the “free market”. But the “free market” is “free” only in the sense that corporations are given the “freedom” to do whatever they want, at the expense of everyone else, and ogten with massive government assistance.

William Kleinknecht, in his book, “The Man Who Sold the World – Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Main Street America”, comments on how Reagan’s deregulatory philosophy affected our country:

In the Reagan years, corporate leaders were crossing lines that a few years before would have been unthinkable. A 1984 article in the New York Times… captured the moral revulsion aroused by the budding era of greed: “a ‘me-first, grab-what-you-can’ extravagance appears to be cropping up among the nation’s top executives. It shows itself in the disproportionate salaries and bonuses paid to so many corporate chiefs… the multi-million severance payments awarded even to CEOs who fail and drive their companies into the ground”…

After the stock market bubble burst, these towers of speculation and accounting chicanery came tumbling down. The falling stock market revealed the inherent instability of huge companies hastily put together by mergers… Enron’s mind-boggling betrayal of employees and shareholders and its unseemly manipulation of power prices in the midst of California’s electricity crisis should in itself have been enough to forever repudiate Reaganism. ...

Child hunger an increasingly complex problem - washingtonpost.com

Child hunger an increasingly complex problem - washingtonpost.com
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 12, 2009

PHILADELPHIA -- Three weeks before he was elected president, Barack Obama set an audacious goal: end hunger among children in the United States by 2015.

...

If Obama intends to erase childhood hunger, the government will need to reach even further into the rowhouse kitchen where Anajyha Wright Mitchell sometimes takes tiny portions so her mother will have more food. "I tell her to eat, eat, eat, because she is real skinny," Anajyha, 12, said of her mother, Andrea Mitchell.

Anajyha, a serious girl with two younger brothers and a mother who has lost two of her three part-time jobs, is growing up with an ebb and flow of food typical of a growing number of families. In her home, in a scuffed neighborhood called Strawberry Mansion a few miles north of the Liberty Bell, food stamps arrive but never last the month. There can be cereal but no milk. Pancake mix and butter but no eggs.

The intricacy of the problem -- and of the Obama administration's task -- plays out here, where Anajyha could have enough to eat but shortchanges herself.

Philadelphia offers a particularly vivid ground-level view of what researchers call a "silent epidemic" of hungry and undernourished youngsters. For years, local civic activists, health experts and politicians have tried some of the nation's most innovative experiments -- and learned how intractable hunger can be. Researchers here have also been at the leading edge in trying to fathom the effects of a scarcity of food.

Even when children are not hungry, studies have found that slight shortages of food in their homes are associated with serious problems. Babies and toddlers in those homes are far more likely to be hospitalized than children in families with similar incomes but adequate food. School-age children tend to learn and grow more slowly, and to get into trouble more often. Teenage girls are more prone to be depressed or even flirt with thoughts of suicide.


Hunger by the numbers

OpEdNews - Article: Are Food Stamps the Soup Lines of this Great Recession?

OpEdNews - Article: Are Food Stamps the Soup Lines of this Great Recession?

Bloomberg notes that, as of 2007:

In Missouri, about 100 percent who were eligible [for food stamps] that year took advantage of the program, the highest rate in the nation, followed by residents of Maine and Michigan, at 91 percent and 89 percent, respectively ...
Things have gotten much worse since 2007:


As the New York Times notes, "one in eight Americans and one in four children" receive food stamps.


Many economists and financial experts have said that we are in a depression. See this, this and this.

I hope they are wrong, or that - if we were in a depression - we're out of it now.

But it is indisputable that the unemployment numbers are still grim. Specifically:

  • More people will be unemployed than during the Great Depression
  • By some measures, unemployment is worse than it was during a comparable time-frame in the Great Depression
  • Vice President Biden said recently: "It's a depression for millions of Americans"

Given the above, Stacy Herbert's question of today is compelling:

The food stamps story seems to be one that keeps popping up; I guess food stamps are the soup lines of this Great Depression?

The Urgent Need to Revitalize U.S. Manufacturing | OurFuture.org

The Urgent Need to Revitalize U.S. Manufacturing | OurFuture.org

Labor and business leaders agree: we must revitalize manufacturing to get our economy back on track. Let’s hope the Obama Administration and Congress recognize this, as well.

The President is convening a jobs summit at a critical time for the nation's factory workers. Our manufacturing sector has lost more than 5 million jobs in the past decade and 51,000 plants have closed. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the manufacturing sector experienced a staggering 566 "mass layoff events" in October 2009 alone, leaving nearly 70,000 new claimants seeking unemployment benefits.

...

Balance our Trade Relationship with China. China's protectionist policies have been a leading culprit of manufacturing job loss in the U.S. Subsidized and dumped imports, artificially low currency, and lax environmental standards have put our workers and companies at a significant disadvantage. The U.S. trade deficit swelled to $36.5 billion in September alone, but more shocking is the fact that the non-oil goods trade deficit with China has peaked at 83% of the overall deficit.

Invest in Infrastructure. A January 2009 AAM report (link here) shows that roughly 18,000 new jobs would be created for every $1 billion in new infrastructure spending on our nation's transportation, energy, water systems, and public schools. In order to adequately meet the economy's assessed infrastructure needs over the next five years, the report estimates that a minimum of $87 billion per year is needed, of which $54 billion would come from the public and $33 billion would be private investment.

Buy America. Studies show that manufacturing employment gains from infrastructure investment increase by 33% when the amount of U.S.-made material inputs are increased by including a strong Buy America provision. Full transparency of the waiver process should also be implemented to increase public scrutiny and to ensure that domestic manufacturers can step in when requests for waivers are posted.

Increase Access to Credit. The lingering credit crunch continues to have an adverse effect on manufacturers, especially small- and medium-sized firms that have historically been responsible for the bulk of job creation. Access to capital is also critically important for companies seeking to meet the demand for clean energy manufacturing, such as wind turbines and solar panels.

Enhance Green Job Creation in the U.S. The recent announcement of a massive wind farm project in Texas is raising red flags because its developers plan to manufacture the high-value wind turbines in China. As a result, taxpayer dollars from the $787 billion Recovery Act will be used to create thousands of jobs in Shenyang, China. Properly-designed energy tax incentives must be employed that require manufacturing to be used in towns across America where plants are idled and workers are jobless.