Global Starvation Ignored by American Policy Elites

November 12 2008

By Peter Phillips

A new report (9/2/08) from The World Bank admits that in 2005 three billion one hundred and forty million people live on less that $2.50 a day and about 44% of these people survive on less than $1.25. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in urban areas. Simple items like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations, television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possible for billions of people.

Starvation.net logs the increasing impacts of world hunger and starvation. Over 30,000 people a day (85% children under 5) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and starvation. The numbers of unnecessary deaths has exceeded three hundred million people over the past forty years.

These are the people who David Rothkopf in his book Superclass calls the unlucky. “If you happen to be born in the wrong place, like sub-Saharan Africa, …that is bad luck,” Rothkopf writes. Rothkopf goes on to describe how the top 10% of the adults worldwide own 84% of the wealth and the bottom half owns barely 1%. Included in the top 10% of wealth holders are the one thousand global billionaires. But is such a contrast of wealth inequality really the result of luck, or are there policies, supported by political elites, that protect the few at the expense of the many?

Farmers around the world grow more than enough food to feed the entire world adequately. Global grain production yielded a record 2.3 billion tons in 2007, up 4% from the year before, yet, billions of people go hungry every day. Grain.org describes the core reasons for continuing hunger in a recent article “Making a Killing from Hunger.” It turns out that while farmers grow enough food to feed the world, commodity speculators and huge grain traders like Cargill control the global food prices and distribution. Starvation is profitable for corporations when demands for food push the prices up. Cargill announced that profits for commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were 86% above 2007. World food prices grew 22% from June 2007 to June 2008 and a significant portion of the increase was propelled by the $175 billion invested in commodity futures that speculate on price instead of seeking to feed the hungry. The result is wild food price spirals, both up and down, with food insecurity remaining widespread.

For a family on the bottom rung of poverty a small price increase is the difference between life and death, yet neither US presidential candidate has declared a war on starvation. Instead both candidates talk about national security and the continuation of the war on terror as if this were the primary election issue. Given that ten times as many innocent people died on 9/11/01 than those in the World Trade centers, where is the Manhattan project for global hunger? Where is the commitment to national security though unilateral starvation relief? Where is the outrage in the corporate media with pictures of dying children and an analysis of who benefits from hunger?

American people cringe at the thought of starving children, often thinking that there is little they can do about it, save sending in a donation to their favorite charity for a little guilt relief. Yet giving is not enough, we must demand hunger relief as a national policy inside the next presidency. It is a moral imperative for us as the richest nation in the world nation to prioritize a political movement of human betterment and starvation relief for the billions in need. Global hunger and massive wealth inequality is based on political policies that can be changed. There will be no national security in the US without the basic food needs of the world being realized.

Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored a media research group.

Source

Starvation is profitable for corporations. How about we take their profits away.

Paulson has shelved the original plan

By Greg Ro

November 12, 2008

WASHINGTON

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson laid out details for the next stage of the government’s financial-market rescue package Wednesday, announcing that he has shelved the original plan to buy troubled mortgage assets while turning his attention to nonbank financial institutions and consumer finance.

In a broad and deep review of the controversial $700 billion effort, Paulson defended the steps taken to date, but in the same breath said that financial markets remain fragile and that the focus must remain on “recovery and repair.” See MarketWatch First Take commentary.

“I believe we have taken the necessary steps to prevent a broad systemic event. Both at home and around the world, we have already seen signs of improvement,” Paulson said in a speech at the Treasury Department. See the full text.

But in a striking admission, Paulson said that buying up mortgage assets “is not the most effective way” to use government funding.
Purchasing these so-called “toxic” assets was once the cornerstone of the rescue plan for financial markets and was almost the entire focus of Congress when the package was being debated before its enactment. But almost as soon as Treasury received the money, it decided that giving capital to banks in return for preferred stock was a better use of the funds.
Paulson said that he was “still comfortable” with the $700 billion price tag for the rescue plan and that he didn’t need to go to Congress for additional funds: “I still am comfortable that with the $700 billion we have what we need.”
The Treasury Secretary said he met with members of President-elect Barack Obama’s economic team to discuss the rescue package earlier this week.
Some of the money saved from not buying mortgage assets will now be used to shore up the market for credit-card receivables, auto loans and student loans, according to Paulson.
“This market, which is vital for lending and growth, has for all practical purposes ground to a halt. With the Federal Reserve, we are exploring the development of a potential liquidity facility for highly-rated AAA asset-backed securities,” he said.
The plan to shore-up asset back securities is not ready yet, he added. “This will take weeks to design and then it will take longer to get up and going.”
Paulson declined to say how much it would cost, saying only that “it would need to be significant in size to make a difference.”
Alex Merk, president of Palo Alto Calif.-based Merk Investments, a mutual-fund firm, said that market participants were frustrated with Paulson’s communication skills and changing tactics.
“He’s been flip-flopping on every plan and it doesn’t look like he has a plan,” Merk said in an interview.
According to Merk, the rescue plan is failing to get banks to lend money, and that holders of mortgage assets who had been hoping to sell to the government at a good price have now seen these hopes dashed.
Earlier Wednesday, federal bank regulators issued a joint statement jawboning banks to start lending money to consumers. But Merk said that there are many factors that are making banks hoard capital.
“They don’t trust their own balance sheets, and why lend to consumers when the consumer sector is going down the drain?” he commented.
Markets are also looking beyond Paulson to the Obama administration, which is likely to be much more focused on helping consumers and homeowners — putting some of Paulson’s plans at risk, Merk added.
Brian Bethune, U.S. economist at HIS Global Insight, said that Paulson’s Treasury remains “behind the curve in the sense of understanding the systemic risk.”
The Treasury would also consider giving some capital to nonbank financial institutions, following completion of bank funding. Banks that are publicly traded have until Friday to request government assistance.
At a sensitive stage
“Although the financial system has stabilized, both banks and nonbanks may well need more capital, given their troubled asset holdings, projections for continued high rates of foreclosures and stagnant U.S. and world economic conditions,” Paulson said.
Paulson only described nonbank financial institutions in general terms, saying they “provide credit that is essential to U.S. businesses and consumers.”
However, many are not directly regulated and are active in a wide range of businesses, and taxpayer protections in a program of this sort would be more difficult to achieve,” he commented.
Bethune of HIS Global Insight said that insurance companies and the financial arms of the auto companies were the likely candidates for government assistance.
Economists said the plan would not stem the sharp drop in consumer spending.
“I doubt this is going to have a big offset to the really dramatic fall in consumer spending that we’re going to see in the coming year,” said Martin Feldstein, an economics professor at Harvard University.
Meanwhile, sweeping proposals to modify mortgages remain on the table, Paulson said. The cost of these programs will be substantial and don’t belong under this rescue package, he added.
On a related matter, the Treasury secretary pointed out that funding for the U.S. auto industry should not come out of the financial-market rescue plan. Congress has other vehicles to use to fund for the troubled sector, he said, adding that the key to any program for the industry was “long-term viability.”
G20 summit
Over the weekend, leaders of 20 countries will gather in Washington to discuss how to improve cooperation to foster stability in the global financial system.
Paulson took a cautious line on the meeting. “To adequately reform our system, we must make sure we fully understand the nature of the problem, which will not be possible until we are confident it is behind us.”
The White House won’t support a plan under which the International Monetary Fund would be responsible for devising a strategy to solve the problems, “unless member nations all see that they have a shared interest in a solution.”
Paulson said that the U.S. had a major role in the global crisis but wasn’t the only culprit. Global trade imbalances — the high U.S. deficit between imports and exports as well as matching surpluses in Asia — also played a role, along with Europe’s rigid structural regimes.
“Those excesses cannot be attributed to any single nation,” he remarked.

Figuring out oversight issues won’t be enough. “If we only address regulatory issues — as critical as they are — without addressing the global imbalances that fueled recent excesses, we will have missed an opportunity to dramatically improve the foundation for global markets and economic vitality going forward,” according to Paulson.

Should the US Experts be trusted?

Should the US Experts be trusted?

November 12 2008

By Jeremy Gaunt and Alex Richardson

LONDON/SINGAPORE

A number of deals designed to cure the global financial crisis were in danger of unravelling on Wednesday, with losses mounting at banks and economies deteriorating.

The International Monetary Fund withheld official backing for a $6 billion (4 billion pounds) bailout plan for Iceland, the Financial Times reported, putting loans to the North Atlantic island nation at threat.

Some of banking giant Barclays’ biggest shareholders have threatened to vote against a planned 7 billion pound capital raising unless it improves the terms of the deal, British newspapers said.

The latter follows a row over the crisis-driven planned purchase of lender HBOS by Lloyds TSB with leading banking figures arguing a more competitive deal should be sought.

Aides to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, meanwhile, were playing down reports of tension with the Bush administration over help for the stricken car industry.

A feud within Japan’s cabinet over whether rich people should get payouts as part of a stimulus package looked set to be put aside after delaying the plan for weeks.

Questions are also beginning to be asked about just how much help governments can give.

“The U.S.’ financial resources are already stretched and a flood of news demands may overwhelm a government already staring down at a record budget deficit next year,” UBS economists said in a note.

Financial markets were rocked again under the combined pressure of a global economic downturn and the worst financial crisis in 80 years.

European shares rose 1.6 percent after losing more than 4 percent on Tuesday, reflecting the sharp volatility currently infecting investors.

There were more corporate profit warnings with General Motors shares falling on Tuesday to levels not seen since World War Two.

“Whether it’s economic indicators or company news, it’s just too awful,” said Takashi Ushio, head of the investment strategy division at Marusan Securities in Tokyo.

DECLINE AND FALL

The financial industry showed more pain with Dutch group ING posting its first-ever quarterly loss as impairments on stocks and bonds, counterparty losses and property writedowns ate into its income.

ING Group NV had projected the loss in October before agreeing to a 10 billion euros (8.2 billion pounds) cash injection by the Dutch government to shore up its core capital.

Its net loss for the third quarter was 478 million euros, after writedowns totalling 1.5 billion euros. ING posted a profit of 2.3 billion euros a year earlier.

Insurer Swiss Life said third-quarter premium volumes fell 11 percent to 3.075 billion Swiss francs (1.7 billion pounds) and warned it would not meet its full-year net profit guidance.

This came against a background of continuing decline in world economies.

China’s retail sales data on Wednesday pointed to slowing consumption and the World Bank said more countries were seeking its help. The head of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Angel Gurria, said there was room for further interest rate cuts in the stagnating euro zone.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick said global trade may drop next year for the first time in more than a quarter of a century as the worldwide credit crisis cuts into trade financing.

“It is our estimate that trade could actually fall, not grow more slowly or have growth fall, but actually fall next year, for the first time since 1982,” Zoellick said in an interview with Reuters ahead of a meeting of world leaders.

Zoellick said the bank expected its lending to increase to $35 billion this year from $13.5 billion last year, adding that countries such as Mexico, Indonesia and Colombia were tapping its contingency financing fund amid worries about access to credit.

Investors, meanwhile, were looking to a summit of world leaders in Washington on Saturday for solutions.

President-elect Obama, however, is steering clear of the meeting.

“I think he wants to have a free hand after the inauguration,” Dale said. “If he gets too closely associated with the summit, he might find himself associated with views with which he might not necessarily agree,” said Reginald Dale, a scholar at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

(Editing by Elizabeth Piper)

Source


My rant for the day.

For all the Geniuses in the Financial Field, I really have to wonder if they know anything at all. They pretend to be such experts, but it seems they aren’t such geniuses.

This mess was created in the US, so their experts are not so brilliant. That speaks for itself.

Their advice should be scrutinized very carefully.

We should trust them because???????????? ,

Why so they can drag us into yet another one if their capitalistic nightmares.

Their rhetoric and propaganda is nauseating to say the least.

George Bush and all his so called advisors are not to be trusted.

Free Trade, deregulation, pandering to profiteering Corporations, listening to lobby groups and the cost of war have all played a great part to the demise of the US economy.

The so called experts fail to actually see the problem as a whole.

All countries around the world should be taking care of their people.

America is not the most wonderful place in the world.

They do not have the most intelligent people taking care of them.

They do not take care of their people. They just pretend a lot.

Over the years and observing the ups and downs of America and their leaders the two most intelligent people I have noted to date are Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

One of the notes I have taken on both of them is they actually seem to care about the people. When they speak they actually know what they are talking about.

That is special. Considering some of the slop we have had to listen to over the years.

When Bush or Cheney open their mouths, I want to scream at the stupidity of it all.

Hide under my bed in fear of yet another war.

Their wisdom is not wisdom at all it’s just full blown ignorance.

Their fear mongering and rhetoric should have been stopped years ago.

Instead everyone pandered to their garbage.

They turned America into the most hated nation in the world and with good reasons.

They threaten, course and lie. We are trapped on the planet with them until January 2009.

They should be in jail for crimes against humanity yet they are still allowed to run free and attempt to destroy what is left of the world with their so called expert advice.

Spare me the agony.

The Bush Administration has done little or nothing to improve the lives of the American people. They certainly are very adept at destruction not only of their own people but in destroying the rest of the world, whether is be through war of the financial blundering of this administration.

Their advice is not to be trusted. If they are such experts why is their country where it is today?

Their Health Care leaves a lot to be desired. It is horrible, costly and doesn’t serve the people only the profiteering, insurance companies.

Their wars are destroying millions of lives.

Their financial crisis is destroying the world.

Oh yes they are very cleaver indeed.

Their free trade agreements are more like give the profiteering, Corporations cheap, slave labour, massive profits and if they pollute no big deal. They want to take over the naturel resources of each and every country. They want to steal their water and privatize everything they can get their grubby hands on to the demise of the people in said country as well. Live becomes unaffordable for many and poverty rises as does the cost of living.

Privatization is just profiteering at the expense of people. Free Trade agreements drive farmers out of business as it does other homegrown businesses.

The Corporations move in and take over. This practice has to be addressed by all countries. Those who fight back are called evil among other things.

The American media more times then not jump on the propaganda band wagon.

Ensuring the American people never get the truth.

Universal Health Care is apparently a horrible thing in the US. Just ask any one.

Well the American people have been lied to for years over that one.

Michael Moore has tried to tell the Americans things could be different.

He had the guts to go up against the propaganda machine.

When one takes that one Example and really thinks about it that alone says a lot about the lies Americans have been told.

If America cared one iota about their citizens it would have given them Universal Health care years ago. Instead they were spoon fed propaganda and lies. Their media has played in great part a very large role in this and they of all should be telling the American people truth. That is apparently their job. Apparently they are not doing their job very well. .Instead they pander to the insurance companies. They pander to the Government officials who gets loads of money from insurance companies. How very disappointing it all is.

The Bush administration reminds me of a two year old temper tantrum throwing, brat that should be given a good sound spanking and have their privileges taken away.

If my child behaved in such a manner I would ground them for years.

Should they be trusted? They are like and infectious disease.  Spreading their illness world wide. Much like the plague.

Published in: on November 12, 2008 at 8:46 pm  Comments Off on Should the US Experts be trusted?  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Can Anyone Halt The Mortgage Meltdown?

Wall Street and Washington come together to help troubled mortgage borrowers. Too late?

Fifteen months into the worst credit crisis in decades, major banks and the federal government are coming together on a solution for struggling mortgage borrowers.

The goal is to hasten the process for renegotiating hundreds of thousands of delinquent loans, either those held by major banks or held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , the mortgage finance giants that faltered and were taken over by the government this summer.

Renegotiating loans for struggling homeowners has taken on more urgency as jobless claims rise and the economy declines. Housing prices continue to fall, leaving many with mortgages greater than the value of their homes, and banks continue to suffer major credit losses as a result.

Citigroup , JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have separately announced plans to help ailing borrowers. On Tuesday, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator for Fannie and Freddie, announced its own sweeping plan.

The agency is targeting delinquent borrowers who haven’t filed for bankruptcy. The goal is to modify mortgages for borrowers who can support payments but make sure those payments don’t make up more than 38% of income.

James Lockhart, head of the agency, urged U.S. mortgage servicing firms–companies that process payments of loans rather than owning them outright–to adopt the plan as a national standard.

For the government, halting the steady slide in housing prices is the holy grail of all of its big plans to prop up the ailing banking system. It is throwing trillions of dollars at shoring-up banks caught in the housing mess, but nothing has, so far, put a floor under the plunging housing prices at the heart of the credit crisis. Going at the problem from the perspective of a borrower is yet another way to achieve that end.

The government studied the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s approach to modifying loans of failed IndyMac Bank and used that as the model for this broader program.

Neel Kashkari, the Assistant Treasury Secretary in charge of the department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, said the plan will take pressure off mortgage servicing companies, “helping ensure that borrowers do not fall through the cracks because servicers aren’t able to get to them.”

Earlier on Tuesday, Citigroup announced its loan modification plan. The bank is stopping foreclosures for borrowers who live in their own homes and have enough income to stand a chance at repaying a renegotiated loan. It will also expand the program to include mortgages for which the bank collects payments but does not own.

Over the next six months, Citi will contact 500,000 borrowers who are not currently delinquent but close to falling behind to see if those loans could be modified.

Two weeks ago, JPMorgan said it would expand its mortgage modification program to an estimated $70 billion in loans, representing 400,000 borrowers. That is on top of the $40 billion in mortgages JPMorgan has rewritten since early 2007.

Bank of America will begin next month modifying 400,000 loans held by Countrywide Financial, the troubled lender it acquired this year. The plan, which starts Dec. 1, is part of an $8.4 billion legal settlement with 11 states.

Loan modifications have been complicated by the way the banking industry has approached mortgage lending in recent years, selling their loans off to other banks that bundle and resell them as securities rather than holding all loans separately.

For the banks, modification plans are self-preservation. Virtually no bank has been left untouched by the credit crisis, and Citi, JPMorgan, Bank of America and others will undoubtedly have rising credit costs for the next few quarters. Any plan to blunt those costs would be welcomed.

Source

Well I don’t really have a lot of faith in these guys. They are in great part the cause.  These very banks are the ones that had to get bailouts and now they are going to fix it are they?

Trusting them is a lot like letting the fox guard the chickens coup.

Bush baulks at Obama’s plan to protect jobs

November 12 2008

By Leonard Doyle in Washington

An ideological battle has erupted between George Bush and Barack Obama, with the outgoing President baulking at proposals to prop up General Motors, once the world’s largest car maker, which could go bust by Christmas.

Despite the smiles for the cameras at the White House on Monday, a tense stand-off is flaring between the two. It is testing Mr Obama’s assertion that “we only have one president at a time” and his desire to stay out of Mr Bush’s way in the remaining two and a half months of his presidency. With car sales collapsing in a steadily worsening economy, the President-elect wants to avoid the prospect of tens of thousands of Democrat-voting union workers being thrown out of work just as he starts his term of office.

According to one account of their Oval Office discussions, Mr Obama asked Mr Bush to use some of the billions of dollars in the financial bailout package to prop up the car industry. Economists are already warning that if GM goes broke it could bring down the rest of the economy and tip the world into a much-feared depression.

Mr Bush seems determined to play hardball by refusing the car industry access to any of the $700bn (£450bn) financial rescue package agreed by Congress, say sources quoted by The New York Times and Associated Press. Hand-over meetings between incoming and outgoing presidents are traditionally confidential and Mr Bush was reported to be furious over leaks from the Obama camp, perceived as undermining his remaining days in office.

As Mr Bush sees it, he has one last opportunity to secure a legacy as a champion of free trade, and he reportedly tied the Democrat’s request for billions of taxpayer dollars for the failing car industry to a controversial trade deal with Colombia. The White House denied Mr Bush had suggested a “quid pro quo” but confirmed that he had spoken about the “merits of free trade”.

Mr Obama has already voted to block the Colombia deal in the Senate because of widespread human rights abuses against union workers. He seems ready to call Mr Bush’s bluff, calculating that the outgoing President is so unpopular that he will buckle rather than be accused of driving a stake through the heart of an iconic, century-old American company.

GM has watched helplessly as US consumers stop buying gas-guzzling Cadillacs, Hummers and Chevrolet pick-ups in favour of hybrid and other more fuel-efficient vehicles. With no money coming in, the company has burnt through cash reserves so quickly that its share price yesterday fell below $3 for the first time since 1943 and Wall Street analysts have started to predict that shares in the company could actually be worthless.

Last week, Mr Obama called the car sector “the backbone of American manufacturing”. The three big makers, GM, Ford and Chrysler, have operations across America and if they collapse, it would devastate the economy. The estimates are that three million jobs would be lost, counting the car-workers, their suppliers and even the hot-dog sellers outside the factories.

Even Mr Obama’s generosity towards the car companies has its limits. As part of his energy and environmental plans being drafted with the help of Al Gore, he wants to ensure taxpayers’ money is spent wisely in a way that helps reduce dependence on imported oil and fights climate change. He asked Mr Bush to quickly release $25bn which has already been agreed to help companies retool to make more fuel-efficient cars. Mr Gore is advising that “we should help America’s automotive industry to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run off renewable energy that will be available”.

Car companies have lobbied hard to block higher fuel-efficiency standards which average 17 miles per gallon. The big three say they need immediate unrestricted access to cash just to meet their wage and supplier bills. The Michigan-based Centre for Automotive Research has warned that the price of their failure would reach as much as $156bn in lost taxes and extra costs of health care and unemployment assistance.

Another problem Mr Bush and Mr Obama now face is that the bailed-out financial companies have come back for more money. On top of that, the country’s credit-card industry is grinding to a halt. Even American Express has its hand out for taxpayer money. This week, it joined commercial banks and became eligible for rescue funds. The credit-card giant is in danger of collapse because millions of Americans have failed to repay debts run up to fund consumer-driven lifestyles.

The Bush administration has spent all but $60bn of the first half of the bailout funds and only this week had to cough up more money for the insurance giant, AIG.

Source

Well fuel-efficient vehicles are something GM should be making instead of the gas gulers considering the oil and gas situation on the planet.  Maybe bailing them out might be a consideration if they produced more fuel efficient vehicles. There is not much point in GM continuing on the road to bankruptcy, by producing the gas guzzlers however.

Maybe they should start making Chevettes again. Damb good little cars and fuel efficient as well.

Bush had no problem bailing out the banks. So why is he Balking about GM? I guess GM didn’t bribe him with enough money at election time or something.

No problem bailing out AIG twice.  I am so confused.

Nothing like making something people aren’t going to purchase.

As for Columbia well Human Rights should be considered on all levels, Free Trade included.

Most trade agreements do not benefit the people of a country, benefit usually go to the Corporations who want cheap labour and massive profits.

All trade agreements should protect the people of the country. People are more important.

Published in: on November 12, 2008 at 9:39 am  Comments Off on Bush baulks at Obama’s plan to protect jobs  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Radioactive leak hits river

November 12 2008

Radioactive liquid spilled into a river during maintenance work on a nuclear submarine, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed. The Royal Navy said up to 280 litres (62 gallons) of contaminated water spilled from a ruptured hose as it was used to pump out coolant from HMS Trafalgar at the Devonport Naval Base in Plymouth.

The incident happened shortly after midnight on Friday and the contaminated liquid spilled into the River Tamar. An MoD spokesman said: “During a standard operation to transfer primary coolant from HMS Trafalgar to an effluent tank on the jetty, a hose ruptured, resulting in a leak of the coolant. A maximum of 280 litres of coolant were discharged from the hose on to the submarine casing, jetty and into the river Tamar.

The area was quarantined, monitoring and sampling carried out and a clean-up operation completed. No one was harmed during the incident and the nuclear power plant was unaffected.” The spokesman said that the flow of liquid was stopped as soon as the leak was spotted and initial sampling had not detected, “any radioactive contamination in the local environment”.

An investigation is under way to find the cause of the leak and the Environment Agency, Health and Safety Executive and the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator have been informed. A spokesman for the Environment Agency said it was “certain there is no significant environmental impact” but has taken samples “for reassurance purposes”.

Source

Brown to act over credit card rate rises

By Andrew Grice

November 12 2008

Gordon Brown ordered a crackdown on credit and debit card rises yesterday after The Independent revealed that banks had raised rates even though borrowing costs had fallen.

The Government has called a summit with the credit card industry, which will be held soon, at which ministers will ask lenders to draw up a new “statement of best practice” to protect their customers. If the statement is not tough enough, ministers might ask the Office of Fair Trading to take action against individual firms. Ministers want to ensure the 1.5 per cent base rate cut announced by the Bank of England last week is reflected in interest rates on credit cards. They also want companies to stop using small print in contracts to raise rates suddenly and to give more support to people who run into problems.

The Government wants a pledge for “clear and fair principles” to apply to the costs people face on existing debts and that only “responsible lending” will be entered into in future.

The Prime Minister intervened after research for The Independent showed that while the base rate had fallen from 5 to 3 per cent since May, the average annual percentage rate for credit cards had increased from 17.2 to 17.6 per cent, and on store cards to 25 per cent. Mr Brown told a Downing Street press conference: “We have got to bring the credit card industry in, talk to them, so they join with us in enabling clearer principles to apply to the costs people face.” His spokesman said Mr Brown was “very concerned” about the behaviour of some credit card companies.

Ministers are expected to reject a cap on interest charges. Gareth Thomas, Consumer Affairs minister, said: “Interest rates are going down and we want people to benefit from those interest rate reductions.” Latest figures showed spending was lower and repayments higher than three years ago.

Source

Well The ones in the US are worse then those from the UK much worse and they have been uping the interest to as high as 32%. Hy way robbery theirs are.

Banks Ripping off Credit Card Customers
Well the higher the interest the more in debt people get and the more bankruptcies there will be.

Being greedy is self deductive.

Lets face it banks haven’t been exactly to bright these days.

Published in: on November 12, 2008 at 8:40 am  Comments Off on Brown to act over credit card rate rises  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The domino effect: Road to recession

It began with the banks. Then house prices began to tumble. In the months that followed, the shock waves spread, engulfing first high streets, then factories – and thousands of jobs. In this gripping account, Paul Vallely travels across Britain to meet the people whose lives – and livelihoods – have fallen victim to the domino effect that left a nation broken

November 12 2008

We could begin with Peter Sastawnyuk. The 53-year-old businessman filled his £370,000 detached home with petrol canisters, sealed the locks, set tripwires and threatened to set the place alight. More than 40 of his neighbours were evacuated from the posh cul-de-sac on the edge of the Pennines from which Sastawnyuk sent his children to be educated at private school. But the cradle of his dreams imploded, in the end, as the scene of a five-hour police siege. The trigger for it all, a court in Rochdale was told last month, was that he had lost his job, got into debt and had had his home repossessed.

Or we could start with Karl Harrison. The father-of-two was found hanging in his garden shed in Anglesey. The 40-year-old surveyor had lost his job when the housing market began to turn down. He fell behind with his payments on his home loan and was being harassed by a firm called Oakwood Homeloans to pay the arrears, the recent inquest was told. Harrison’s widow has now put the house on the market.

But we do not need melodrama or tragedy to tell this story. So, instead, let us begin with what is becoming a more everyday misfortune.

It was an ordinary Thursday morning in early October when Jackie Horn, a 43-year-old IT worker, left her neat little Edwardian town house behind Stockport Grammar School to make the short journey to work. Her destination was the Vauxhall Industrial Estate in which the largest site was occupied by the company for which she had worked for the past 16 years – Chemix, which manufactured the compounds from which uPVC window frames and cladding are made.

She looked back casually at the house, with its handsome stained-glass windows, and got in her car, a small silver Peugeot. She had bought the house 12 years ago and, though she lived alone, her mortgage was nicely manageable. She had had the car for two years and it was all paid for. At Chemix, she had risen from being a receptionist to being a computer programmer. She was better paid now. Hers was a settled life.

She had had an inkling that things were not quite right at work. She noticed from her IT processing that orders for resin, Chemix’s incoming raw material, had been down for a while. So were orders for the compounds the firm produced as the nation’s door-to-door salesmen found ever-larger numbers of people saying no to the idea of having their windows replaced.

Then, about four weeks earlier, the management had told the workforce that it might have to move to only three or four days’ working each week. The workers had rejected the idea in a ballot and a couple of weeks later were told there might have to be selective redundancies. But letters had gone out a few days before saying that jobs in sales and IT were safe.

When she arrived at the little factory, “a lot of blokes in suits” had appeared. A meeting of the whole workforce was called. The firm was in administration, the bankruptcy accountants told them. They had all lost their jobs. They should leave immediately.

“It was a real shock,” she says. “One day I was receiving a letter telling me my job was safe; the next it had gone. The mood was bad. Everyone was saying goodbye. They were hugging and shaking hands.” She was told she would be kept on for an extra two weeks to help with the shutdown. “I couldn’t look the men in the eye.” Now she, too, sits idle at home.

The Domino Effect

The chain of events – which began with salesmen on commission wildly dishing out sub-prime mortgages (to poor people the United States who did not even have to prove they had the earnings to repay them) and ended with Jackie Horn losing her job – is a long one.

I have spent the past few weeks tracing each link in that chain through the stories of a series of people:

The fall-off in demand for Chemix’s products was the result of decisions such as the one made by a Birmingham newsagent, whose domestic economies included not having his windows removed and replaced with uPVC frames because his cigarette sales were down.

Cigarette sales at the newsagent’s had fallen because staff at the nearby Range Rover production plant had had their hours cut.

Range Rover sales are down because a wide variety of businesses are now tightening their belts; not replacing company cars is an obvious money saver.

Among the businesses not replacing company cars as part of general cost cutting are the shop-fitting, sign-writing and advertising firms employed by retail giant Marks & Spencer, which has had two-thirds wiped from the value of its shares this year.

Trade in shops is down because consumer confidence has fallen in line with catastrophic drops in the prices of shares.

Share market volatility was provoked by the sudden refusal of the banks to lend money to anyone, including each other.

The crisis of confidence within the banks was fed by the dramatic multi-billion dollar collapse of the investment bank Lehman Brothers, which was the biggest bankruptcy the world has ever seen.

To make sense of this complex saga, I set out to travel around the United Kingdom to speak to individuals who had played a key part in each stage of the tumbling of the economic dominoes. There were repeated surprises along the way. Encounters with the real world are like that. Not everything turns out as you might expect.

Northern Rock – Panic Begins

The giant tower of the new Northern Rock building stands empty, like a monument to the folly of the years of reckless capitalism. It has never been occupied. Out at Gosforth, on the northern edge of Newcastle, it is the place where the first rumblings of the seismic shakeout that is now gripping the globe were first detected in the UK.

Today, the yellow-brick buildings that surround it are still staffed, but by managers and employees humbled by the events of the past 12 months which have turned them from freebooting buccaneers of a banking world – in which the possibilities of growth seemed unlimited – to servants of a nationalised service industry. Even the bricks seem symbolic, for the yellow brick road in The Wizard of Oz led to a gleaming city with a giant fraud at its heart.

The man who is driving me round the once-mighty complex is Dennis Grainger. He was once a senior employee of the firm and is now the leading light in the Northern Rock Shareholders Action Group. The combination makes him uniquely placed to tell the story of the building society that turned bank after Margaret Thatcher’s deregulation of the financial sector and which last year provoked the first run on a British bank since the Victorian era.

“Northern Rock was not involved in dodgy sub-prime lending,” says Grainger, 61, of Cramlington, Northumberland. “Our loans were good, safe lending to people who could afford to repay. The Rock was very strict in asking whether people could afford to borrow that amount.” He knows this because one of his jobs was to manage the people checking the paperwork.

“After the crisis broke, the media said the problem was that Northern Rock lent people more than they needed to buy their homes. And it is true that we did offer 125 per cent loans, to cover the house purchase and additional expenses. But the rates of default on those were just half the national average.”

What did for Northern Rock was that so much of the money it lent did not come from depositors but was borrowed by the bank on the international money markets. That is what had turned a provincial building society into the UK’s fifth largest mortgage lender – and a FTSE 100 company. “Some 80 per cent of the mortgages we gave out had been borrowed in this way,” Grainger says. ” I know I used to sign the documents for millions of transfers each month.”

The problem came when, on 9 August 2007, one of France’s three biggest banks, BNP Paribas, told investors that they could not take money out of two of its funds because it was unable to value the assets in them. This was because the financial world had created complex financial packages out of the sub-prime debt and sold them on to other investors. It was like pass the parcel; investors had, in effect, bought blind because the deals had so many layers that no one knew what lay at their heart.

The crunch came when some investors wanted their money back and Paribas realised it did not know whether it had the money to pay out. It was, in the words of Northern Rock’s former chief executive Adam Applegarth, “the day the world changed”. Money markets across the globe shut down because they did not know which banks would remove the final wrapper from the “credit default swaps” – and find they were holding a booby prize.

When the money stopped flowing, banks like Northern Rock – which had, in the jargon, “borrowed short-term to lend long-term” – could not get hold of the cash to finance their next day’s business. On 13 September 2007 the BBC’s business editor, Robert Peston, revealed that Northern Rock had asked for emergency support from the Bank of England. But there was no danger of the bank going bust, he added, so customers need not panic.

“It had the same effect that Corporal Jones does in Dad’s Army,” observes Grainger wryly. “When you shout, ‘Don’t panic! Don’t panic!!” people do exactly the opposite. Peston should have known that.” Outside Northern Rock’s branches, massive queues formed of savers demanding to withdraw their money.

But, if there was compassion for savers, there was scant sympathy for those running Northern Rock, whose chairman was a non-banker – the local oddball free-market environmentalist aristocrat Matt Ridley – and whose risk committee was chaired by Sir Derek Wanless, who had previously been ousted from NatWest with a reported £3m payoff. It was they who had endorsed the aggressive growth strategy of bullish chief executive Applegarth and, in the words of the financial journalist Alex Brummer, author of The Crunch: the scandal of Northern Rock and the Escalating Credit Crisis, “allowed him to run riot, without checks and balances”.

The people most often forgotten in all this are the shareholders. “People assume all the shares were held by big institutions and greedy hedge funds,” says Grainger, “but a quarter of the shares are held by little folk.” Again, he knows because he has met 2,000 of them in the streets where he sets up his Shareholders Action Group stall. Another 4,000 have emailed him.

“These people are not speculators or gamblers. They are people in their seventies, eighties and nineties living on very small incomes who received a few hundred shares in the original demutualisation. Many are old ladies keeping their shares to pay for their funeral arrangements and who I’ve seen crying in the streets, saying they will now be a burden to their family. They are Mr and Mrs Shipyardworker who put their savings, with pride, into the local bank.”

Again, this is not academic to Dennis Grainger. Every month for 10 years he put £250 of his salary into the Northern Rock employees’ Share and Save scheme. It was to be his retirement pot. At one point it was worth £114,000. Today it is utterly worthless. “The real losers in all this are the small investors who worked for Northern Rock or savers who bought shares and remained loyal to the bank,” he concludes. “The treatment they have suffered is very unfair.”

It is not the only consequence. To accelerate the payback to the taxpayer, the new management at the now-nationalised company is pursuing an aggressive policy of repossessing the homes of borrowers who get into arrears. Northern Rock’s rate of repossessions is currently running at around double the industry average. And leaked documents from inside the bank reveal that it is set to double numbers in its debt collection arm.

There is a quiet indignation in Grainger’s conclusion. “We have been treated very badly by the Government,” he says. “Northern Rock was illiquid, not insolvent. When there was a run on the bank they wouldn’t lend us £2.7bn, but they’ve had to stump up £400bn to prop up other banks since. We should have been given the same terms as other banks were subsequently given.”

But there was one other bank not included in the rescue deal. When Lehman Brothers investment bank folded it provoked the biggest corporate bankruptcy ever seen.

Lehman – The Untouchables?

Until recently, Andrew Gowers had an office on the 30th floor of a tower in Canary Wharf which offered a stunning panorama of the City of London. It seemed an appropriate location for the UK arm of an investment bank that was one of the big five beasts of Wall Street. If there was any institution whose members might fall prey to the hubris of believing that they truly were Masters of the Universe – as top City traders described themselves with an irony which depreciated with the passing years – then the men at the top of Lehman Brothers might be among their number. The air indeed seemed rarefied at that height. The shame was that nobody bothered to pack the oxygen.

For the past month, Gowers, a former editor of the Financial Times – and now a former director of communications at the 150-year-old US investment bank which had begun life in the 1850s as a cotton-trading partnership – has sequestered himself away in a far less public place, having quit the bank just before it collapsed. He has had a month “watching the autumn go by” in the south of France.

Northern Rock was the prequel to the concatenation of events which has seen £3,000bn wiped off the value of the world’s shares. It has also seen taxpayers across the globe spend double that amount to prop up the world’s banks. But it was the collapse of Lehman Brothers – and the sight of well-paid bankers carrying their belongings from their Canary Wharf offices in black sacks and cardboard boxes – which first suggested that something was going on that might have ripples that moved beyond the United States, or indeed, the Northumbrian fastness of Northern Rock.

But for Andrew Gowers, the writing had been on the Wharf for a good deal longer.

“There was a general awareness of difficulties,” he says, “from August 2007 onwards.” Lehman was a very large borrower, with, according to some estimates, around $130bn in debt, much of it in sub-prime. “But the feeling was that we weren’t as badly exposed as some and there appeared to be some good and clever hedging strategies in place, Gowers says. So 2007 ended as a record year with bumper revenues and the balance sheet grew in the first quarter of 2008 – “which a lot of people, after the fact, found pretty incomprehensible.”

There was no excuse for this complacency. In March, a smaller investment bank, Bear Stearns, had collapsed. In response, Lehman’s share price fell 48 per cent in less than a morning. “But the Lehman management told itself that we were different from Bear Stearns,” Gowers recalls, “because we weren’t so reliant on short-term borrowing and we had large amounts of liquidity.” Anyway, the US Federal Reserve – America’s equivalent of the Bank of England – had stepped in to save Bear Stearns. Perhaps the top people at Lehman – a far bigger bank – believed they would have a state safety net, too.

Even so, says Andrew Gowers, “it all scared the living daylights out of the top management and some major effort was made to shrink the balance sheet, to cut the borrowing and get rid of some of the problem assets.”

The trouble was that other banks were doing the same thing at exactly the same time. As a result, the prices of the assets they wanted to sell fell at a shockingly fast pace. Lehman began to run out of time. It could not offload enough of the dodgy sub-prime debts. To make matters worse, the “good and clever hedging strategies” began to come unstuck. Indeed, instead of offsetting losses, some of the hedges magnified them.

“From April, I became aware of quite a sizeable loss accumulating. Nobody was quite sure how big it was going to be.” In June, executives at Lehman’s money management subsidiary, Neuberger Berman, sent emails to the top managers at Lehman Brothers suggesting that they forgo bonuses – to “send a strong message to both employees and investors that management is not shirking accountability for recent performance.” Lehman’s executive committee dismissed the idea out of hand.

When the news of the first loss ever in Lehman’s independent history came out the market was shocked. Senior managers, including the chief executive, Dick Fuld, didn’t seem to get the measure of the problem. Gowers recalls: “They just thought: we’re not in a catastrophic place, we’ve suffered some buffeting from abnormal developments in the market, but we have a plan to get out of it.”

The market did not agree and the Lehman share price continued to plummet. “That caused jaws to drop, says Gowers and the bank’s chief financial officer Erin Callan and its president Joe Gregory, who had been Dick Fuld’s right-hand man for 34 years, resigned.

But it was not enough. “Eventually, at one minute before midnight, they came out with an explanation of what had gone wrong and what they planned to do,” Gowers recalls. “But it was too late.”

In the end, what did for Lehman was that its executives failed to understand that the politics had changed. On 7 September, America’s biggest mortgage providers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, had to be rescued by the US government. It was one of the largest bailouts in US history. “A feeling grew in Congress that there had to be a limit,” Gowers says.

Lehman Brothers became that limit. “At quite a few points in the downward spiral Lehman’s could have been bought, but Dick Fuld was too proud to accept that,” Gowers adjudges. The result was the largest corporate bankruptcy in history.

Andrew Gowers got out just before the collapse, having concluded that his job had become untenable. The evening that I interviewed him, he had just returned from a relaxed day at the market in Cahors. There would be sea bream for dinner that night. But things looked a little more bleak for some of his former colleagues.

Investment bankers rank fairly low on the public sympathy index. Gowers acknowledges that, yet warns against broadbrush judgements. “There were a lot of people in Lehman’s who took 80 per cent of their pay in shares which were deferred for five years and a relatively low salary,” he says. Many borrowed against those shares and are now hiding away and licking their wounds.

“It had been rolling along in a fantastic way for so long that everybody really did began to think there was no way it was going to end. They applied that to their own personal finances, as well as the way they ran the firms, borrowing against tomorrow.”

But now, grimly, tomorrow has become today.

Blame it on the young guns

The seats are of the kind of red plush velvet that speaks not of your local Indian restaurant but of discreet wealth. The menu offers seared Isle of Skye scallops with pork belly squares and cauliflower purée. With the chateaubriand of Aberdeen Angus, served with a béarnaise sauce, I suspect that Duncan Glassey’s eye might alight at a £58 bottle of 1975 Château Cantenac Brown. But I am wrong. He is happy, he says, with an Australian shiraz, the cheapest on the list of bin ends in the smart Circus Wine Bar & Grill in the austere Georgian elegance of Edinburgh’s New Town.

“How did the world’s cleverest financiers get into this almighty mess?,” I ask him.

There is a lot about Duncan Glassey which is not what you might expect. The child chess prodigy who turned professional runs a wealth planning consultancy for the mediumly-rich. It grew out of his experience of working with lottery winners at the accountant Ernst & Young in the mid-Nineties. His firm Wealthflow LLP now specialises in clients with between £1m and £5m to invest.

For all that, he is modest in his own lifestyle. So much so that in the past he has been told that he lost business from new clients after turning up for the initial interview in a car which they decided was insufficiently grand. There is something about him of the solidity of old money. His client list includes aristocrats as well as advocates. Like those whose money he manages, his bias is towards the conservative and away from the febrile psychology of “active management” where, he insists, over-activity can sometimes substitute for solid long-term investment.

Glassey has some interesting thoughts on the generational conflicts that have tipped the world into financial crisis and to the brink of recession: “The people who made the strategy in the banks are of the baby-boomer generation born from 1945 onwards. They are a generation of grand visions, optimism and high ideals about combining individual empowerment with social values. They are the big talkers and the people with the vision and mission statements.”

By contrast, the generation who have managed us into the present situation have a very different set of attitudes and values. Generation X are the children of the Thatcher era. “They are at home with globalisation and the information revolution,” he says. “Change is normal, as is the idea of lifelong learning. They are not scared of failure.

“What’s important to them is individualism, choice, self-reliance and immediate gratification. They are thrill seekers.” They can be pessimists, cynics and selfish.

But the younger generation who created sophisticated financial products which have so dramatically imploded – the “masters of the universe” – are different again, Glassey says. “They are Generation Y, born from 1985 onwards. They are the generation who have not known a world without the internet. They are highly techno-savvy and street smart but information overload has made them hugely naive in many other ways. They are the Facebook and Bebo generation – networkers who live in a world where divorce and geographical dispersion has broken down the family. They are self-obsessed and close-focused.

“The belief systems of the three groups – the strategists, the managers and the traders – are entirely different,” concludes Glassey. “They don’t really understand one another at all. And they didn’t know what each other really wanted or expected out of the complex financial architecture they created.

“Everybody was locked into the Nick Leeson scenario; no one asked questions so long as everyone was making money.”

The shaven-headed Glassey, aged 39, characterises himself as on the cusp between generations X and Y but his values hark back to what he calls “the old days when banks were trustworthy and on your side, before they became out-and-out sales organisations”. His approach is to keep his clients away from financial fads and fashions and “commission-based products which are deliberately made so complex that clients can’t understand them”. Glassey was always suspicious of the world of credit-swap derivates which he saw as a parade of emperor’s new clothes. “I view all that as speculation. I’m not paid to make huge money for my clients; I’m paid to diversify risk.”

But his clients, Glassey acknowledges, will not be the ones to suffer. “Their portfolios may be down 15 per cent where others are down 35 per cent or more. But their homes and jobs are not as risk.” So whose jobs and homes are in peril? And why? The trail pointed away from the world of pure finance and into that of the stock market.

The trillion-dollar wipeout

They are still selling oysters and champagne in the great courtyard of the Royal Exchange which was founded in 1565 as the centre of commerce for the City of London. In the 17th century, stockbrokers were not allowed within its elegant portals because of their rude manners, but today it is no longer a stock market. Instead, it is a luxury shopping centre whose pillared and marbled atrium is lined with discreet boutiques bearing names like De Beers, Hermès, Tiffany, Bulgari and Cartier. A couple of lattes in its magnificent courtyard will set you back the price on an entire lunch for two in Bury market, of which more later.

I was there to meet Richard Hunter, head of British equities at the fund manager Hargreaves Lansdown – which manages £11bn in shares for its small investor clients. I wanted to find out why the alarm over bank shares that gripped the stock market then infected other areas. After the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it was not just banking shares that fell; equities plummeted in a wide range of companies that had no connections with the financial services industry.

“Credit is the oil in the machinery of the business world,” he says. Every business needs to borrow to finance the gap between buying its raw materials and the income arriving for what it sells. “The money that used to be available to do that just isn’t there any more because the banks have stopped lending to one another. All that has been impacted by the credit squeeze. That’s why share prices fell first in certain sectors – the banks and financial services companies – but soon spread to other areas.”

But there were a collection of other forces in the real economy that accelerated the speed with which prices fell.

“It was a cocktail of factors,” he says. “After the sub-prime crisis broke in the US and after the collapse of Northern Rock here, some people became more cautious and started to spend less.” Then came the global rise in food prices which raised the cost of bread, rice and other staples in the supermarkets; in April, rice prices were double what they had been seven months earlier. Next followed the international hike in the price of oil – it rose as high as $147 a barrel in July, almost treble what it had been a couple of years earlier. And that massively increased both domestic fuel bills and petrol prices.

“If it costs you an extra £10 a week to fill your car and you’re on a budget,” he says, “you have to find that £10 by cutting back somewhere. If you’re paying more for your gas and electricity you have to cut back on something else.”

Then, on top of all that, house prices had started to fall. The fall-off began slowly, last November. By April this year, house prices were lower than they had been a year before. It was the first time an annual drop had been recorded for 12 years. The number of new houses being built fell to the lowest level for 60 years. The building industry, after 13 years of unprecedented growth, faced a major slump; in July the housebuilder Taylor Wimpey asked shareholders for an extra £500m and failed to raise it. Mortgage lending crawled to a near standstill in August as approvals for new homes hit a record low. By September, house prices across the country had fallen by about 10 per cent. Repossessions rose to triple their previous level. In the worst hit areas, such as the centre of Manchester where thousands of buy-to-let apartments had been made in converted inner city warehouses, prices fell by more than 20 per cent.

Half the flats in one prestigious block, Albion Mill – a converted Victorian biscuit factory with double-height living rooms and stunning views across to the Pennines – were repossessed. One woman, Jeanette Leach, 31, got off the plane at Manchester Airport after a holiday in Tenerife and received a text message saying her home had been repossessed; she went straight into the toilets at Terminal Two and hanged herself with the cord from her tracksuit bottoms.

The majority of those falling into difficulties as result of the credit crunch were not driven to such extremes. But, says Richard Hunter, “the stock market tries to discount the falls in value that will come over the next nine to 12 months.” As soon as the banking system was pulled back from what the head of the International Monetary Fund called “brink of systemic meltdown”, investors began to consider what might be the short-to-medium term implications for the real economy. House prices were a key indicator.

And further contraction was obviously on the cards. Some 1.2 million homeowners in the UK are now faced with the prospect of negative equity because the prices of their properties have fallen below what they paid for them. Another 1.4 million households are due to come off short-term fixed-rate mortgage deals by the end of 2008. The credit crunch on the wholesale markets was making mortgages harder to come by. It contributed to a growing “feel-bad” factor on the markets. “With shares and house prices you don’t crystallise your loss till you sell, but you feel poorer because of all the bad news,” says Hunter, “and so your behaviour begins to change. Everyone cuts back.”

Some people do more than that. They panic.

“People who have been in the city 40 years are telling me that they’ve never seen this degree of volatility before,” Hunter says. “Panic overtakes logic. Just a few people running round like headless chickens can infect others because people look at the headless chickens and say: What do they know that I don’t? In the past they used to say that the market was driven by one prevailing emotion – greed or fear; this time it’s a cocktail of both.”

The result was an orgy of frenzied selling in which £2.7 trillion was wiped off the value of shares globally in a single week of extraordinary financial mayhem in October. This was when a crisis that had for months seemed confined to the world of banking began to ripple out into the real world.

Source

Melting Finnish ice cave bodes ill for climate change

By Luna Finnsson

November 11 2008

In an alarming sign that global warming is an immediate and present reality, an ancient ice cave located at Lake Inari has melted this year for the first time in living memory. The cave, located on Finland’s island of Korkia-Maura has been a traditional Saami site for the summer storage of food such as fish and game for generations.

The Helsingin Sanomat newspaper has reported, however, that the ice cave has now melted into a pool of water. Finnish geologist Aimo Kejonen from the Geological Survey of Finland has been studying the ice cave for 20 years, and puts the blame for the surprise melt-off squarely on global warming.

“As a consequence of global warming, the cold reserves formed over the winter are smaller than before. The freezing mark on the wall appears to have come lower over the past few years,” Kejonen remarked.

The ice cave first formed during the Little Ice Age around 1,000 years ago. The cave is about three metres high and 15 metres long, and usually contains an ice layer up to two metres thick on its walls. The indigenous Saami people have long used the cave to keep their meat fresh as the ice remained intact in the summer.

Kejonen told Helsingin Sanomat that although the water in the cave’s pool will probably freeze again over the winter, it will also most likely melt again next spring. “It may be that the ice in the cave will thaw every year from now on,” he speculated.

Source

Published in: on November 12, 2008 at 7:04 am  Comments Off on Melting Finnish ice cave bodes ill for climate change  
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Iceland’s President Wants Lower Salaries

November 11 2008

President of Iceland Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has expressed his view that the salaries of the president and of other officials should be lowered in light of the current economic crisis facing Iceland.

President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. Copyright: Icelandic Photo Agency.

“I would celebrate such a decision made by Althingi [Iceland’s parliament] or the wage council [which’s decides the salaries for elected officials and other state employees] and I believe it should be made as soon as possible,” Grímsson told Fréttabladid.

Fréttabladid newspaper sent out a questionnaire to MPs and other officials, requiring whether they believed it was natural for the country’s highest-ranking officials to receive lower salaries like the general public has to live with during this economic recession.

Apart from the president, three MPs from the coalition parties and eight MPs from the opposition parties replied.

“If there will be a general cut in salaries it is natural that MPs will suffer it as much as everyone else,” said Gudlaugur Hannesson of the Social Democrats, who have a seat in Iceland’s government along with the Independence Party.

Source

Maybe they should do that all over the planet.


Published in: on November 12, 2008 at 6:52 am  Comments Off on Iceland’s President Wants Lower Salaries  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Iceland’s rescue package flounders

By David Ibison in Stockholm

November 12 2008

An international bail-out of crisis-hit Iceland appeared to be unravelling last night as the International Monetary Fund withheld official backing for the $6bn plan. Iceland has also been left with a $500m shortfall in the funds for the plan that it had hoped to raise from other international donors.

Iceland agreed a $2.1bn (€1.7bn, £1.4bn) loan with the IMF on October 24 that was due to be approved by its board last Tuesday but which was delayed until the following Friday, postponed again to Monday and has now been put back to an unknown date.

IMF approval is crucial as Sweden, Denmark and Norway have said they will only offer loans to Iceland once the IMF package and an associated economic stabilisation plan have been agreed by its board.

The delay at the IMF’s head office comes at the same time as Iceland has failed to raise the full sum it needs to stabilise its economy. A government official said: “There is a $500m gap.”

There are deep suspicions in Iceland that the UK government has put pressure on the IMF to delay the loan until a dispute over the compensation Iceland owes savers in Icesave, one of its collapsed banks, is resolved.

Össur Skarphédinsson, acting foreign minister and ministry for industry, told the Financial Times: “I spoke to representatives of the UK who said that before they could assist us they would have to have clarity on other outstanding issues. I was left in no doubt what they were talking about.”

No explanation for the delay has been provided by the IMF and Gordon Brown, prime minister, said yesterday that he supported the IMF loan.

A government spokesman said London had “in no way blocked the IMF’s loan to Iceland. In fact the UK government fully supports the IMF’s loan and looks forward to a swift resolution of this issue”.

However, Wouter Bos, Dutch finance minister, suggested there was a link between the IMF plan and compensation disputes with Iceland, which also involve the Netherlands. He told Dutch television that The Hague would oppose the IMF plan until their compensation dispute was resolved. “Luckily we have powerful allies as Britain and Germany have the same problem with Iceland,” he is reported to have said.

Iceland is seeking to make up the $500m shortfall with a loan from the US, Japan, Russia or China, but has not had a response to its appeal for help, the official said.

The IMF delay and the failure to raise the necessary funds has left Iceland unable to boost its foreign exchange reserves and unable to re-float its currency, undermining international confidence in its struggling economy after its banking system collapsed last month.

“Iceland is stuck in limbo. It clearly needs a new monetary and exchange rate framework, but it needs the IMF for that,” said Paul Rawkins, senior director at Fitch Ratings, the credit rating agency.

Source

Has IMF Not Received Formal Request from Iceland?

November 11 2008

The Swiss representative on the board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) claims the board has not received any formal request of assistance from Iceland, known as a letter of intent. Iceland’s Prime Minister says such a letter was sent one week ago.

“To this date, no formal request [from Iceland] has been received by the fund’s board,” the Swiss representative on the IMF board, Thomas Moser, wrote to Fréttabladid in an email yesterday, adding that Switzerland is generally positive towards assisting Iceland.

Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde. Copyright: Icelandic Photo Agency.

Iceland’s Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde told Fréttabladid that a letter of intent, signed by Iceland’s Minister of Finance Árni M. Mathiesen and Central Bank governor and chairman Davíd Oddsson, was sent to the IMF on November 3.

“I don’t know how this could be. There must be some kind of an in-house system which controls what documents are sent with express delivery to the board,” Haarde said, adding that the IMF is a large and unwieldy institution.


Haarde said that since the letter of intent was sent, Icelandic authorities have been expecting their request to be discussed by the board.

Icelandic authorities suspect that their dispute with Britain and the Netherlands in regards to the Icesave deposits may be the cause of the delay, although they are not certain of the matter. Haarde requests an explanation from the IMF board as to why Iceland’s letter of intent has not been discussed yet.

IMF’s decision on Iceland’s application for an emergency stabilization program has been postponed thrice, as reported yesterday.

Acting Foreign Minister Össur Skarphédinsson told RÚV that he is certain that British authorities were causing the delay. British authorities however claim that they support Iceland’s application from a loan from the IMF wholeheartedly.

A spokesperson from the British Chancellery, who was not named, told ruv.is, that Iceland could on the other hand not expect special treatment from the IMF. The fund’s regulations are very clear and state that applicants must have reached an agreement with their loan granters.

Fréttabladid reports that the agreement between Iceland and an the IMF which was presented in late October has at least 30 items, the 19th of which was increasing the policy rate to 18 percent, according to an announcement from the Central Bank.

Source

Published in: on November 12, 2008 at 6:37 am  Comments Off on Iceland’s rescue package flounders  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Afghan War Plans May Run Into Weary Public, Deficits

November 11 2008

Staff Sergeant Brendan Kearns went through urban combat training six months ago with the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division, preparing for a planned return to Iraq. In January, his brigade is heading to Afghanistan instead.

While Iraq has long dominated headlines, Afghanistan will demand more immediate attention, as President-elect Barack Obama becomes the first commander-in-chief since Richard M. Nixon in 1969 to take charge during wartime.

Intensifying violence is ramping up U.S. involvement, costing money and lives when America faces a record budget deficit and the public is weary of war. Backing off may allow al-Qaeda and the Taliban to return to power.

“The most pressing problem for the next president will be the Afghan-Pakistan conundrum,” says retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, lead author of the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual.

“A resurgent Taliban threatens stability and perhaps survival of the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s a nightmare scenario, and we may have reached a tipping point where the Taliban is winning.”

The Bush administration is reviewing its military and humanitarian strategy in Afghanistan and will offer recommendations to Obama’s transition team before he takes office Jan. 20.

Refocus Attention

On the campaign trail, the Illinois senator vowed to refocus attention there while pulling out most of the 152,000 troops in Iraq within 16 months. That’s becoming increasingly possible as deadly attacks have dropped dramatically since 2007, when President George W. Bush sent 30,000 additional U.S. troops.

The surge — along with the so-called Sunni awakening, in which tribes turned against al-Qaeda and formed U.S.-funded, government-allied militias — is credited with stabilizing the country. The Iraqi and U.S. governments have tentatively agreed on a phased withdrawal of American combat forces by 2011, subject to conditions.

Obama, 47, has said a “responsible drawdown” from Iraq would allow the U.S. to upgrade military equipment, pay for veterans’ care and redirect expenditures — which currently top $10 billion a month — to Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaeda leaders are believed to be operating along the porous border with Pakistan.

Funding Decisions

Deciding what the U.S. can afford to spend is complicated by the $700 billion the Treasury is using to rescue the financial system, which may push the federal budget deficit next year to more than $1 trillion, following a record $455 billion this year.

“I know there’s a lot of economic problems in the U.S.,” says Kearns, 40, who’s based at Fort Drum, New York, and has served in both wars. “But the military at this point doesn’t need its budgets cut. With seven years of war, there’s a lot of wear and tear on equipment and personnel.”

Meanwhile, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated, with a reconstituted and emboldened Taliban mounting more attacks on American forces. Neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan — threatened by domestic extremists, assassination attempts and a financial crisis — hasn’t been able to control border security in its autonomous tribal areas where militants take shelter.

General David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has asked for 20,000 more American troops next year; the 3,500-person 3rd Brigade Combat Team deploying in January from Fort Drum will be the tip of that spear.

Opium Production

The view of U.S., European and United Nations officials is that more foreign soldiers won’t be enough to save Afghanistan. The country needs a sustained international effort to shrink opium production, build roads and establish basic utilities including running water and electricity. The Afghan government, widely criticized as weak, corrupt and inefficient, needs to better deliver services and secure its territory.

Obama will face a balancing act with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which commands a force in Afghanistan that uses 13,000 of the 31,000 American troops now in the country. European leaders have made clear they aren’t keen on sending more soldiers into a widening war.

Still, there’s no doubt Afghanistan needs better security. In Iraq, there are 800,000 local, U.S. and international forces. In Afghanistan, there are at most 210,000 combined troops, and many of the Afghans lack training and equipment.

Clear, Hold, Build

“Classic counterinsurgency strategy is `Clear, Hold and Build’: You clear enemy forces, you hold the area, generally with the host nation’s security forces, and then you build a better society,” Nagl says. “In Afghanistan we have not had enough forces to hold and have not put proper emphasis on build. We’ve cleared the same towns over and over and over.”

Every time U.S. forces leave a village they have cleared without Afghan soldiers to take their place, “the Taliban comes back and they shoot people who worked with us in the head,” he says. “After the second or third time that happens, there aren’t enough people left to work with us.”

Analysts say the best solution would be to greatly expand the Afghan army, supported by U.S. military advisers, and enlist militias into something like the “Sons of Iraq,” which turned enemy forces into associates.

What worked in Iraq may not work in Afghanistan, however, where the terrain is rougher, the country poorer, corruption more visible and the insurgency more complicated because of hundreds of tribes — many living in autonomous territories along the Pakistan border.

Military Strikes

Obama has consistently said that if Pakistan fails to act against militants on its soil, he would support unilateral military strikes — something the Bush administration has already begun. In the past two months, Pakistan has accused the U.S. of launching 15 missile strikes in the Waziristan tribal area along its Afghan border, and late last month Islamabad lodged a formal protest.

Soldiers at Fort Drum say if they had the ear of the president-elect, they would tell him that while military involvement in Afghanistan is necessary, it isn’t sufficient.

“We need to focus on the basics: infrastructure, food, building roads and security,” says Captain Matthew Burnette, 29, who commands a Howitzer unit headed back to Afghanistan as Obama takes office. “If the three villages you’re working in are happy, they talk to each other, they talk to us, and the Taliban can’t take hold again.”

Source

JALALABAD, Afghanistan

February 15, 2001

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan — once the world’s largest producer — since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation’s largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.

“We are not just guessing. We have seen the proof in the fields,” said Bernard Frahi, regional director for the U.N. program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He laid out photographs of vast tracts of land cultivated with wheat alongside pictures of the same fields taken a year earlier — a sea of blood-red poppies.

A State Department official said Thursday all the information the United States has received so far indicates the poppy crop had decreased, but he did not believe it was eliminated.

Last year, Afghanistan produced nearly 4,000 tons of opium, about 75 percent of the world’s supply, U.N. officials said. Opium — the milky substance drained from the poppy plant — is converted into heroin and sold in Europe and North America. The 1999 output was a world record for opium production, the United Nations said — more than all other countries combined, including the “Golden Triangle,” where the borders of Thailand, Laos and Myanmar meet.

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader, banned poppy growing before the November planting season and augmented it with a religious edict making it contrary to the tenets of Islam.

The Taliban, which has imposed a strict brand of Islam in the 95 percent of Afghanistan it controls, has set fire to heroin laboratories and jailed farmers until they agreed to destroy their poppy crops.

The U.N. surveyors, who completed their search this week, crisscrossed Helmand, Kandahar, Urzgan and Nangarhar provinces and parts of two others — areas responsible for 86 percent of the opium produced in Afghanistan last year, Frahi said in an interview Wednesday. They covered 80 percent of the land in those provinces that last year had been awash in poppies.

This year they found poppies growing on barely an acre here and there, Frahi said. The rest — about 175,000 acres — was clean.

“We have to look at the situation with careful optimism,” said Sandro Tucci of the U.N. Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention in Vienna, Austria.

He said indications are that no poppies were planted this season and that, as a result, there hasn’t been any production of opium — but that officials would keep checking.

The State Department counternarcotics official said the department would make its own estimate of the poppy crop. Information received so far suggests there will be a decrease, but how much is not yet clear, he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“We do not think by any stretch of the imagination that poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has been eliminated. But we, like the rest of the world, welcome positive news.”

The Drug Enforcement Administration declined to comment.

No U.S. government official can enter Afghanistan because of security concerns stemming from the presence of suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden.

Poppies are harvested in March and April, which is why the survey was done now. Tucci said it would have been impossible for the poppies to have been harvested already.

The areas searched by the U.N. surveyors are the most fertile lands under Taliban control. Other areas, though they are somewhat fertile, have not traditionally been poppy growing areas and farmers are struggling to raise any crops at all because of severe drought. The rest of the land held by the Taliban is mountainous or desert, where poppies could not grow.

Karim Rahimi, the U.N. drug control liaison in Jalalabad, capital of Nangarhar province, said farmers were growing wheat or onions in fields where they once grew poppies.

“It is amazing, really, when you see the fields that last year were filled with poppies and this year there is wheat,” he said.

The Taliban enforced the ban by threatening to arrest village elders and mullahs who allowed poppies to be grown. Taliban soldiers patrolled in trucks armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers. About 1,000 people in Nangarhar who tried to defy the ban were arrested and jailed until they agreed to destroy their crops.

Signs throughout Nangarhar warn against drug production and use, some calling it an “illicit phenomenon.” Another reads: “Be drug free, be happy.”

Last year, poppies grew on 12,600 acres of land in Nangarhar province. According to the U.N. survey, poppies were planted on only 17 acres there this season and all were destroyed by the Taliban.

“The Taliban have done their work very seriously,” Frahi said.

But the ban has badly hurt farmers in one of the world’s poorest countries, shattered by two decades of war and devastated by drought.

Ahmed Rehman, who shares less than three acres in Nangarhar with his three brothers, said the opium he produced last year on part of the land brought him $1,100.

This year, he says, he will be lucky to get $300 for the onions and cattle feed he planted on the entire parcel.

“Life is very bad for me this year,” he said. “Last year I was able to buy meat and wheat and now this year there is nothing.”

But Rehman said he never considered defying the ban.

“The Taliban were patrolling all the time. Of course I was afraid. I did not want to go to jail and lose my freedom and my dignity,” he said, gesturing with dirt-caked hands.

Shams-ul-Haq Sayed, an officer of the Taliban drug control office in Jalalabad, said farmers need international aid.

“This year was the most important for us because growing poppies was part of their culture, and the first years are always the most difficult,” he said.

Tucci said discussions are under way on how to help the farmers.

Western diplomats in Pakistan have suggested the Taliban is simply trying to drive up the price of opium they have stockpiled. The State Department official also said Afghanistan could do more by destroying drug stockpiles and heroin labs and arresting producers and traffickers.

Frahi dismissed that as “nonsense” and said it is drug traffickers and shopkeepers who have stockpiles. Two pounds of opium worth $35 last year are now worth as much as $360, he said.

Mullah Amir Mohammed Haqqani, the Taliban’s top drug official in Nangarhar, said the ban would remain regardless of whether the Taliban received aid or international recognition.

“It is our decree that there will be no poppy cultivation. It is banned forever in this country,” he said. “Whether we get assistance or not, poppy growing will never be allowed again in our country.

Source

Caspian Region 1993 The Pipeline Debate

The Caspian Sea shelf is considered one of the largest sources of petroleum outside the Persian Gulf and Russia.


September 18, 2001

US ‘planned attack on Taleban’  In July 2001 well before 9/11

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By George Arney A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s attacks.

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.

Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place – possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.

Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place. He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.

Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.


May 13, 2002,

Afghanistan plans gas pipeline

The pipeline is Afghanistan’s biggest foreign investment project

Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.

Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan’s biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters.

“The work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck at the coming summit,” Mr Razim said.

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan’s former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.

The project was abandoned after the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999.

US company preferred

Mr Razim said US energy company Unocal was the “lead company” among those that would build the pipeline, which would bring 30bn cubic meters of Turkmen gas to market annually.

Unocal – which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea – has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

“Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects,” a spokesman told BBC News Online.

The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.

“The Afghan side assures all sides about the security of the pipeline and will take all responsibilities for it,” Mr Razim said.

Reconstructing

Afghanistan plans to build a road linking Turkmenistan with Pakistan parallel to the pipeline, to supply nearby villages with gas, and also to pump Afghan gas for export, Mr Razim said.

The government would also earn transit fees from the export of gas and oil and hoped to take over ownership of the pipeline after 30 years, he said.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been surveying routes for transferring local gas from northern Afghan areas to Kabul, and to iron ore mines at the Haji Gak pass further west.

“ADB will announce its conclusion soon,” Mr Razim said.

The pipeline is expected to be built with funds from donor countries for the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as ADB loans, he said.


May 30 2002,

Afghan pipeline given go-ahead

The leaders hope for future oil profits

The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan have agreed to construct a $2bn pipeline to bring gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent.

The project was abandoned in 1998 when a consortium led by US energy company Unocal withdrew from the project over fears of being seen to support Afghanistan’s then Taliban government. The President of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Nayazov, the chairman of Afghanistan’s interim administration Hamid Karzai and Pakistan’s President General Pervez Musharraf signed a memorandum of understanding in Islamabad on Thursday.

President Musharraf said the 1,500km pipeline would run from Turkmenistan’s Daulatabad gas fields to the Pakistani port city of Gwadar.

The Pakistani leader said once the project is completed, Central Asia’s hydrocarbon resources would be available to the international market, including East Asian and other far eastern countries.

Pakistan has plans to build a liquid-gas plant at the Gwadar port for export purposes.

Call for interest

The three countries have agreed to invite international tenders and guarantee funding before launching the project.

Unocal has repeatedly denied it is interested in returning to Afghanistan despite having conducted the original feasibility study to build the pipeline.

There is also a question mark over stability in Afghanistan, but interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai said peace was prevailing all over the country.

Afghan officials believe the pipeline could yield significant revenues for the impoverished country in the form of transit fees.

The pipeline could eventually supply gas to India.

President Musharraf also said he was committed to a proposed gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India as it was in his country’s economic interest.

Source

Timeline on Afghanistan

Published in: on November 11, 2008 at 10:14 am  Comments Off on Obama’s Afghan War Plans May Run Into Weary Public, Deficits  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bonuses for Wall Street Should Go to Zero, U.S. Taxpayers Say

By Christine Harper

November 11 2008

U.S. taxpayers, who feel they own a stake in Wall Street after funding a $700 billion bailout for the industry, don’t want executives’ bonuses reduced. They want them eliminated.

“I may not understand everything, but I do understand common sense, and when you lend money to someone, you don’t want to see them at a new-car dealer the next day,” said Ken Karlson, a 61-year-old Vietnam veteran and freelance marketer in Wheaton, Illinois. “The bailout money shouldn’t have been given to them in the first place.”

Compensation at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Citigroup Inc. and the six other banks that received the first $125 billion of the federal funds is under scrutiny by lawmakers, including Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, also a Democrat. President-elect Barack Obama cited the program at his first news conference on Nov. 7, saying it will be reviewed to make sure it’s “not unduly rewarding the management of financial firms receiving government assistance.”

While year-end rewards are likely to decline with a drop in revenue this year, industry veterans say that eliminating them risks driving away the firms’ most productive workers.

“There are instances where bonuses are justified, deserved, and in the best interests of the investment bank involved,” said Dan Lufkin, a co-founder of Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc., the investment bank acquired by Credit Suisse Group AG in 2000. “Your very best people are people you want to hold, and your very best people will have opportunities even in this environment to transfer allegiance.”

`Your Jaw Drops’

The companies, which set aside revenue throughout the year to pay bonuses, haven’t commented on plans for year-end awards, typically decided this month or next. A study released last week said the firms are likely to cut bonuses for top executives by as much as 70 percent.

“Even really sober people are saying this is the worst financial crisis since the Depression, and they’re saying bonuses are just going to be reduced?” said Patrick Amo, a 53-year-old retired merchant marine in Seattle. “Oh my God, you read that and your jaw drops.”

Wall Street firms’ pay has traditionally been tied closely to performance of the companies, which is why employees receive most of their compensation at the end of the year after final results are known. Depending on seniority and performance, bonuses for traders, bankers and executives can be a multiple of their salaries, which range from about $80,000 to $600,000.

Blankfein’s $67.9 Million

The nine banks that Waxman pressed to detail their bonus plans asked for more time to respond, according to his spokeswoman, Karen Lightfoot. She said they’ve been granted an additional two weeks. The original deadline was yesterday.

Goldman, the largest and most profitable U.S. securities firm in the world last year, paid Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein a record $67.9 million bonus for 2007 on top of his $600,000 salary. That was justified, he told shareholders at the company’s annual meeting in April, because of Goldman’s superior financial results.

“We’re very much a performance-related firm,” he said. “If those results don’t come in, I assure you at Goldman Sachs you won’t see that compensation.”

Goldman’s profit is down 47 percent so far this year and five analysts expect the company to report its first loss as a public company in the fourth quarter that ends this month. The stock price has dropped 67 percent this year and Goldman received $10 billion from the U.S. government in the bailout last month. Michael DuVally, a spokesman for Goldman Sachs in New York, declined to comment on the company’s plans for bonuses this year.

`Appalling’

“The executives in companies that get bailout money should have their base salaries reduced by 10 percent for 2009 and they should pay back a substantial portion of their 2007 bonuses to the government for the financial devastation they oversaw, fostered and, in some cases, directly caused,” said S. Woods Bennett, a 57-year-old lawyer in Baltimore. “Their sense of entitlement is appalling.”

In addition to Goldman, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, the companies that received the first round of money from the U.S. government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program were Merrill Lynch & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., State Street Corp. and Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Some needed the money more than others. Citigroup and Merrill haven’t been profitable since early last year. Earnings at each of the other firms, except Boston-based State Street, have been dropping.

`Money’s Money’

“Bonuses and severance packages will obsess the American public” and become “a humiliation and embarrassment,” said Arthur Levitt, a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and a board member of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News. “Compensation committees, believe me, are paying close attention to this.”

Several of the companies — including Citigroup and Wells Fargo — have said they won’t use federal funds to pay bonuses. That’s disputed by some, including former compensation consultant Graef Crystal.

“The argument of saying we’re not using the bailout money is just crap because money’s fungible, money’s money,” said Crystal, who writes the newsletter graefcrystal.com. “It exposes them to ridicule.”

A renegotiated government rescue for American International Group Inc., which was once the world’s largest insurance company, includes a freeze on the bonus pool for 70 top executives and imposes limits on severance benefits, the Treasury said in a statement yesterday. AIG’s bailout is separate for the $125 billion being invested in nine banks.

Economy Contracts

The bailout is only part of the reason that people object to Wall Street bonuses this year. The financial industry worldwide has taken more than $690 billion in writedowns and credit losses this year and cut more than 150,000 jobs, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

A decline in lending has caused the wider economy to contract: the U.S. gross domestic product shrank at a 0.3 percent annual pace in the third quarter, consumer spending fell at its fastest pace since 1980 and unemployment jumped to 6.5 percent, the highest since 1994.

“This is the real economy these vultures have wrecked once again,” said Leo Gerard, president of the Pittsburgh-based United Steelworkers, which represents 1.2 million active and retired members. “Workers are taking it on the chin through no fault of their own.”

Top Executives

“Please explain how miserable performance of biblical proportions warrants any bonuses, particularly using money from me the customer and taxpayer,” said Glenn Brown, 67, who recently retired after 21 years as a researcher in the department of surgery at Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston and as an adjunct assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. “I don’t understand how they can even conceive of doing that.”

“If these guys were so talented how did this problem happen anyway?” said Mark Whitling, 63, who works as the chief financial officer of a steel service company that employs 125 people in Eastern Ohio. “We don’t feel sorry for them.”

Attention is most focused on the top executives at the banks that are receiving federal money. They’ll have to take the steepest pay cuts because their pay is disclosed in proxy filings, according to Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, the compensation consulting firm that estimates bonuses will decline between 10 percent and 70 percent.

“I’d advise the CEO to say he can’t take anything if it’s one of these firms getting bailed out by the government,” said Crystal. “I think he’s just going to have to go down to just his salary.”

Pay or Lose

That’s probably not the case for employees whose pay isn’t disclosed, even those who get bonuses that exceed $1 million.

Both Johnson and Crystal say that top performers should receive bonuses this year or companies risk losing their best workers. Of about 600 people who responded to an online survey on the eFinancialCareers.com Web site, 46 percent said they would be unwilling to take any pay cut this year.

“You could build up, I would think, a lot of resentment on the part of people who say, `Look I did give my all this last year, and I know it’s been a bad year, but everything that was asked of me I accomplished and then some,”’ said Crystal. Eliminating bonuses across the board “could be very demoralizing in the long run and it could lose you some people.”

Larry Frank, a 60-year-old retired software company owner who lives in Ormond Beach, Florida, said he told his broker at Merrill Lynch that he would pull his money from the company if it paid the $6.7 billion it has set aside this year to pay bonuses. While he thinks top managers should suffer, he doesn’t think everybody should lose out on getting a bonus.

`Bunch of BS’

“Individual brokers, if they’re performing and their areas are profitable and they’re doing their job, I can’t see punishing them,” he said. “The CEO shouldn’t get anything.”

Still, other people say that all employees working at companies receiving bailout funds should pay the price.

“It’s crazy, it’s all one company, it’s the same thing,” said Scott Floyd, a 37-year-old marketing executive in Manhattan Beach, California. “For people to say the guys in the brokerage should get bonuses because they did well, but it was just the mortgage lending division that did terribly, that’s a bunch of BS.”

Amo, the retired ship captain in Seattle, said that since most financial companies are cutting jobs, they shouldn’t worry about paying bonuses to keep people from leaving.

“Where are they going to go? Don’t let the door hit you on your way out,” he said. “It’s not like it’s just one company — the entire Street is frozen.”

`Thumbing Their Noses’

Karlson, the Vietnam vet, said he thinks Wall Street executives are “thumbing their noses at the common people” if they pay themselves bonuses while people in the country are losing their homes.

“The rationale that they depend on their bonuses, come on, how are we supposed to relate to that?” he said. “You don’t get a bonus from your company if it doesn’t do a good job.”

Jim Beachboard, a 57-year-old lawyer in Little Rock, Arkansas, compared taking a bonus to “kind of like being on the Titanic.”

“It was supposed to be women and children first, so the guys that tried to jump in the lifeboats weren’t really looked upon with much kindness,” he said. “When you start thinking of this many tax dollars being injected into the system, I know there are all sorts of rationalizations and justifications that you can use to try to justify almost anything, but it’s just really in very poor taste.”

Taking a bonus isn’t something executives should be proud of, Beachboard added.

“My mother always told me, don’t ever do anything that you would be too ashamed to tell me about, and I thought, would they really want to tell their mother that?”

Source

Russia says IMF inadequate

November 10 2008

Russia’s finance minister reiterated Moscow’s call for reforming global financial institutions, saying in comments televised Monday that the International Monetary Fund was inadequate as a crisis manager.

Alexei Kudrin spoke ahead of a meeting of top international financial ministers Saturday in Washington to discuss the deepening global crisis.

Russia has proposed creating new international agencies to replace or take on some of the functions of existing ones, like the IMF or the World Bank. Moscow has said those organizations do not adequately represent some of the larger economies such as China and Russia.

“We are absolutely sure that today the current system of institutions used for crisis settlement, including the IMF, are inadequate,” said Kudrin in comments on the state-funded English language network Russia Today.

Kudrin called for a new agreement along the lines of the Maastricht Treaty, the 1992 treaty that paved the way for the euro, that would obligate nations to meet a certain set of budget and economic criteria in order to prevent new crises.

Russia has been hard hit by the global crisis, with economic growth forecasts slashed and its stock markets losing some two-thirds of their value since the start of the year.

The Kremlin has laid the bulk of the blame with the United States.

On Friday, a top Kremlin aide suggested the IMF’s role be reduced to that of an ordinary financial institution.

“The IMF should work as a bank, not as a project finance institution. It should not act as a manager in countries it lends to,” Arkady Dvorkovich told a news conference. “It should put forward financial conditions on loans, not political ones.”

Source

Well it seems this treaty didn’t exactly prevent the Financial Crisis.
But for what it’s worth. Take a look.

Maastricht Treaty

Published in: on November 11, 2008 at 7:52 am  Comments Off on Russia says IMF inadequate  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Government Gives Record Aid To AIG

In a record bailout of a private company, the government on Monday provided a new $150 billion financial-rescue package to troubled insurance giant American International Group, including $40 billion for partial ownership.

November 10 2008


The action, announced by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, was taken as it became increasingly clear that an original financial lifeline thrown to AIG in September would be insufficient to stabilize the teetering company. All told, the moves boost aid to the company to more than $150 billion. Fed officials, however, expressed confidence that the money would be repaid to taxpayers.

The $40 billion infusion comes from the recently enacted $700 billion financial bailout package. The government is buying preferred shares of AIG stock, giving taxpayers an ownership stake in the company. In turn, restrictions will be placed on executive compensation at the firm.

As part of the new arrangement, the Federal Reserve is reducing a $85 billion loan it had made available to AIG to $60 billion. The Fed also is replacing a separate $37.8 billion loan to the insurance company with a $52.5 billion aid package.

The actions were needed to “keep the company strong and facilitate its ability to complete its restructuring process successfully,” the Federal Reserve said.

And that would be good for the fragile U.S. economy, said White House press secretary Dana Perino.

The new package “will allow AIG to continue to restructure themselves in a way that will not hurt the overall economy. AIG is a large, interconnected firm,” she said.

If the company were to fail, it would wreak havoc on the country’s already ailing economic health, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke determined back in September when the government first moved to help AIG, Perino said.

Shares of AIG added 32 cents, or 15.2 percent, to $2.43 in early-afternoon trading. The company’s stock has traded between $1.25 and $62.30 in the past year.

It marked the first time money from the $700 billion bailout package Congress enacted last month has gone to any company other than a bank.

Struggling U.S. auto companies — General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler — have been pressing the government for more financial assistance. The money would be on top of the $25 billion in loans that Congress passed in September to help retool auto plants to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The Treasury Department, which is overseeing the bailout program, has promised to inject $250 billion into banks in return for partial ownership. The original notion behind the bailout package was to help financial institutions lend money more freely again, one of the main reasons the economy is in danger of getting stuck in a long and painful recession.

Until Monday, all of AIG’s bailout relief was coming from the Fed.

The Fed, earlier this year, said it would loan a total of $123 billion to AIG. The insurance company was later allowed to access another $20.9 billion through the Fed’s “commercial paper” program. That’s where the Fed is buying mounds of companies’ short-term debt often used for crucial day-to-day expenses, such as payrolls and supplies.

Monday’s restructuring provides AIG with easier terms on the original Fed loan. The new package reduces the interest rate AIG will pay and will extend the loan term to five years from two, reducing the need for AIG to sell off business lines and other assets at firesale prices to repay the government.

Under the new $52.5 billion package, the loans will last for six years. Through two new facilities, the Fed will fund the purchase of both residential mortgage-backed securities from AIG’s portfolio, and collateralized debt obligations, which are complex financial instruments that combine various slices of debt.

By taking these troubled assets off AIG’s balance sheet, it should take stress off the company, giving it more breathing room and helping to prevent future losses, Fed officials said. The Fed doesn’t believe it will suffer losses because it is hopeful the market for such distressed investments will recover as the economy and financial markets rebound.

AIG reported Monday that continued financial market turmoil resulted in a large third-quarter loss.

The New York-based company said it lost $24.47 billion, or $9.05 per share, after a profit of $3.09 billion, or $1.19 per share, a year ago.

Results included pretax losses of $18.31 billion tied to the declining value of AIG’s investment portfolio. They also were hurt by catastrophe losses and charges related to restructuring.

Excluding items, operating losses totaled $3.42 per share — missing analysts’ average loss estimate of 90 cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters.

In early October AIG said it would sell certain business units to pay off the $85 billion Fed loan. The company, however, said it plans to retain its U.S. property-and-casualty and foreign general insurance businesses. It also plans to keep an ownership interest in its foreign life-insurance operations.

AIG is a colossus on Wall Street and financial districts worldwide, with operations in more than 130 countries and $1 trillion in assets on its balance sheet.

Besides life, property and other insurance offerings, AIG provides asset-management services and airplane leases. Its myriad businesses are also linked to mutual funds, annuities and other retirement products held by millions of ordinary Americans.

But perhaps the biggest concern about AIG is the dizzying array of complex financial instruments it structured for commercial banks, investment banks and hedge funds around the globe — many of which were directly or indirectly linked to the value of U.S. mortgages.

Source

AIG Looting Continues

Banks Ripping off Credit Card Customers

Tommy Newsom was shocked when his bank nearly doubled his credit card interest rate this year, to 27%, for no apparent reason. A customer rep told him the law allowed the bank to do so, and that was all the justification it needed.

“I never missed a payment,” says Newsom, 63, of Mesquite, Texas, who owes about $5,000 on the card. “The bank is just looking for a reason to maximize profits.”

In recent years, banks have sharply raised interest rates and penalty fees on credit cards. As the economy tanks and banks’ mortgage-related losses balloon, some banks are stepping up such increases to boost revenue. Bearing the brunt are consumers for whom a jump in rates and fees can make it tougher to pay their bills at a time when household budgets already are being stretched.

A key driver behind this trend: securitization. From 2003 to 2007, seven of the largest issuers of credit cards packaged an increasing amount of card debt into securities and sold them off to investors, just as banks did with mortgages, a USA TODAY review of banking records found.

Selling off credit card debt has given banks a powerful incentive to raise card fees and penalties, according to interviews with dozens of industry analysts, academics and investment specialists.

Here’s why: When banks package and sell card debt, they pass along to investors some of the risk the debt will go bad. Yet, banks often get to pocket much of the profit from rate and fee increases on those accounts. Imposing higher fees on more accounts — without a comparable rise in risk — lets banks raise revenue and keep profits up, at customers’ expense.

Securitization has been a “major impetus” for banks to expand penalty fees and rates in recent years, says Adam Levitin, a Georgetown University law professor and card expert. Banks “have little to lose if they squeeze too hard (if consumers default), but a lot to gain if they can extract additional payments” from card users, he says.

Banks deny any link between securitization and rising penalties. They say fees are rising because of superior data-tracking tools that allow banks to draw precise profiles of card users. Banks can price debt fairly, officials argue, with riskier borrowers paying more, as they should.

“Securitization is a method of funding credit card loans,” says James Chessen, chief economist at the American Bankers Association. “Penalty fees and rates are entirely separate and completely avoidable.”

As the debate unfolds about whether — and how much — securitization drove up penalties, analysts are bracing for an acceleration in credit card losses. Already, delinquencies are at their highest point in six years. Defaults, triggered when banks give up on collecting bad loans, are rising rapidly, too.

By the end of 2009, banks are likely to write off a record amount — up to $96 billion, or about 10% — of all credit card debt, says Innovest Strategic Value Advisors, a research firm that was among the first to predict the mortgage meltdown. The credit card market is a fraction of the size of the mortgage world, but its collapse could threaten some issuers’ solvency and make it harder for others to absorb financial shocks, says Gregory Larkin, a senior analyst at Innovest.

“Mortgages were simply the first storm to make landfall,” Larkin says. “Credit cards are next.”

Experts worry that the $700 billion authorized by Congress to help stabilize financial markets will do little to solve the underlying problems.

“Securitization is an important economic tool,” says Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. “But when we saw the subprime (mortgage) meltdown occur, we started really looking at credit cards as the next crisis. We have to crack down on the abuses.”

Several bills in Congress, including Maloney’s Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights, seek to clamp down on hair-trigger fee and rate increases. The Federal Reserve has proposed limiting rate increases on existing debt and curtailing excessive fees for borrowers with marred credit.

Meanwhile, amid the slowdown of the securitization markets, Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., wants more restrictions on mortgage- and credit-card-backed securities. “We’re finding in retrospect that being able to securitize debt … weakens underwriting discipline,” Bair says. “Whether it’s credit cards or mortgages, this dynamic needs to be dealt with.”

A proposal by the Financial Accounting Standards Board could lead banks to keep more card debt on their balance sheets, and hold more capital in case those loans sour. Banks’ inadequate capital levels have prolonged the economic crisis, analysts say.

Reform is needed, says Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America, because many of the credit card practices under fire “have been fueled at least in part by securitization.”

A downward spiral

“Securitization,” he says, “has increased the willingness of credit card companies to offer riskier loans. And to compensate, they have moved to a business model that involves hitting consumers with very high — often unjustifiably high — rates and fees.”

Banks cite the destabilization of their industry as a reason regulators should refrain from cracking down on their ability to raise fees and interest rates as they wish.

Reforms would “clearly affect issuers’ profitability” at a time when they’re already struggling, says Mark Furletti, a lawyer at Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, which represents banks.

Banks also warn that restrictions would reduce investors’ appetite for card-backed securities. That, in turn, would force banks to cut back on card loans and raise credit costs, says the American Securitization Forum, which represents banks and investors.

Consumer advocates fear these arguments could sway regulators away from enacting strong measures to protect consumers from hair-trigger pricing. Proposed card reforms, while a good first step, won’t dismantle a system that is increasingly relying on punishing fee practices to boost profitability, advocates say.

“In a bad economy … consumers need more protection from unfair practices, not less,” says Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Already, a downward spiral is unfolding, banking analysts say, as more consumers, pushed over the edge by penalties, default on their credit card bills. Banks are pulling back on credit to risky card borrowers even as consumers’ access to other loans, including home equity, has dried up.

Revolving debt — most of it on credit cards — is soaring, topping $970 billion in September. The average household now owes $10,678 in credit card debt, up 29% from 2000, according to CardWeb.com, a research firm.

And more borrowers are paying their credit card bills before their mortgage bills, credit bureau data reveal, an alarming shift that suggests people are walking away from mortgages and using credit cards to get by.

Borrowers are also piling up card debt for other necessities.

Newsom, for example, began relying heavily on his Bank of America credit card after $25,000 in health costs depleted his savings. As his card balance climbed, Bank of America almost doubled his rate even though he regularly paid above the minimum and did so on time.

“I’m still managing,” says Newsom, an energy company manager. “But it’s tough.”

Bank of America declined to comment on Newsom’s case but says it “regularly assesses the risk profile of accounts.” If the bank decides to raise a customer’s rate, it will notify the customer first and give him or her the chance to “opt out” and pay off the card balance at the existing rate, bank spokeswoman Betty Riess says.

Banking specialist Levitin says credit cards have become “the drip pan of the economy,” a short-term fix that merely delays a day of reckoning for many people and makes their crisis all the more ruinous once it arrives.

Rising rates and fees

Bank One helped pioneer credit card securitization in 1986, when it packaged $50 million in debt and issued securities linked to them. In doing so, it tapped a funding source that financial institutions had previously used mainly for home and car loans.

Other banks followed. They sold card-backed securities to pension funds, hedge funds and other investors. Today, nearly half the nation’s household revolving debt is securitized via major banks.

Among large card issuers, Bank of America, Citigroup, Discover and Washington Mutual securitized more than half their outstanding credit card debt last year. JPMorgan Chase — which acquired Washington Mutual in September — securitized nearly half its card debt and American Express close to a third. Capital One sold off almost three quarters of its portfolio.

Outstanding card debt securitized by Capital One, Washington Mutual, Bank of America, Citigroup, Discover, JPMorgan Chase and American Express has doubled since 2003, hitting nearly $400 billion in 2007. Investor demand for securitized card debt has slowed with the economy, but not disappeared.

Securitization has helped large banks expand their dominance of the card market, says Arthur Wilmarth, a law professor at George Washington University. That, in turn, has given banks the “market power to charge such high fees to consumers.”

As securitization ballooned, banks also won legal battles that gave them greater leeway to set credit card rates and fees. They’ve replaced cards with fixed rates and few fees with those carrying multiple rates and a variety of charges, such as phone-payment fees, balance-transfer fees and late and over-the-limit fees.

From January 2003 to December 2007, the average late fee charged by large card issuers rose 17%, to $35.24, and the average fee charged to those who spend beyond their credit limits surged 23%, to $26.88, according to CardWeb.com.

Late and over-the-limit fees have grown at a “remarkably similar” pace to the growth of securitized credit card balances, Levitin says. Such fees have boosted banks’ profits. In 2007, lenders collected a record $18.1 billion in credit card penalty fees, up 69% from 2003, according to R.K. Hammer, a consulting firm. Fee income is likely to rise another 5.5% this year as people struggle to pay bills and get hit with more late fees, Hammer says.

Ken Clayton of the American Bankers Association notes that users who abide by terms of their loans pay no penalties. He contends that securitization has allowed banks to meet growing demand for cards, resulting in a “lower cost for consumers and more access to credit for everyday Americans.”

Yet, while the average interest rate has fallen from 18.2% in 1990 to 14.7% in 2007, those who pay late or exceed the credit limit — even once — can be hit with far higher rates, up to 32%.

The average card rate has declined only “because banks have figured out (other ways) to get their revenues,” says Duncan MacDonald, a former group counsel at Citigroup. “These guys have figured out how to deconstruct pricing.”

Rising demand for credit card securities enabled banks to become more innovative in raising rates and fees, says Nomi Prins, who formerly ran a Bear Stearns group that analyzed securitized consumer debt.

“As long as investor demand grew for credit card collateral embedded with these fees and higher rates, issuers knew they had a place” to offset their risk and boost their profits, says Prins, now a senior fellow at Demos.

Securitization gives banks “more of the upside with less of the downside,” agrees Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor. If a bank that sells off card debt doubles a borrower’s interest rate, it will typically keep most of the profits from this increase — yet, may not bear all the exposure if the account later defaults.

Vernon Wright, former chief financial officer at MBNA, now part of Bank of America, says that selling off credit card debt doesn’t give an issuer more incentive to raise card fees than if it held the loans on its books.

Banks may raise rates and fees if card defaults rise because these profits will be “part of the cash flow that’s going to make up for the losses,” says Wright, regarded as the “grandfather” of credit card securitization.

But the banks would do so, he adds, whether or not they sell off debt.

Indiscriminate lending

Tom Deutsch of the American Securitization Forum, a trade group for banks and investors, argues that by spreading the risk to investors, securitization has become “one of the largest reasons why credit is available to borrowers in low-income, minority neighborhoods.”

But experts say card securitization led banks to offer too much credit, too fast, to too many, similar to what happened in the mortgage world.

Patrick Sargent, a partner at Andrews Kurth law firm, says that banks wanted to get as many cards securitized as possible. To do so, he says, they expanded lending indiscriminately.

“They were being too flip with underwriting,” says Sargent, whose firm worked on some of the first card-securitization deals.

As securitization took off in the 1990s and boomed in the 2000s, banks’ card mailings to households with less than $50,000 in income also surged, peaking in 2001 at a record 2.1 billion offers, compared with 1.2 billion offers five years before, according to Synovate Mail Monitor.

Lower-income consumers who carry a balance can be more profitable for banks than other borrowers.

A 2006 Demos study reveals that households with incomes below $25,000 are twice as likely to pay credit card rates of more than 20% than those earning $50,000 and five times more likely to pay such rates than those earning $100,000. Lower-income, single and minority borrowers were also more likely to pay late fees than others were.

“When you have higher risk, you have to charge more, which is what investors (in credit card securities) demand,” says Michael Brosnan, a deputy comptroller at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates national banks.

Yet, in a society where credit has become a necessity rather than a luxury, many people who can ill afford it are now paying high rates on debt swollen with penalty fees.

Tim Bellamy, 35, of Grove City, Ohio, says he opened a card account in 2005 with the best of intentions: to fix a credit record marred by a bankruptcy filing.

Card offers poured in. He racked up $5,000 in card debt after his girlfriend lost her job and he had to pay the couple’s bills. Eventually, he fell behind on card payments. The banks increased his rates and tacked on hundreds of dollars in fees.

“It’s my fault I got in this problem, and I understand that banks need to make money,” Bellamy says. “But they are ruthless.”

Contributing: Mike Bondi

Source

Charging more interest puts the customer at a higher risk of going Bankrupt.

Seems the ones who can afford it the least always have to pay the most.

So I am guessing when the credit card market fails they will have some feeble excuse like it was the customers fault, when in fact they drove customers to the bankruptcies.

32% is hyway robbery.

Seems more like they are borrowing money from the MOB.

Now tell me again why is American great because I just don’t see it?

IT Looks more like a den of theives to me.

Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights

Citigroup in Talks to Buy a Bank

[Vikram Pandit]

November 10 2008

Less than a month after walking away from Wachovia Corp., Citigroup Inc. is in discussions to acquire another U.S. bank, according to people familiar with the situation.

The target’s name couldn’t be determined, but it is a regional bank that overlaps geographically with Citigroup’s retail-banking unit, which has its highest concentration of branches in the Northeast, California and Texas. A deal could be reached later this month, the people said.

With Wachovia racing to complete its purchase by Wells Fargo & Co., any acquisition by Citigroup could feel like a consolation prize, because none of the remaining sellers among U.S. banks comes close to Wachovia in size.

The fallout from that deal has added to tensions between Citigroup executives and directors, according to people familiar with the matter. Some board members have felt they weren’t sufficiently kept in the loop, while some executives groused that directors are trying to wield too much clout, people familiar with the matter say. A Citigroup spokeswoman declined to comment.

Some insiders say an acquisition would pump up morale at Citigroup and ease the embarrassment of the Wachovia mess.

Beyond that, the renewed takeover efforts show that Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit is determined to secure a deeper base of deposits tied to the world’s largest economy. Such deposits are relatively cheap and a reliable funding source that makes them even more attractive as turmoil continues to swirl through the capital markets.

After Citigroup’s U.S. deposit levels declined slightly in the third quarter, the company has been trying to lure new accounts by offering unusually high interest rates on certificates of deposit.

Another reason why Mr. Pandit wants Citigroup to bulk up in the U.S.: As the financial crisis ricochets around the world, Citigroup’s vast global network is becoming yet another source of pain for a company that has piled up net losses of $20.25 billion in the past four quarters.

Last month, Citigroup reported a surprising leap in third-quarter losses on loans in Brazil, India and Mexico, while warning that deteriorating conditions in Colombia, Greece, Italy, Japan, Spain and elsewhere were possible harbingers of rising consumer defaults. The New York company’s sizable operations in economies that have been relatively unscathed by the financial crisis, such as Argentina and Turkey, also could be vulnerable.

“It’s going to get a lot worse everywhere,” says David Trone, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton. Citigroup is the U.S. bank most heavily exposed to havoc in emerging markets, he adds.

Executives at Citigroup say any losses outside the U.S. will be manageable. They say the bank is in much better shape than it would have been had it plowed deeper into U.S. real-estate loans.

“I’d take the emerging-markets position any day of the week,” Gary Crittenden, Citigroup’s chief financial officer, said in an interview.

Citigroup does business in 106 countries on six continents. Its closest rival, HSBC Holdings PLC, operates in 85 countries. U.S.-based J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo exceed Citigroup in stock-market value but have little or no international retail presence.

Overall, Citigroup gets about half its revenue from outside the U.S. Around the world, Citigroup offers retail banking, credit cards and wealth-management services to consumers, while providing corporate clients with investment banking, cash management and transaction processing.

Since taking over last December, Mr. Pandit has been eager to push even deeper into emerging markets. To overcome the lack of credit bureaus and other infrastructure that banks rely on in the U.S. and Western Europe to guide lending decisions, Citigroup uses a credit-scoring system that it built.

As the rest of the world is afflicted by economic woes, Citigroup’s method will be tested. “You’re underwriting more on judgment than on facts and science,” says Mr. Trone of Fox-Pitt Kelton.

Citigroup responds that its credit models have been honed for decades and are among the most sophisticated in the world. Still, rising defaults on international consumer loans are inevitable, the bank acknowledges. In the third quarter, Citigroup suffered losses on 4.5% of its international consumer loans, compared with a 3.9% rate in the U.S.

“There will be increasing credit costs across the globe,” Mr. Crittenden says. “But the magnitude hopefully will be muted by the fact that our customer base is upscale.”

Citigroup says it has socked away enough reserves to absorb 10 months of non-U.S. loan defaults. Still, William Rhodes, a senior vice chairman at Citigroup, has said that a bailout of emerging economies by the International Monetary Fund is needed to avoid a “firestorm.”

Since losing out on Wachovia and taking a hard look at Washington Mutual Inc. before the Seattle company’s failed banking operations were sold to J.P. Morgan in September, Citigroup has been fortified with $25 billion in taxpayer-funded capital from the Treasury Department.

That makes it easier for Citigroup to pursue another U.S. bank, though some lawmakers have complained that federal infusions should be funneled into loans, not acquisitions.

Source

They socked away $25 billion in US taxpayers money alright.

Citigroup was one of those banks. Considering their Financial woes one has to wonder who’s money they will use if they buy another bank?

What bailed-out banks spend on lobbying

Using bailout funds for bonuses, dividends and acquisitions illegal

Published in: on November 10, 2008 at 8:21 am  Comments Off on Citigroup in Talks to Buy a Bank  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

World Bank offers Nigeria fresh $3bn loan

By Everest Amaefule, Abuja

Nov 10 2008

The World Bank has offered Nigeria the opportunity of a fresh loan of $3bn to improve on its infrastructure.

The window of opportunity is open between 2009 and 2011, according to a senior official of the bank, Mr. Simeon Ehui, who spoke when a group of foreign journalists and alumni of the International Institute of Journalism, led by Head of the institute, Mr. Astrid Kohl, visited the bank on Saturday.

Ehui, who represented the Country Director of the bank, Mr. Onno Ruhl, said the country was eligible to get $3bn to support development projects and eradicate poverty as a result of improvement in the economy.

The meeting was also attended by the Chief Economist of the World Bank Office in Nigeria, Mr. Volker Treichel, and Senior Communications Officer, Mr. Obadiah Tomohdet.

According to Ehui, “The $3bn for three years is a concessionary loan with zero interest rate. It will not add any burden to Nigeria. The loan has been offered to Nigeria because of the massive improvement in the economy.

“As at 1994, there was no commitment by the bank in Nigeria. But the World Bank’s commitment in Nigeria has grown since 1999 to $2.2bn in 2006 and over $2.5bn currently. The improvement in the bank’s commitment in Nigeria over the years is not by chance. It is as a result of improved governance and economic performance.”

The senior bank official explained that the loan was tied to several developmental projects, including education, health, roads, and agriculture, adding that it was an International Development Association concessionary loan with no interest rate apart from administrative charges.

He also noted that Africa now had an additional seat on the World Bank board but added that the country or region that would take the slot was being finalised.

Speaking at the event, the World Bank chief economist said Nigeria’s double-digit growth target was realisable, but urged the Federal Government to address the power problem in the country.

Meanwhile, the bank in its “World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography”, released on Friday, said policies that facilitated geographic concentration and economic integration, both within and across countries, as well as within the global economy, would promote long-term growth in Africa.

According to the Director of the report, Mr. Indemit Gill, growth does not come to every place at once, with markets favouring some places over others.

To encourage prosperity, he said, governments should facilitate the geographic concentration of production, rather than fight it. But they must also institute policies that would make the provision of basic needs – schools, security, streets, and sanitation – more universal, he added.

The report noted that sub-Saharan Africa today faced the triple challenges of low density or scarce and scattered populations; long distances between remote areas and centres of economic activity; and deep divisions in national, religious, and ethnic terms.

Source

Published in: on November 10, 2008 at 7:55 am  Comments Off on World Bank offers Nigeria fresh $3bn loan  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ranieri Becomes Victim of Crisis as Franklin Bank Corp. Seized

By Ari Levy

November 8 2008

Update 1

Lewis Ranieri, who helped create the mortgage-securities market in the 1980s while at Salomon Brothers Inc., became a victim of its collapse after his Houston-based bank was seized.

Franklin Bank Corp., formed by Ranieri in 2002, was taken over by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and its deposits handed over to Prosperity Bank, the FDIC said in an e-mailed statement yesterday. The failed bank’s 46 offices will open as branches of Prosperity, the FDIC said.

Ranieri, 61, a former Salomon Brothers vice chairman, formed Franklin in 2002 and over the next four years expanded the bank’s lending operations. While Franklin avoided the subprime mortgage market, his firm was burned by loans to builders in California, Arizona, Florida and Michigan, where foreclosures are among the highest in the U.S. In November 2006 and again a year later, he predicted the market would get worse.

“The subprime crisis has spread to other sectors of the housing market,” Ranieri said in a conference call a year ago. It’s “having a significant effect on housing and builders.”

Franklin and Security Pacific Bank of Los Angeles became the 18th and 19th U.S. banks seized this year amid the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression. Franklin’s $3.7 billion in deposits were assumed by Prosperity, and Security Pacific’s $450.1 million in deposits are now controlled by San Diego-based PacWest Bancorp. All deposits from both banks are still insured, the FDIC said.

Banks Closing

Regulators this year have closed the most banks since 1993, and the collapses of Washington Mutual Inc. and IndyMac Bancorp Inc. were among the biggest in history. The housing slump and tight credit led to a $700 billion bank-rescue plan, and the U.S. Treasury is using the fund to buy $250 billion in preferred shares in banks to boost capital.

In May, Ranieri replaced Anthony Nocella as chief executive officer after accounting errors related to real-estate loans. Alan Master was promoted to CEO in August, freeing Ranieri to try to raise money. That month, the company said it expected a $102.5 million second-quarter loss following $87 million in total losses the previous two periods.

In building Franklin, Ranieri enlisted Nocella among five former executives of Bank United Corp., later sold to WaMu, to run the bank. Ranieri took the bank public in 2003 at $14.50 a share, and the stock peaked at $21.88 in October 2006. Franklin shares tumbled 33 percent to 26 cents yesterday.

Franklin’s Decline

Franklin lost more than three-fourths of its market value during 2007 as bad home and commercial loans doubled. Ranieri said in December 2006 at an industry conference that investors in mortgage-backed bonds had no idea of the risks they were taking. Worldwide credit losses and writedowns linked to the mortgage meltdown have swelled to $688 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Ranieri’s assistant said he wasn’t available for comment yesterday.

“The residential side was not their problem, it was clearly the commercial side,” said David Lykken, co-founder of Mortgage Banking Solutions, an Austin, Texas-based consulting firm. “The reason it took a little longer is because that trailed residential,” he said yesterday in an interview.

Prosperity, of El Campo, Texas, will assume Franklin’s deposits, including brokered deposits, at a 1.7 percent premium. Prosperity will purchase $850 million of assets and the FDIC will retain the rest for later disposition, according to the statement. The FDIC estimates the transaction’s costs to its insurance fund will be $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion.

Pacific Western agreed to assume Security Pacific’s deposits at a 2 percent premium and buy $51.8 million of assets, with the FDIC keeping the rest. Security Pacific is the third California bank to close this year, after IndyMac and First Heritage Bank.

Cost of Failures

The FDIC oversees 8,451 institutions with $13.3 trillion in assets, and insures deposits of up to $250,000 per depositor per bank and the same amount for some retirement accounts. The agency has proposed doubling premiums charged to banks for coverage, to replenish its reserves amid agency forecasts that bank failures through 2013 will cost almost $40 billion.

The FDIC in August said 117 banks were classified as “problem” in the second quarter, a 30 percent jump from the first quarter. The agency, which doesn’t name “problem” lenders, will update its assessment this month.

“Banks overall are very well capitalized,” FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair told the Senate Banking Committee on Oct. 23. “We have some banks with some challenges, but the vast majority are well capitalized.”

The U.S. closed 27 banks from October 2000 through the end of last year, according to a list at fdic.gov.

Source

The Federal Reserve Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Identify Bank Loans

By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald

November 10 2008

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

“The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that’s a big problem,” said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. “In a liquid market, this wouldn’t matter, but we’re not. The market is very nervous and very thin.”

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

“It’s your money; it’s not the Fed’s money,” said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. “Of course there should be transparency.”

Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn’t respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.

The Fed’s lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan — without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.

$2 Trillion

Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank’s purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.

The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the “lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,” according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.

`We Need Transparency’

The legislation didn’t require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used “when appropriate.” In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.

At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets under the TARP program.

“We need oversight,” Paulson told lawmakers. “We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.”

At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. “Transparency is a big issue,” he said.

Banks Resist Disclosure

The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks, which gave the Fed collateral in the form of equities and debt, including subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed web site. The borrowers have included the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Banks oppose any release of information because it might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group.

“You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,” Talbott said. “Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.”

Frank Backs Fed

The nation’s biggest banks, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on whether they have borrowed money from the Fed. They received $120 billion in capital from the TARP, which was signed into law Oct. 3.

In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed’s disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.

“I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they’re OK,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. “If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that’s regrettable.” Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.

Frank said the Fed shouldn’t reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of “delicacy with respect to pricing.” He said such disclosure would “give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.” He wouldn’t say why he thought that information would be problematic.

`Unclog the Market’

Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D’Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc.

“I’d love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,” D’Vari said. “That would unclog the market very quickly.”

TARP’s $700 billion so far is being used to buy preferred shares in banks to shore up their capital. The program was originally intended to hold banks’ troubled assets while markets were frozen.

The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists “are central to understanding and assessing the government’s response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.”

AIG Lending

The Fed has lent at least $81 billion to American International Group Inc., the world’s largest insurer, so that it can pay obligations to banks. The central bank is also responsible for losses on a $26.8 billion portfolio guaranteed after Bear Stearns Cos. was bought by JPMorgan.

“As a taxpayer, it is absolutely important that we know how they’re lending money and who they’re lending it to,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia- based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Ultimately, the Fed will have to remove some securities held as collateral from some programs because the central bank’s rules call for instruments rated below investment grade to be taken back by the borrower and marked down in value. Losses on those assets could then be written off, partly through the capital recently injected into those banks by the Treasury.

Moody’s Investors Service alone has cut its ratings on 926 mortgage-backed securities worth $42 billion to junk from investment grade since Sept. 14, making them ineligible for collateral on some Fed loans.

The Fed’s collateral “absolutely should be made public,” said Mark Cuban, an activist investor, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and the creator of the Web site BailoutSleuth.com, which focuses on the secrecy shrouding the Fed’s moves.

Source

The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Well my take on this is the taxpayers have every right to know where their money is going.

They have the right to know every detail and they have to the right know where every bit of it is going right down to the last penny.

The Federal Reserve in my opinion should be eliminated pure and simple. This type of action re-enforces that thought.

I wouldn’t trust the Federal Reserve as far as I could throw them.

They are just a Private Profiteering Bank. Who I might add were in part responsible for the crisis in the first place.

Considering the “world wide crisis” they above all should be transparent.

So now we all have to wonder about their dirty secrets. They should be forced to divulge this information. Where is the accountability?

The Bush Legacy lives on.

I don’t know about the rest of the World but I for one want to know the truth.

Counties around the World are now being forced to get loans from the IMF or The World Bank which in my opinion aren’t to be trusted either.

The federal Reserve care nothing about the tax payers obviously or who they have hurt.

Their lobby groups were in great part also responsible for the problems now facing many countries as well as the American people.

In Pakistan -Sherpao seeks parliamentary debate on IMF loan issue

November 10 2008

PESHAWAR: Pakistan People’s Party-Sherpao (PPP-S) Chairman Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao said on Sunday that International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan issue should be debated at length in Parliament before taking loan from the IMF.

Addressing a press conference at his Peshawar residence after a party meeting, Sherpao said that economic crisis had further worsened due to deteriorating law and order situation in the country, necessitating an in-depth discussion in Parliament on the IMF loan before the government took a final decision on taking loan from the IMF.

The PPP-S leader said Pakistan should give a befitting replying to those attacking sovereignty, integrity and solidarity of the country. Sherpao demanded that 14-point resolution passed by Parliament after a joint in-camera session should be implemented.

Though the whole world is facing financial crisis, Pakistan is suffering from the worst one than other countries, Sherpao said.

He said that he was not invited to Pak-Afghan Jirga held recently in Islamabad. However, he added, such jirgas were useful for both the countries. He said more jirgas should be held to restore peace in the region.

Earlier, the PPP-S meeting condemned US missile attacks on the Pakistani territory, including Waziristan. staff report

Source

Published in: on November 10, 2008 at 5:57 am  Comments Off on In Pakistan -Sherpao seeks parliamentary debate on IMF loan issue  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Coalition divided on Dutch Congo role


November 7 2008

The coalition parties are divided on the position foreign affairs minister Maxine Verhagen should take on sending European troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo where thousands have fled their homes fearing violence from rebel militias.

Labour and the orthodox Christian CU party want the minister to push for European troops to be deployed as part of the UN mission in Congo, reports ANP news service. But the senior coalition Christian Democrats feel the Netherlands should not get involved if it is not prepared to provide troops itself.

The Netherlands cannot offer military support for Congo as it already has soldiers serving in Chad and Afghanistan, says ANP.

Source

Published in: on November 10, 2008 at 5:36 am  Comments Off on Coalition divided on Dutch Congo role  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Dutch, British block IMF loan to Iceland – NRC


November 7 2008

The Netherlands and Britain are blocking a €2.1bn loan from the International Monetary Fund to Iceland pending agreement on compensation for Dutch and British savers, the NRC reports on Friday.

The paper says Icelandic MPs were told at a meeting in Brussels that the loan would not be approved until the financial aspects of compensating hundreds of thousands of savers has been worked out.

Sources at the Dutch finance ministry have confirmed the veto off the record but refuse to comment officially. Nor would British officials comment, the paper says.

Yesterday, Iceland’s prime minister Geir Haarde said that the IMF loan and the repayment agreement were ‘two separate issues which should not be linked,’ the paper said.

Dutch savers have some €1.6bn on deposit at Icesave which they cannot access.

Meanwhile, the conflict between the government, the province of Noord-Holland and 22 local councils over their claims against Iceland escalated on Friday. In total, local governments have some €400m in Icesave.

Finance mnister Wouter Bos and the queen’s commissioner in Noord-Holland have been embroiled in a public spat over the province’s determination to go it alone in trying to recover its money.

On Friday home affairs minister Guusje ter Horst said the government had used a royal decree to annul local government claims to Landsbanki property abroad. ‘Their behaviour is hindering the difficult and complex discussions with the Icelandic government,’ she said.

Source

Maybe Iceland should just declare bankruptcy.

Seems all the way around things just are getting more ridiculous.

All the banks have being going through the same thing but it seems Iceland is really being hung out to dry.

Of course I have little or no trust when it comes to the IMF at any rate.

Maybe not getting a loan from them is a “good thing”.

There certainly seems to be a lot of manipulation going on when it comes to Iceland.

A few tid bits.

Iceland to Receive Unexpected Loan from Poland

Norwegian loan to Iceland confirmed

Iceland lifts interest rates to record 18% to secure IMF $2bn loan

Iceland Registers Complaint about Britain to NATO

Unbowed Icelandic PM sends a strong message to UK

Iceland ‘working day and night’

UK Government ‘ignored Iceland warning’/ Charities may lose

The worst of all was being treated as a Terrorist country.

Browns actions have not helped in any way.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has condemned Iceland’

Published in: on November 10, 2008 at 5:17 am  Comments Off on Dutch, British block IMF loan to Iceland – NRC  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

British troops ‘cannot bear brunt of Barack Obama’s Afghanistan surge’

British troops must not be sent in support of US President-Elect Barack Obama’s planned “surge” in Afghanistan, the head of the armed forces has said.

By Rosa Prince

November 9 2008

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, warned that the British military was already over-stretched, and suggested that troops from other Nato countries should be sent to fight.

Mr Obama has spoken of his desire to see a surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan, similar to that which appears to have had success against extremists in Iraq, to finally quell the Taliban insurgency.

But Sir Jock said that British troops were already struggling to cope with fighting in the two theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan, and could not take on more demands.

His words were echoed by David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, who agreed that other Nato countries should take responsibility for any fresh surge in Afghanistan.

Both men also ruled out sending British troops to the Congo to bolster the United Nations force in central Africa.

There are currently 8,100 military personnel serving Afghanistan, with another 4,100 in Iraq due to withdraw by the middle of next year.

Sir Jock said that they should not be redeployed to Afghanistan once their mission in Iraq ended, adding: “I am a little nervous when people use the word ‘surge’ as if this were some sort of panacea.

“We welcome more military force being sent to Afghanistan. Everybody needs to do their share, we are very clear on that.

“In the context of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are shouldering a burden which is more than we are able to shoulder in the long term, so we expect the others to take up their share of that burden.”

Appearing with Sir Jock on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Miliband was asked if Mr Obama’s proposed surge would require an increase in the size of Britain’s commitment there.

He said: “Not necessarily, no. As the second-largest contributor of troops in Afghanistan, the first thing we say is that we don’t want to bear an unfair share of the burden.”

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, also warned that Britain was already making a “disproportionate contribution” to the Nato effort in Afghanistan.

He told Sky News’ Sunday Live: “We do need the rest of Nato to play its part in Afghanistan and undoubtedly it seems that Barack Obama does intend to send larger US forces and that is part of what is necessary in Afghanistan.

“We would all take some persuading that there would have to be a much larger British contingent there – there’s already a very large British contingent.”

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said that the Government should talk to Iranian and Taliban leaders in order to find lasting resolutions to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He added: “Negotiation with both the Taliban and Iran may be unpalatable, but it is the only route to success, and if it doesn’t happen now it will be too late.”

Source

Published in: on November 10, 2008 at 4:38 am  Comments Off on British troops ‘cannot bear brunt of Barack Obama’s Afghanistan surge’  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Latvia mulling IMF loan as crisis sweeps Nordic region

November 9 2008

Latvia has been forced to bail out its second largest bank over the weekend and may soon need a rescue by the International Monetary Fund as the financial crisis engulfs the Baltic region, and much of Scandinanvia.

Premier Ivars Godmanis stunned the country by announcing that Parex banka had been half-nationalised in an attempt to head off a serious crisis in the face of escalating capital flight from the country.

“We have to do everything to avoid trouble, not only for specific banks, but for the banking system as a whole,” he said.

Mr Godmanis said Latvia was examining a raft of measures to rescue the economy, including possible aid from the IMF and European Union. Iceland, Hungary, and Ukraine have already obtained loans for the IMF.  Iceland awaits IMF decision on Monday

Latvia is facing a brutal recession after years of torrid credit growth and one of the most extreme property bubbles in Eastern Europe. The economy contracted by 4.2pc in the third quarter.

House prices have fallen 21pc over the last year, according to Global Property Guide. The swing from boom to bust has been made worse by heavy use of mortgages in euros, Swiss francs, and yen.

The rating agencies have rushed through a spate of downgrades in recent days for the Baltic trio of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, warning that heavily reliance on short-term foreign funding has left them dangerously exposed to the global squeeze.

“If the situation were to worsen, Latvia could be forced to seek balance-of-payments support from the EU or the International Monetary Fund,” said Kenneth Orchard, senior analyst at Moody’s

“The global liquidity crisis will probably cause a shock to the Latvian banking system, which will reverberate throughout the rest of the economy. Unless there are major improvements in the European syndicated loan market by early 2009, the government will be forced to take remedial action.”

Oskars Firmanus, head of the Latvian consultancy Paus Konsults, said the Parex rescue had badly shaken depositors in Riga. “It has come as a big surprise. The bank has been very secretive and did not tell anybody there was a problem. People have been lining on the streets over the weekends trying to get their money out of ATM machines,” he said.

Swedish banks have large exposure to the Baltic market, adding to their woes as the industrial downturn hits Scandinavia.

The IMF warned in a recent report that the Baltic operations of Stockholm’s banks “could cause a credit crunch in Sweden itself” if the closure of the wholesale capital markets continues for much longer. Total lending to Eastern Europe by Swedish banks is equal to 25pc of the country’s GDP.

Swedbank dominates lending in Latvia and Estonia, while SEB is the biggest lender to Lithuania. The share price of the two banks have fallen by 70pc from their peak.

Source

Check November Index For all IMF Loans

Indexed List of all Stories in Archives

Published in: on November 10, 2008 at 4:22 am  Comments Off on Latvia mulling IMF loan as crisis sweeps Nordic region  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In memory those who gave their lives

War is a Nightmare.

Being a soldier is:

Seeing death, destruction and your fellow soldiers dying. It is more difficult then one could ever imagine.

Every day one wakes up not knowing, if they would still be alive at the end of the day.

Soldiers should be remembered with the greatest of respect.

They give their lives, as many around the world have done for each and every war.

There have been too many wars, too much death. They never seem to stop.

The losses because of war are ongoing.

Every day there is a loss of life whether it be soldier or civilian.

When will we ever learn, war is not the answer. Prevention is.

Many wars could be prevented and the political will seems to be weak in the prevention.

Too often it is used to gain wealth, power and control over another nation.

Lives are sacrificed because of lies and propaganda when in reality the problems could and should have been solved in other ways.

To often people jump on the band wagon of war as a solution, not realizing the impact of what war really means.

It means death of many innocent people, destruction of countries, and ongoing hate for years to come.

It means the loss of families, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, children, parents and friends.

It means future generations must live with the consequences of the pollution left by deadly weapons, that destroy for years to come.

It means that the one person who may have found the cure for cancer or other incurable diseases may have been killed and hence the cure is lost in the past forever.

Each person has a gift of one sort or another and with each death is lost a gift.

We have lost over the years the potential of millions of gifts.

Close your Eyes and :

Imagine if you can, if John Lennon had been killed in a war, how much we would have lost from his life’s gift to us all. How he has inspired millions around the world. The gift he left us, is wonderful. “Give Peace a Chance”.  John was a warrior a warrior for Peace.

Imagine if you can if James Blunt had died in the war in Kosovo.  We would not have “No Bravery” a heartfelt song about war. His gift of song is beautiful.

Imagine if you can if Cliff Hudson had died,  he wrote the song “Send My Love” for his wife while stationed in Ramadi, Iraq.  He has a special gift. 

It’s hard for many to realize how hard it is for someone when they are in a war zone, but Cliff expresses it so well.

Imagine the children who’s parents came home, how fortunate they are, but what if they didn’t?

Imagine if your son or daughter was lost forever because of war.

What are the gifts they held in their hearts?

What could they have done?  They would have had a future. They could been many things.

Unfortunately their futures were stolen from them and we will never known. 

Imagine the Doctors and Nurses who died because of war. How many lives would they have saved had they not died?

Imagine if you will, that my father had died in the war and I was not here today to share this with you.

Imagine you died because of a war. Think of how many lives you have touched and the simple things that may have changed the life of another. Whether we know it or not, sometimes it is the simplest things that we do, that can change another persons perspective in life for the better.

Be it a poem that touches your heart or a smile to brighten someone’s day.

There are so many ways to impact another life.

I wrote this some time ago for a friend of mine.  He wanted people to know how he saw the children of war.  So he talked about things he saw and how he felt. This I wrote from his memory.  He was my inspiration.

He was a most beautiful man. He had a heart of gold and memories of great sorrow.

There is no glory in war.

Through the eye of children he saw their suffering.

Through his eyes came a child’s cry.

He helped me understand how hard it is to be a soldier.

So in memory of him I will share this with you.

A Child’s Cry

Can you imagine how I see life?

Can you understand what it feels like?

Can you know the agony?

Can you know how often I cry?

Is it so much to want to be happy?

Is it so much to want peace?

Is it so much to ask for love?

Is it so much trouble?

My friends have died.

My life is hopeless.

My relatives are sick.

My home is gone.

I am just a little kid.

I am so scared.

I am not who you think I am.

I am not bad.

Can you imagine how I feel?

Can you understand what I say?

Can you now see why I need help?

Can I tell you I am afraid? I am.

Is it so hard for you to understand?

Is it that I am different?

Is it my religion?

Is it I don’t count?

My memories scare me.

My thoughts are all sad.

My future is short.

My mother always has tears in her eyes.

I am just a little kid.

I am dying.

I am not who you think I am.

I am only kid.

Can you stop the bombs from coming down?

Can you stop the guns?

Can you help my mommy stop crying?

Can you take care of my friends?

It is hard to leave them knowing they are so sad.

It is not my fault.

It is not me who started this.

It is not easy to be a kid sometimes.


He was a Warrior

He was fighting for peace

I can’t find the word just the tear.

When I reached out my hand to you.

You reached back and took mind in yours.

We shared Our happy and sad moments

Your were truly a Special Gift to The World.

Now you are with the Angles.

I Miss you.

I will always “Remember” what you taught me.

It was an honor to know you.

I know you are in Heaven.

Know I am thinking of you.

People come into our lives for many reasons.

Some for a short time, others for life time.

Remember those who died with love and understanding.

Be thankful for those who somehow survive.

They give a gift to each of us, in their own special way.

May we someday find peace.

Let Love be our guide.

Published in: on November 9, 2008 at 12:25 pm  Comments Off on In memory those who gave their lives  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On this Remembrance Sunday In Britain

White crosses bearing poppies and personal messages to the fallen fill the Field of Remembrance outside Westminster Abbey, London, yesterday

JASON ALDEN

White crosses bearing poppies and personal messages to the fallen fill the Field of Remembrance outside Westminster Abbey, London, yesterday

So, what are we fighting for today?
By Cole Moreton

November 9 2008

On this Remembrance Sunday, British soldiers standing in dusty battle fatigues in Afghanistan will remember a friend whose death was so recent that the feelings are still raw.

Yubraj Rai was shot during an ambush by the Taliban. Medics tried to save him, but they couldn’t. The 28-year-old died in a land where the poppy does not mean remembrance. It means opium, money and power. And death.

His mates have spoken about a man with a ready smile that hid how “brave, strong and hard” he was. Yubraj used his pay from the Royal Gurkha Rifles to support a mother, sister and three brothers back home in Nepal. “We are proud of you,” said one of his closest comrades, “and what you did for us, your family and for the Queen.”

His death in a skirmish south of the town of Musa Qala may well have passed you by. It wasn’t much of a news event. A kind of media battle weariness has set in, as the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan has continued to rise. Rifleman Rai was the 228th British Army soldier to die in those countries since 2001. It happened on Tuesday, as the world watched America vote for a new president.

Barack Obama has already said that Afghanistan will be his number one foreign policy priority, and it needs to be. As Americans prepared to vote, their missiles were killing 40 people at a wedding party in southern Kandahar. Seven years after the attack on New York, the US is fighting an indefatigable enemy in Afghanistan. But why? That is the question Barack Obama needs to answer, and that British leaders also face today.

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in London this morning, in the company of the Queen and more than 8,000 veterans. It is 90 years since the end of the First World War. But as the casualties are remembered, and the folly of Iraq seems to be coming to an end with talk of withdrawals by the US and Britain, there is mounting anxiety within the military about the potentially deadly lack of focus in Afghanistan.

The operation is seen as “half-cocked”, “overstretched” and “confused”. Senior military figures and soldiers recently returned from the field speak of a “failure of leadership” that amounts to “a betrayal”. The strongest words come today from a major who lost men in some of the fiercest fighting of modern times, and who uses an exclusive interview with the IoS to launch a scathing attack on the command structure he describes as “farcical” and political decision-makers he sees as “irresponsible”. Major Will Pike says soldiers need to be given a much clearer sense of who is in charge and what they are supposed to be trying to achieve – as well as the resources to do the job, instead of just fighting for their own survival.

Major Pike led a company of the Parachute Regiment’s third battalion during the vicious battle of Sangin in 2006, but resigned from the army altogether last year after a spell in Whitehall. Rare as it is for a commander to criticise his masters on the record so soon after leaving the battlefield, distinguished military figures have lined up behind his attack. “There has been a failure of leadership in Afghanistan,” agreed Colonel Bob Stewart, former UN commander of British troops in Bosnia. “We’ve forgotten the lessons of British military history. When we were in Malaya we created safe areas and held them. We are not doing that in Afghanistan. We go into a town but we don’t have the resources to hold it so the Taliban come back.”

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, writing in the IoS today, also agrees. He describes the lack of a clear strategy in both Iraq and Afghanistan as “a betrayal” of the soldiers there.

British casualties have slowed in Iraq, with only two this year, but there have been 36 deaths in Afghanistan. Barack Obama has spoken of winding down the US presence in Iraq and sending 7,000 more troops to Afghanistan instead. He must also decide whether or not to negotiate with the Taliban. Yesterday Douglas Alexander, the Secretary for International Development, said Britain also intended a “significant drawdown” of its 4,000 troops in Iraq. Military experts hope that will at last give the overtaxed military a chance to finish what it started in Afghanistan, if command structures can be put right.

Major-General Patrick Cordingley, leader of the Desert Rats in the first Gulf War, said: “At the low level, the Army is doing well and fighting bravely in a difficult war. What we’re not getting right is co-ordinating the Foreign Office, NGOs and the military in a way that can create a sense of security – and that’s to do with so few troops on the ground.” Patrick Mercer, Conservative MP and former commander of the Sherwood Foresters, said a very senior serving officer had “expressed grave doubts” to him about progress, for the same reasons: a lack of resources, co-ordination and planning. “There is no point in building a school and then pulling out so the Taliban come and burn the school down.”

Major Will Pike said the command structure during his action in southern Afghanistan in 2006 was “farcical”, with the military and British government agencies following “rival agendas” that left troops isolated and overstretched. Resources were “pathetic”, with not nearly enough troops, helicopters or radio training and Land-Rovers that were “disgraceful”.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said the Armed Forces were working “incredibly hard in difficult and challenging circumstances but we are making progress. UK Commanders in Afghanistan have said that deployed brigades are now the best equipped they have ever been”.

However, an SAS commander quit last week over kit issues. And Major Pike said the biggest continuing problem was a command failure at the top. “Who is in charge of the campaign? Is it the Secretary of State for Defence? Is it the Foreign Secretary? Is it the Minister for International Development? Who is it? That’s not clear.”

Nor was the mission. Soldiers had been told they were preparing the way for the country to be rebuilt, but NGOs were reluctant to work with them. “We go into these things half-cocked, relying on the military to do it all. That is never going to work.”

Afghanistan’s nightmare: Taliban resurgent, opium booming and famine stalking the land

Civilian casualties At least 1,000 non-combatant Afghans have been killed this year.

Kabul in chaos Suicide bombers and assassins are increasingly active, spreading terror among government and aid workers.

Taliban on the march Large parts of the south and east again under control of those “defeated” seven years ago.

Soldiers dying 70,000 troops from 40 nations have now poured in, but the risks rise as resistance stiffens.

Conflict spreading Over the border, more than 100 people have been killed by US drones, stretching relations with Pakistan to breaking point.

Bumper opium crops UK-occupied Helmand has become world’s heroin hub.

Spectre of famine More than eight million Afghans face severe hunger this winter.

Civil liberties Things seem to be slipping backwards in tribal areas.

Source

The Road to Peace is needed.

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.


Published in: on November 9, 2008 at 11:02 am  Comments Off on On this Remembrance Sunday In Britain  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Elusive threats boost PTSD risk in Afghanistan

A Canadian soldier stands guard at the side of a suicide attack in the city of Kandahar, Afghanistan on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2008. (AP / Allauddin Khan)

A Canadian soldier stands guard at the side of a suicide

attack in the city of Kandahar, Afghanistan on

Sept. 11, 2008. (AP / Allauddin Khan)

A Canadian soldier carries an improvised explosive device out of the grape field in which Taliban fighters had hidden it, on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008 in Nakoney, Afghanistan. (THE CANADIAN PRESS / Bob Weber)

A Canadian soldier carries an improvised explosive device

out of the grape field in which Taliban fighters had hidden it, on

Oct. 8, 2008 in Nakoney, Afghanistan. (THE CANADIAN PRESS / Bob Weber)

November 8 2008

Stefania Moretti

Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan are up against two dangerous adversaries. The first, the elusive enemy; the second, the less-tangible threat of mental breakdown.

Indeed, new studies suggest soldiers deployed to Afghanistan are more likely to suffer from mental illness because of the high degree of uncertainty that characterizes the NATO-led mission.

Traditionally, wars have been fought on the front lines of the battlefield with an identifiable enemy in uniform. But in Afghanistan, the enemy is “elusive,” said one mental health expert. Threat can come from anywhere.

Afghanistan has been described as a 360-degree war with virtually no safe zone. Suicide bombers dressed in civilian garb, improvised explosive devices strewn across the treacherous “Highway of Death” connecting Kabul and Kandahar and entire communities surrounded by deadly land mines means soldiers face around-the-clock danger.

As a result, Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are likely at higher risk of developing post-traumatic disorder than their comrades serving in other missions, Dr. Alain Brunet, of the Douglas Research Centre and McGill University, recently told CTV.ca in a telephone interview from Montreal.

British troops sent to Afghanistan last year were nine times more likely to suffer from PTSD, according to that country’s Ministry of Defence in a study released this month. Most British troops are stationed in Helmand province — a less volatile region than Canadians stationed in the Taliban hotbed of Kandahar province.

Veterans Affairs Canada pegs the number of Canadian war vets who will experience PTSD as high as 10 per cent.

But the figure only represents former soldiers, and does not reflect soldiers currently on duty in Afghanistan, where the risk of PTSD is likely much different, Brunet said.

As many as 28 per cent of troops come back from armed combat with one or more mental health issues, according to data complied by the head of the Canadian military’s deployment health section last year. Of those:

  • seventeen per cent exhibited signs of high-risk drinking
  • five per cent showed symptoms of PTSD
  • five per cent had signs of serious depression

Since the mission in Afghanistan began in 2002, the number of Veterans Affairs members with a PTSD condition has more than tripled, up from roughly 1,800 to 6,500, according to a Veterans Affairs briefing note obtained by The Canadian Press in March. Veterans Affairs expect the numbers will continue to climb with troops scheduled to stay until at least 2011.

In 2007, the number of suicides among regular and reserve members of the Canadian Forces rose to 36, the highest in more than a decade, military police records from earlier this year show.

There is a sense that there has been a recent surge in PTSD, and it can be attributed to a number of factors, Brunet said.

The spike in military PTSD cases may also stem from fewer cases going unreported, thanks to education and screening programs implemented by the army in recent years.

Within two months of returning from a tour of duty in Afghanistan soldiers undergo a mandatory PTSD assessment followed by several weeks off and counseling.

Brunet, whose research focuses on the risk and remission factors associated with the disorder, said an officer with PTSD symptoms should not be re-deployed because the risks are “cumulative.”

“The more you go (to Afghanistan) the more likely you are to develop the disease,” he said, adding the diagnosis of PTSD in the army is “amazingly important.”

Dozens of soldiers have already completed two tours of duty in Afghanistan, and some could face a third if the mission is extended.

But significant barriers preventing PTSD diagnoses among soldiers remain, despite efforts made by the Canadian Armed Forces to educate soldiers about the disease.

Having PTSD can be a career-ender for a soldier, Brunet said.

A combination of this fear of dismissal from duty and the “macho culture” that permeates the force makes officers hesitate to disclose their problems, Brunet said. “We are sending mixed messages.”

The “hallmark” of PTSD is persistent nightmares, but symptoms can also include, flashbacks, gaps in memory, detachment from loved ones, little control over impulses, problems concentrating, anger and irritability.

Although it’s natural to experience any or all of these symptoms after witnessing a traumatic event, PTSD sufferers become incapacitated by their frequency and severity.

“Personally, I wouldn’t want to have a comrade working with me and to have to rely on someone with PTSD,” Brunet said.

Source

Afghan veterans more likely to suffer from mental illness

Is an Obama presidency no laughing matter?

Television personality Bill Maher participates in a press conference during the Toronto International Film Festival in Toronto on Sunday, Sept. 7. (AP / Evan Agostini)

Television personality Bill Maher participates

in a press conference during the Toronto International Film Festival in

Toronto on Sept. 7. (AP / Evan Agostini)

Host Craig Ferguson is seen on the set of CBS' 'Late Late Show' in an undated photo. (CBS Broadcasting Inc.)Host Craig Ferguson is seen on the set of CBS’

‘Late Late Show’ . (CBS Broadcasting Inc.)

November 8 2008

Parminder Parmar

For the last eight years, U.S. President George Bush has given North American comedians ample fodder for their routines. His political foibles, international follies, and linguistic challenges provided comics a gold mine of material.

But now, comics across the continent are worried Tuesday’s election of Barack Obama may have been the day the laughter died. Generally speaking, they say their lives aren’t made any easier by a subject who appears to be competent, knowledgeable, and in control.

The impending comedic recession has Bill Maher so worried, he’s already calling on Obama to give comedians a bailout package.

“New Rule! Barack Obama has to give comedians something to work with,” Maher declared last month in a segment that has become the mainstay of his show “Real Time.”

“Seriously, here’s a guy who’s not fat, not cheating on his wife, not stupid, not angry and not a phony. Who needs an a–hole like that around for the next four years?”

In the end, though, Maher didn’t need much help from Obama. The “politically incorrect” comedian belted out a series of cracks about the president-elect throughout his show, including one about Obama’s middle name Hussein.

“Americans were so sick of Bush,” Maher noted, “that seven years after 9-11, they said, “You know what sounds good? A black guy with a Muslim name.”

Not quite done, he added, “You know, a year ago, if you had told me the next president would be a black liberal, I would have said, “Stop BS’ing me, Woody Harrelson, and pass that bong!”

Despite their feigned concerns about a joke-free White House, Vancouver-based comedian Simon King says most political comics won’t have any problems coming up with new punch lines. In fact, he says the Obama jokes in his act have been getting big laughs since the primaries.

“People were surprised that Obama beat Hillary (Clinton),” he told CTV.ca from Vancouver, noting he wasn’t shocked at all.

“When you have a 47-year-old black man in a race against a 61-year-old white woman, the black man is going to win.”

King’s joke, while a favourite with audiences, touches on a matter that is particularly sensitive for comedians — that of race. King says it’s all about context.

“It’s not what’s said. It’s how it’s said. (The audience knows) where I’m coming from. It comes from a good place,” he said.

King points out that when it comes to political comedy, everything is fair game, including the topic of presidential assassinations.

In one of his routines, he asks his audience rhetorically: “Who’s going to assassinate John McCain — Father Time?”

He continues with another joke that some would consider over the line. Recalling the end of what was a tough election battle, King said he couldn’t believe the enormity of the McCain defeat.

“The last time that McCain got a beating like that, the guy doing it was speaking Vietnamese,” he said.

Those in the comedy business say the only thing that should be off limits in a joke is something that doesn’t make people laugh.

“I think comedians tend to draw the line only at what they think the crowd won’t find funny. Otherwise, they will push it as far as they can,” said Matthew Wall, the manager of Yuk Yuk’s comedy club in Vancouver.

Still, even the best-known comics say they went into panic mode after Tuesday’s election results came in.

“It’s tragic. Obama doesn’t make that many mistakes. How can I do my job? I’m getting a little panicky,” CBS “Late Late Show” host Craig Ferguson declared this past week in a faux rant.

“A dignified African-American man — what the hell can I do with that?”

And then, like a bolt of lightening, the answer dawned on the newly-minted American citizen: “My only hope is Biden!”

Source

OK they have a good point. Really they do.

How could Obama possibly top Bush in the Blunders and Bloopers department?

By any stretch of the imagination is just can’t be done.

The comedians must be shaking in their booties.

BUSH BLUNDERS AND BLOOPERS

Search for peace ‘doomed’ by scramble for minerals in Congo

Rebels reject ceasefire until demands are met

November 8, 2008

By

Efforts to avert all-out war in eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo are doomed as long as negotiators ignore the role of the area’s lucrative mineral trade in fuelling the violence, according to anticorruption advocates and development officials.

They say that the deployment of thousands more United Nations peace-keepers to the region would be fruitless if armed groups continue to profit from the illegal trade with the connivance of international corporations.

Armed groups, including the Congolese Army and Tutsi rebels led by General Laurent Nkunda, have profited from the illegal trade of minerals such as coltan and tin ore for years, with British, Canadian, American and Belgian companies among their best clients.

Efforts to break that link have been stymied by Western governments unwilling to loosen their grip on the trade and made more difficult by the emergence of China as a big economic player on the continent. Rebels under General Nkunda’s control dismissed ceasefire calls made at yesterday’s emergency regional summit in Nairobi because, they said, it failed to address any of their demands – including the cancellation of a $9 billion (£6 billion) mining and infrastructure deal between China and the Congolese Government in Kinshasa.

The European Union said it regretted that the summit did not adopt measures to curb illegal mining. The Chinese deal gives China access to vast reserves of copper and cobalt in return for a project to link eastern Congo to Kinshasa by rail for the first time. General Nkunda complained that the deal would “line the pockets of a few politicians while the Congolese people would see no benefit”.

But advocates say that a host of foreign companies and governments are complicit in fuelling the violence by continuing to profit from the trade.

A 2002 UN investigation to name and shame companies involved, and consider sanctions until the trade could be cleaned up, foundered on international reluctance to lose a foothold in the trade. “Governments have been ignoring the issue and doing their best to paper over the war economy, to dampen down criticism of their companies and keep the minerals flowing,” Patricia Feeney, of the British-based lobby group Rights and Accountability in Development, said. “Unless we are willing to disrupt the supply chains, this remains a self-perpetuating illegal war economy.”

Britain is the only country to have censured companies – Afrimex and DAS Air – for unethical conduct in breach of international guidelines after intense pressure from the anticorruption group Global Witness and concerned MPs. At least another dozen identified by the UN have gone unrebuked.

The US has refused to examine any of its cases, while Belgium has exonerated its companies. German and Austrian companies, among others, remain accused of continuing to source minerals from mines in eastern Congo controlled by armed groups. China, the most recent entrant to the scramble for Africa, remains outside international guidelines on ethical trade.

Source

Seems the Corporations are in part responsible for much of the war doesn’t it?

And for What profit. When people are being killed for minerals and the Corporations buy them illegally they should be punished and stopped. Minerals of any type should only be purchased from any country legally.

I guess we have more corporate criminals. They should be treated as war criminals. Charged with crimes against humanity. They are in fact contributing to the deaths of many. They are in essence funding the war.  Maybe they should do some jail time as well. Murder is against the law. Conspiracy to commit murder is as well.

Cause and affect.

Take away the funding that pays for the war and the war could be brought under control. It could and should be ended.

Corporate profiteers such as this deserve to be in jail.

Someone should get out a roto router, ferret out these companies and find a way to stop them.

Published in: on November 8, 2008 at 8:11 am  Comments Off on Search for peace ‘doomed’ by scramble for minerals in Congo  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,