Tag Archives: markets

Cramer: Democrats Not Fed Policy to Blame for Economic Malaise

Surprise – the Federal Reserve announced it will keep the Fed funds rate between zero and 0.25 percent. OK – it’s not really much of a surprise. However, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has responded to the slowing economic recovery with restraint, not tinkering with interest rates and showing a continued willingness to buy mortgage-backed securities and long-term Treasury bonds. And that was roundly applauded by the markets, and CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer. “Here’s what you need to know about the Fed,” Cramer said. “They’re not in the way. I’m a Fed-is-friend, Fed-is-foe guy.” On CNBC’s Aug. 10 “Street Signs,” during his “Stop Trading” segment, Cramer explained that the Fed is acting appropriately and noted it wasn’t the Bernanke that was holding the economy back. Who is to blame? It’s Congress, according to Cramer, with its complicated health care bill and even more indecipherable financial regulation bill. “I’ve never over-intellectualized anything,” Cramer said. “Fed said good things, buy. He didn’t say anything. Also, Bernanke … I heard someone say he was good in 2008. What – did he like get bad? What, is he like Tiger Woods? Bernanke is delivering. He’s not the problem. It’s a Congress that wants to make it so you don’t know how much it cost to hire a person because of health care. It’s a Fin-Reg bill that no one can figure out. I got guys calling me at major banks saying, ‘Jim, can you help me with the Fin-Reg?’ I don’t know the Fin-Reg. The Fin-Reg is impossible to understand. All I know is that it cuts profitability. Bernanke is not cutting profitability. He’s on the side of the good guys.” So what will people buy? As long as there is a perpetual fear in the economy, people will continue to put their money into treasury bonds, according to the “Mad Money” host. “Bonds never quit because a lot of people feel like we’re – look there’s enough guys that think this is 1934 – they will keep buying bonds,” he continued. “There’s this 1934 group of people, OK? And then there’s this group of people I would describe as being 2003 coming out of dot-bomb period.” And for now, Cramer said the Federal Reserve under Bernanke’s leadership was doing everything it could to aid the economy, despite Congress’ actions. “And what I would emphasize is that Bernanke – we can sit there and look at that statement and talk about whether it’s Treasuries versus mortgage-backed. What he’s saying is, ‘Listen, I know there’s no business being done in this country, and I’m going to do my best. This is a giving-her-all-she’s-got, Captain.'”

See original here:
Cramer: Democrats Not Fed Policy to Blame for Economic Malaise

New Financial Regulations Create Diversity Czars for All Federal Financial Regulators

The financial regulations package recently passed by the House of Representatives would create a new diversity overseer at each of the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including the new ones created by the legislation itself. This new office, called the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, would take over from any existing diversity or civil rights office already working at the agencies in question. It would also be responsible for making sure that each of the major federal financial regulators is hiring enough minorities and women, and contracting with enough minority-owned and women-owned businesses. However, each individual diversity czar is responsible for defining exactly how many minorities, women, and minority- and women-owned businesses are satisfactory. “[E]ach agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities,” the legislation says. (The bill passed in the House on June 30; a Senate vote could occur as early as next week.)     In fact, each new diversity chief will be responsible for developing quota-like guidelines proscribing the ethnic and gender makeup of each regulator’s workforce, including upper management.   “Each Director shall develop standards for- (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the work-force and senior management of the agency,” it states.   These diversity offices will also be responsible for “assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.”   This means that in addition to monitoring every bank in the country, checking every financial institution in America to make sure they are not doing anything systemically risky, and trying to prevent another financial collapse, every federal financial regulator will also be counting the number of minority and female employees at banks and investment firms, big and small.   The proposed law would also mandate that federal financial regulators hire from certain types of minority- or women-only colleges and universities, advertise in minority- and women-focused publications, and partner with inner-city schools and other minority-focused organizations to hire or mentor more minorities and women.   The diversity offices will also be charged with enforcing the newly written diversity guidelines for each private sector company the regulator contracts with, meaning that they will be checking to ensure that each of the agency’s private contractors is following the agency’s diversity guidelines.   “The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts,” the bill states.   This provision is significant because some of the same federal regulators who must establish these diversity offices – Treasury and Federal Reserve – make heavy use of the private sector on a regular basis. They have also relied heavily on the private financial sector in their responses to the financial crisis.   For example, the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility (TALF) program, which backstopped the securitization market during the height of the financial crisis, was actually run with the help of Bank of New York Mellon, an institution regulated by the New York Fed.   The TALF program, along with other Fed lending programs, had to maintain a strict level of secrecy to protect the banks using the program from irrational runs on their businesses. Because the securitization market had essentially collapsed, TALF’s customers had to remain anonymous if the government was to avoid setting an arbitrary – rather than market – price for securitized debt.   Had the markets learned which financial institutions were using Fed lending programs like TALF, they would have known which securities the Fed was taking as collateral for a particular loan amount. With such information in the public domain, the government would have essentially been fixing the price of asset-backed securities, rather than letting supply and demand set the price in the normal way.   The new diversity office at the Fed – and other financial regulators – apparently would be empowered to dig into such sensitive relationships under the guise of diversity enforcement, possibly endangering the programs and hamstringing their effectiveness.   If one of the new diversity czars thinks a financial firm is not being diverse enough, he potentially could recommend that the regulator terminate the contract(s) the regulator has with that firm. Crossposted at NB sister site CNS News

Go here to read the rest:
New Financial Regulations Create Diversity Czars for All Federal Financial Regulators

Jim Cramer Admits the Obvious: Obama’s Policies Not Working

CNBC’s Jim Cramer appeared on Wednesday’s Today show and pretty much admitted the obvious to Meredith Vieira, that all of Barack Obama’s policies geared to help hiring are “not working.” On to talk about the Dow dropping on Tuesday, Cramer pointed out “there’s too much fear” about what the Obama administration will do about taxes, which led to Today co-anchor Vieira to question “Do you believe the President’s policies are creating the conditions necessary for businesses to hire?” To which Cramer bluntly stated “they’re not working.” The following segment was aired on the June 30 Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: And now to the economy and new jitters on Wall Street. The Dow opens today below the 10,000 mark for the first time in nearly three weeks after plunging 268 points on Tuesday. So what is driving the latest fear among investors? Jim Cramer is the host of CNBC’s Mad Money. Jim, good morning to you. JIM CRAMER: Good morning, Meredith. VIEIRA: Here’s how one writer put it. He said the markets were spooked by the slowing economies in China and in Europe. Do investors have good reason to be spooked? CRAMER: I think that they do if we don’t start creating some jobs here. Those economies do matter, but what’s most important is job creation. If it we get a number on Friday, which is our national labor number, that shows no new jobs created, then we have reason to worry. VIEIRA: And, and that is the rumor, that, that’s exactly what we’re gonna see on Friday. CRAMER: And I think that’s what really drove our market down. The other economies? Europe’s been bad for some time. I think China’s okay. We are the worry. There’s too much fear and there’s way too much anxiety about what Washington will or will not do in terms of taxes. VIEIRA: Well do you believe the President’s policies are creating the conditions necessary for businesses to hire? There’s a lot of controversy about them. CRAMER: Well I think we have to just look at the broad numbers and say that they’re not working. I would, look, it would be terrific to say that there’s tons of jobs being created and people aren’t applying for them but we know that’s not the case. VIEIRA: You also have the Consumer Confidence Index came out on Tuesday down 10 points from May to June, makes it harder for the President to sell his economic policy. How significant is that number? CRAMER: I think that, that was also a huge part of what happened yesterday. We started realizing that May was bad. Now maybe June is bad. We don’t know what’s causing it. We know that there’s just a total lack of confidence and a belief that there will be no new jobs created. I think, by the way, that, that’s too gloomy. I think we should be more confident and I think that the gloom is way overdone and that the market was way overdone yesterday. VIEIRA: Yeah but, but there are economists that are saying we’re headed toward a depression or a double digit recession. You don’t buy that? CRAMER: We just had one of those. You don’t go right back into it. Look, in 1938 our country did and if you want to go back in history, it was because we decided to go to a balanced budget. I read all those negative columnists and I was surprised that they all, in unison, decided that everything is awful right now. It’s not. It’s not great, Meredith, but it’s not that bad. It’s nothing like what they say it is. VIEIRA: So you’re advising people stay in the market. CRAMER: Definitely! Don’t make a move. It’s just not worth it. VIEIRA: Alright Jim Cramer, thank you so much.

See the rest here:
Jim Cramer Admits the Obvious: Obama’s Policies Not Working

Media Continue War against BPA; Claim It Causes ‘All Sorts’ of Health Problems

Toys, food, packaging. Chemicals are in them all. The media make a living by sensationalizing the potential dangers of just about everything in our modern world. Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical found in many plastic items, was no exception . The news media have been scaremongering about BPA for years, even going so far as to compare it to tobacco at one point, but a cautious tone from the government and left-wing junk science prompted recent hyperbole from reporters. Reuters warned of a ” potential carcinogen in my soup ,” June 9. News website Newser.com took the fear-mongering a step further calling BPA ” a known carcinogen ” in a May 19 story about the “dangerously high” levels of BPA in canned food and drink. But according to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the chemical industry, BPA is not a known carcinogen. Its website says “based on sound, robust scientific evidence, some government bodies around the world have concluded that BPA is not carcinogenic in humans .” The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) latest report on BPA, a chemical used to harden plastic and a primary ingredient in the plastic resin that protects the flavor of food in metal cans, said that studies “have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.” New results from the National Toxicology Program caused FDA to request more research about the effects of BPA and recommended “reasonable steps” to “reduce” exposure, particularly in infants and children. FDA made it clear that BPA has not yet been proven harmful to humans at current levels. Scientific evidence hasn’t prevented the news networks from trying to scare the public away from BPA. In an interview on the Feb. 25 CBS “Early Show,” food critic Katie Lee told co-anchor Harry Smith to avoid plastic containers for leftover food because they usually contain BPA. “And that’s been shown to cause liver disease, heart failure, all sorts of things,” Lee claimed. Smith chimed in saying, “I think it’s already been banned in Canada.” Smith was wrong about Canada – they didn’t ban the chemical outright, rather they banned the chemical from use in baby bottles. Neither Lee nor Smith consulted any scientists, or mentioned anything about the many studies that have confirmed the safety of BPA. Health News Digest pointed out that more than 5,400 scientific journal articles have been published on the safety of BPA. The FDA has deemed BPA safe for years, only choosing to caution people about “some concern” relating to children and infants in 2010. The FDA made it clear that more research was needed before the agency would decide to regulate the chemical. But that hasn’t stopped the network news media from warning viewers not to use BPA products because they “cause” health problems. Jeff Stier of American Council on Science and Health reacted to the May 2010 canned good study saying, “Of course BPA is ‘linked’ to obesity and cancer, because these people linked it. There’s no causal relationship, but you can say there is a link between anything you want, just based on animal studies.” A Junk Science Study Stirs Up Media against BPA In May 2010, the left-wing, pro-regulatory group U.S. PIRG sent out a press release about the National Workgroup for Safe Markets’ study of canned foods and drinks in which they claimed “alarming levels” of BPA were present in common canned foods. “BPA is a synthetic sex hormone and exposure to low doses has been linked to abnormal behavior, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, developmental and reproductive harm, and obesity, which raises the risk of early puberty, a known risk factor for breast cancer,” the PIRG released claimed. That press release also touted liberal Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s, D- Calif., support for legislation to ban BPA in cans and other food and beverage containers. Feinstein is trying to add an amendment to ban BPA to S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act . The media quickly repeated the scary study’s findings that BPA was found in 92 percent of canned goods tested. Reuters hyperbolically headlined its story: “Waiter, there’s a potential carcinogen in my soup.” CBS “Morning News” warned that “A new study finds food and drink from metal cans may be contaminated with a chemical linked to a number of disorders. And some lawmakers want the chemical banned.” While CBS’s Sandra Hughes mentioned that the study was tiny – only 50 cans were tested – she expressed no skepticism about the results on May 19. Her story was also stacked against BPA with two interviewees in favor of avoiding canned foods or banning the chemical, and only a statement from the Chemical Industry Council. On May 18, CNN took the study seriously enough that Elizabeth Cohen impractically advocated that people should “start your own garden” just before saying that the people who wrote the study “think that a lot of BPA can make you infertile.” Robert L. Brent, MD, PhD, D.Sc., and adviser to the American Council on Science and Health condemned the study as a lot of hype designed to frighten the public. Brent said, “The National Workgroup for Safe Markets publication wasn’t intended to educate the public about risks, but to frighten unsophisticated scientists and the public. We should respond to such garbage with good science.” He explained that human exposure to BPA has “been exhaustively studied.” After mentioning different studies that have bee done, Brent said “the important point is that human serum concentrations of BPA are very, very low, far below any expected toxic effects.” “The overwhelming scientific evidence points to the conclusion that at current human exposure levels, BPA is not toxic – and specifically is not linked to the myriad diseases outlined in the National Workgroup for Safe Markets report released earlier this week,” Brent concluded. Coca-Cola also hit back against the study telling Reuters, “A person weighing 135 pounds (61 kg) would need to ingest more than 14,800 12-ounce cans of a beverage in one day to approach the FDA’s acceptable daily limit for BPA consumption.” But Reuters buried Coca-Cola’s statement and other information about the large amounts of BPA that would have to be ingested to be compared to rodent tests, waiting until the 38 th paragraph of its 55 paragraph story to bring it up. BPA Scare: 2008-2010 Journalists have hyped the dangers of BPA for years, despite evidence to the contrary. Back in April 2008, NBC’s “Today” warned about the reproductive dangers of ingesting BPA from reusable plastic water bottles. NBC had already campaigned against ordinary plastic water bottles, arguing that they were bad for the environment. But the miniscule levels of BPA found in reusable water bottles is thousands of times less than what levels linked to rodent health problems, according to Dr. Gilbert Ross of ACSH. But that didn’t stop “Today” from warning against many types of water bottles, including the popular Nalgene brand. “[I]n the meantime, you can always check that number on the bottom [the indicator of what type of plastic used is],” reporter Michelle Kosinski said, “or just go back to old-fashioned glass.” Some reporters have advocated a return to glassware without stating the obvious inconvenience (try biking with a heavy glass water bottle) and danger (glass shatters). In 2009, the crusade against BPA continued. MSNBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman, raised concerns about BPA saying “It’s a synthetic estrogen that some scientists believe can be linked to everything from breast cancer to obesity. We associate it with plastic water bottles, but now Consumer Reports says that BPA is even in canned foods.” But even Snyderman had to admit the study was inconclusive and based on “soft science.” Her guest New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof continued to hype the danger by comparing BPA to tobacco: “To me, it feels a little bit like tobacco in the 1970s when, you know, there is growing evidence and scientists understand the causal pathways and we don’t entirely understand at what dosage and at what stage of life those adverse consequences really build up.”  Like this article?  Sign up  for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

Read more here:
Media Continue War against BPA; Claim It Causes ‘All Sorts’ of Health Problems

Naoto Kan:Japan PM frontrunner

Japanese Finance Minister Naoto Kan holds a news conference in Tokyo in this April 30, 2010 file photo. Kan is a possible successor to Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama after Hatoyama said on June 2, 2010, he and his powerful party No. 2, Ichiro Ozawa, would resign after a slide in the polls threatened their party#39;s chances in an election expected next month. Japanese Finance Minister Naoto Kan is viewed by many in the markets as frontrunner to succeed Yukio Hatoyama as prime minister,

Read the original post:
Naoto Kan:Japan PM frontrunner

Barack Obama’s Speech in Wall Street

United States of America’s President Barack Obama delivered his speech at the Great Hall of Cooper Union in front of several  important executives of Wall Street. Obama directly addressed his speech to the CEO’s present. Here’s a copy of his speech. It’s good to be back in the Great Hall at Cooper Union, where generations of leaders and citizens have come to defend their ideas and contest their differences. It’s also good being back in Lower Manhattan, a few blocks from Wall Street, the heart of our nation’s financial sector. Since I last spoke here two years ago, our country has been through a terrible trial. More than 8 million people have lost their jobs. Countless small businesses have had to shut their doors. Trillions of dollars in savings has been lost, forcing seniors to put off retirement, young people to postpone college, and entrepreneurs to give up on the dream of starting a company. And as a nation we were forced to take unprecedented steps to rescue the financial system and the broader economy. As a result of the decisions we made – some which were unpopular – we are seeing hopeful signs. Little more than one year ago, we were losing an average of 750,000 jobs each month. Today, America is adding jobs again. One year ago, the economy was shrinking rapidly. Today, the economy is growing. In fact, we’ve seen the fastest turnaround in growth in nearly three decades. But we have more work to do. Until this progress is felt not just on Wall Street but Main Street we cannot be satisfied. Until the millions of our neighbors who are looking for work can find jobs, and wages are growing at a meaningful pace, we may be able to claim a recovery – but we will not have recovered. And even as we seek to revive this economy, it is incumbent on us to rebuild it stronger than before. That means addressing some of the underlying problems that led to this turmoil and devastation in the first place. One of the most significant contributors to this recession was a financial crisis as dire as any we’ve known in generations. And that crisis was born of a failure of responsibility – from Wall Street to Washington – that brought down many of the world’s largest financial firms and nearly dragged our economy into a second Great Depression. It was that failure of responsibility that I spoke about when I came to New York more than two years ago – before the worst of the crisis had unfolded. I take no satisfaction in noting that my comments have largely been borne out by the events that followed. But I repeat what I said then because it is essential that we learn the lessons of this crisis, so we don’t doom ourselves to repeat it. And make no mistake, that is exactly what will happen if we allow this moment to pass – an outcome that is unacceptable to me and to the American people. As I said two years ago on this stage, I believe in the power of the free market. I believe in a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get loans and invest their savings. But a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is what happened too often in the years leading up to the crisis. Some on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, or save for retirement. What happens here has real consequences across our country. I have also spoken before about the need to build a new foundation for economic growth in the 21st century. And, given the importance of the financial sector, Wall Street reform is an absolutely essential part of that foundation. Without it, our house will continue to sit on shifting sands, leaving our families, businesses and the global economy vulnerable to future crises. That is why I feel so strongly that we need to enact a set of updated, commonsense rules to ensure accountability on Wall Street and to protect consumers in our financial system. A comprehensive plan to achieve these reforms has passed the House of Representatives. A Senate version is currently being debated, drawing on the ideas of Democrats and Republicans. Both bills represent significant improvement on the flawed rules we have in place today, despite the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape them to their special interests. I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort. I am here because I believe that these reforms are, in the end, not only in the best interest of our country, but in the best interest of our financial sector. And I am here to explain what reform will look like, and why it matters. First, the bill being considered in the Senate would create what we did not have before: a way to protect the financial system, the broader economy, and American taxpayers in the event that a large financial firm begins to fail. If an ordinary local bank approaches insolvency, we have a process through the FDIC that insures depositors and maintains confidence in the banking system. And it works. Customers and taxpayers are protected and the owners and management lose their equity. But we don’t have any kind of process designed to contain the failure of a Lehman Brothers or any of the largest and most interconnected financial firms in our country. That’s why, when this crisis began, crucial decisions about what would happen to some of the world’s biggest companies – companies employing tens of thousands of people and holding hundreds of billions of dollars in assets – had to take place in hurried discussions in the middle of the night. That’s why, to save the entire economy from an even worse catastrophe, we had to deploy taxpayer dollars. And although much of that money has now been paid back – and my administration has proposed a fee to be paid by large financial firms to recover the rest – the American people should never have been put in that position in the first place. It is for this reason that we need a system to shut these firms down with the least amount of collateral damage to innocent people and businesses. And from the start, I’ve insisted that the financial industry – and not taxpayers – shoulder the costs in the event that a large financial company should falter. The goal is to make certain that taxpayers are never again on the hook because a firm is deemed “too big to fail.” Now, there is a legitimate debate taking place about how best to ensure taxpayers are held harmless in this process. But what is not legitimate is to suggest that we’re enabling or encouraging future taxpayer bailouts, as some have claimed. That may make for a good sound bite, but it’s not factually accurate. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts. Only with reform can we avoid a similar outcome in the future. A vote for reform is a vote to put a stop to taxpayer-funded bailouts. That’s the truth. And these changes have the added benefit of creating incentives within the industry to ensure that no one company can ever threaten to bring down the whole economy. To that end, the bill would also enact what’s known as the Volcker Rule: which places some limits on the size of banks and the kinds of risks that banking institutions can take. This will not only safeguard our system against crises; this will also make our system stronger and more competitive by instilling confidence here at home and across the globe. Markets depend on that confidence. Part of what led to the turmoil of the past two years was that, in the absence of clear rules and sound practices, people did not trust that our system was one in which it was safe to invest or lend. As we’ve seen, that harms all of us. By enacting these reforms, we’ll help ensure that our financial system – and our economy – continues to be the envy of the world. Second, reform would bring new transparency to many financial markets. As you know, part of what led to this crisis was firms like AIG and others making huge and risky bets – using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments – in ways that defied accountability, or even common sense. In fact, many practices were so opaque and complex that few within these companies – let alone those charged with oversight – were fully aware of the massive wagers being made. That’s what led Warren Buffett to describe derivatives that were bought and sold with little oversight as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” And that’s why reform will rein in excess and help ensure that these kinds of transactions take place in the light of day. There has been a great deal of concern about these changes. So I want to reiterate: there is a legitimate role for these financial instruments in our economy. They help allay risk and spur investment. And there are a great many companies that use these instruments to that end – managing exposure to fluctuating prices, currencies, and markets. A business might hedge against rising oil prices, for example, by buying a financial product to secure stable fuel costs. That’s how markets are supposed to work. The problem is, these markets operated in the shadows of our economy, invisible to regulators and to the public. Reckless practices were rampant. Risks accrued until they threatened our entire financial system. That’s why these reforms are designed to respect legitimate activities but prevent reckless risk taking. And that’s why we want to ensure that financial products like standardized derivatives are traded in the open, in full view of businesses, investors, and those charged with oversight. I was encouraged to see a Republican Senator join with Democrats this week in moving forward on this issue. For without action, we’ll continue to see what amounts to highly-leveraged, loosely-monitored gambling in our financial system, putting taxpayers and the economy in jeopardy. And the only people who ought to fear this kind of oversight and transparency are those whose conduct will fail its scrutiny. Third, this plan would enact the strongest consumer financial protections ever. This is absolutely necessary. Because this financial crisis wasn’t just the result of decisions made in the executive suites on Wall Street; it was also the result of decisions made around kitchen tables across America, by folks taking on mortgages and credit cards and auto loans. And while it’s true that many Americans took on financial obligations they knew – or should have known – they could not afford, millions of others were, frankly, duped. They were misled by deceptive terms and conditions, buried deep in the fine print. And while a few companies made out like bandits by exploiting their customers, our entire economy suffered. Millions of people have lost homes – and tens of millions more have lost value in their homes. Just about every sector of our economy has felt the pain, whether you’re paving driveways in Arizona or selling houses in Ohio, doing home repairs in California or using your home equity to start a small business in Florida. That’s why we need to give consumers more protection and power in our financial system. This is not about stifling competition or innovation. Just the opposite: with a dedicated agency setting ground rules and looking out for ordinary people in our financial system, we’ll empower consumers with clear and concise information when making financial decisions. Instead of competing to offer confusing products, companies will compete the old-fashioned way: by offering better products. That will mean more choices for consumers, more opportunities for businesses, and more stability in our financial system. And unless your business model depends on bilking people, there is little to fear from these new rules. Finally, these Wall Street reforms will give shareholders new power in the financial system. They’ll get a say on pay: a voice with respect to the salaries and bonuses awarded to top executives. And the SEC will have the authority to give shareholders more say in corporate elections, so that investors and pension holders have a stronger role in determining who manages the companies in which they’ve placed their savings. Now, Americans don’t begrudge anybody for success when that success is earned. But when we read in the past about enormous executive bonuses at firms even as they were relying on assistance from taxpayers, it offended our fundamental values. Not only that, some of the salaries and bonuses we’ve seen created perverse incentives to take reckless risks that contributed to the crisis. It’s what helped lead to a relentless focus on a company’s next quarter, to the detriment of its next year or decade. And it led to a situation in which folks with the most to lose – stock and pension holders – had the least to say in the process. That has to change. I’ll close by saying this. I have laid out a set of Wall Street reforms. These are reforms that would put an end to taxpayer bailouts; that would bring complex financial dealings out of the shadows; that would protect consumers; and that would give shareholders more power in the financial system. But we also need reform in Washington. And the debate over these changes is a perfect example. We’ve seen battalions of financial industry lobbyists descending on Capitol Hill, as firms spend millions to influence the outcome of this debate. We’ve seen misleading arguments and attacks designed not to improve the bill but to weaken or kill it. And we’ve seen a bipartisan process buckle under the weight of these withering forces, even as we have produced a proposal that is by all accounts a common-sense, reasonable, non-ideological approach to target the root problems that led to the turmoil in our financial sector. But I believe we can and must put this kind of cynical politics aside. That’s why I am here today. We will not always see eye to eye. We will not always agree. But that does not mean we have to choose between two extremes. We do not have to choose between markets unfettered by even modest protections against crisis, and markets stymied by onerous rules that suppress enterprise and innovation. That’s a false choice. And we need no more proof than the crisis we’ve just been through. There has always been a tension between the desire to allow markets to function without interference – and the absolute necessity of rules to prevent markets from falling out of balance. But managing that tension, one we’ve debated since our founding, is what has allowed our country to keep up with a changing world. For in taking up this debate, in figuring out how to apply our well-worn principles with each new age, we ensure that we do not tip too far one way or the other – that our democracy remains as dynamic as the economy itself. Yes, the debate can be contentious. It can be heated. But in the end it serves to make our country stronger. It has allowed us to adapt and thrive. I read a report recently that I think fairly illustrates this point. It’s from Time Magazine. And I quote: “Through the great banking houses of Manhattan last week ran wild-eyed alarm. Big bankers stared at one another in anger and astonishment. A bill just passed … would rivet upon their institutions what they considered a monstrous system… Such a system, they felt, would not only rob them of their pride of profession but would reduce all U.S. banking to its lowest level.” That appeared in Time Magazine – in June of 1933. The system that caused so much concern and consternation? The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – the FDIC – an institution that has successfully secured the deposits of generations of Americans. In the end, our system only works – our markets are only free – when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system. And that is what these reforms are designed to achieve: no more, no less. Because that is how we will ensure that our economy works for consumers, that it works for investors, that it works for financial institutions – that it works for all of us. This is the central lesson not only of this crisis but of our history. It’s what I said when I spoke here two years ago. Ultimately, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. We rise or we fall together as one nation. So I urge you to join me – to join those who are seeking to pass these commonsense reforms. And I urge you to do so not only because it is in the interests of your industry, but because it is in the interests of our country. Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. Barack Obama’s Speech in Wall Street is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

How MTV Is Selling Jersey Shore to Foreigners [Advertising]

Next season, Jersey Shore goes to Miami Beach. But last season’s exploits are about to go international. MTV is launching the show in more than 30 countries this week. Here’s how they are selling this most American export abroad. George Orwell once said “Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket.” This is so appropriate for Jersey Shore , that trash can Americans love so much to eat from. Today, Times’ Brian Stelter today explores how MTV is attempting to convince foreigners that they too should join awful feast. Turns out it is easier than you might expect. According to the Times , “MTV executives say they believe the “Jersey Shore” narrative is universally appealing.” Sort of like the Bible, or Gilligan’s Island . Even the nicknames are surprisingly cross-cultural. Writes Stelter: Mr. Sorrentino is better known as the Situation . The nickname, mocked by many in the United States, will be unchanged in Portugal, France, the Netherlands and some other markets served by MTV. Some names, it seems, defy translation. Thank God. But just what have MTV’s transnational Mad Men come up with to shill the Jersey Shore crew to the highly sophisticated Europeans and whoever else lives not in America? Let’s take a look at these foreign market Jersey Shore ads… through the eyes of a foreigner. (Images and video via the Times) According to Google Translate, the text on this ad reads “Buenos Aires, Jersey Shoreáte All the weeks desde el 24 marzo.” Bad Job, Google Translate. But I am a foreigner who speaks in many tongues, so I understand. On the poster I see a muscle man who is tan. In our culture, muscles are good—we either want to have them or want to be with someone who does. The man is adorned with flashy jewelery: Perhaps he is wealthy. I enjoy watching wealthy, fit people people flaunt their wealth. The man looks like he is aggressive. He looks both threatening and appealing. Are his hand signs American for “welcome?” or “I will fight you?” I will watch this show. This is an interesting ad. As a foreigner, I have no idea about the constellation of cultural references invoked by the phrase “Jersey Shore”. Its prominence on this ad is an enigma to me. I am intrigued, but slightly confused. But I also see a muscle man. As you already know, in my culture large muscles are good. What’s he doing? He is drinking a bottle of wine. Wine makes people go crazy. A large muscular man going crazy. Sounds like a pretty good show. Oh, and I can speak English well enough to read the slogan: “MUSCLES + GEL + TANNING BED = SEX” Well, why didn’t you just say so? I will watch this show. In this video I see two Indian men working out, attempting to “get juiced”. In my culture, Indian men are thought of as generally weak, so the paradox amuses me. I am laughing: “Hoo hoo hoo” (This is how my people laugh, you must understand.) The announcer tells me “Jersey Shore” has “got America talking.” As a foreigner, I am fascinated by America. Oh, and there are a bunch of American muscle men and American chicks with big boobs! Is this how America is? I will watch this show. In this video, an old woman is getting a “blow out”. Do I understand what a “blow out” is? Not really, but I do understand that old women should not look like this. Hoo hoo hoo. There are the same pictures of the muscle men and boob girls! I understand now: The Americans in this show are obsessed with their appearances! We, too, are obsessed with our appearances. And boobs and muscles, and America. I will watch this show. Hey, how did this American ad for Jersey Shore get in here? I do not understand any of these references: What is this “Shore House?” What is this “Guidos?” Oh, there are the boob girls and muscle men again! I will watch this show.

Read this article:
How MTV Is Selling Jersey Shore to Foreigners [Advertising]

Come Along: Biggie Smalls: Microbes and micro-crops shine at …

Biggie Smalls : Microbes and micro-crops shine at biofuels’ Big Dance BiofuelsDigest. Today marks the beginning of biofuels’ three-day “Big Dance” – properly known as World Biofuels Markets – and 1400 delegates are gathering in Amsterdam …

Visit link:
Come Along: Biggie Smalls: Microbes and micro-crops shine at …

Reuters Chief Accused of Caving to Hedge Fund; ‘Not a Bad Story … Could Have Run’

Reuters editor-in-chief David Schlesinger told staffers in a conference call Wednesday that an investigation into billionaire hedge fund manager Steven Cohen that he killed last month after Cohen called to complain was “not a bad story” and “could have run.” Which doesn’t really explain why he killed it, does it? In the tense call, a recording of which was provided to Gawker, Schlesinger faced down a string of angry and confused Reuters journalists demanding to know precisely why their boss spiked an investigation into accusations that SAC Capital Advisors’ Steven Cohen engaged in insider trading in the 1980s

Visit link:
Reuters Chief Accused of Caving to Hedge Fund; ‘Not a Bad Story … Could Have Run’

Reuters Chief Accused of Caving to Hedge Fund; Story ‘Wasn’t ‘Bad … Could Have Run’

Reuters editor-in-chief David Schlesinger told staffers in a conference call Wednesday that an investigation into billionaire hedge fund manager Steven Cohen that he killed last month after Cohen called to complain was “not a bad story” and “could have run.” Which doesn’t really explain why he killed it, does it? In the tense call, a recording of which was provided to Gawker, Schlesinger faced down a string of angry and confused Reuters journalists demanding to know precisely why their boss spiked an investigation into accusations that SAC Capital Advisors’ Steven Cohen engaged in insider trading in the 1980s .

See the original post here:
Reuters Chief Accused of Caving to Hedge Fund; Story ‘Wasn’t ‘Bad … Could Have Run’