Report: Americans getting poorer
In a new analysis of after-tax income, the United States ranks 15th among the world's richest countries. But wage comparisons for 'average workers' are tricky.
By Christian Science Monitor
"Comparisons are odious," that is, hateful, according to a popular phrase about seven centuries old. Comparison, however, is one of the tasks assigned to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international body of 30 of the richest countries. It tries to compare its members' economic and social data, a difficult, perhaps even odious, job.
Sometime back it broadened statistically (for comparison purposes) the definition of the average workers in its member nations while trying to examine relative tax burdens. The result was "monumental," reckons Jacob Kirkegaard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
The OECD ranked the after-tax income of the average worker in the United States as 15th among its member nations. The richest middle class, if measured in terms of the purchasing power of its income, was in Britain.
Video: Do Americans work hard enough?
That ranking would surprise most Americans, who likely consider their nation the most prosperous in the world.
In one fell swoop, OECD statisticians lowered the estimated income of the average American worker by more than 10% and raised average incomes of other rich nations by as much as 30%, notes Kirkegaard.
It may well be that the comparative U.S. standard of living is slipping. The price of oil has risen more dramatically in the United States than in other nations because of the dollar's large devaluation. The reason for the drop is also statistical. In the past, the OECD had been using a proxy for the middle class based on the "average production worker." This concept focused on full-time workers in the relatively declining manufacturing sector, which tends to be unionized in the United States and better paid on average. The OECD's new measure is based on the "average worker," which captures all sorts of private-sector jobs in mining, utilities, construction, retail, hotels, restaurants, financial services, real estate and other areas.
So this new system ought to provide a fairer comparison.
But 15th place?
Not likely, figures David Grubb, an OECD economist in Paris. He points out that the United States and Canada included in their statistics sent to Paris the wages of nonsupervisory workers -- and not those of higher paid supervisory workers and salaried professionals. When that statistical difference is corrected, the rank of the American middle class would move up from 15th. How far is uncertain.
Continued: Wages vs. income
In the newest OECD Economic Outlook, the average annual wage in the total economy of the United States was $45,563 for 2005. That's exceeded only by Luxembourg, a wealthy banking duchy, with $50,634. Britain, Ireland and Australia are not far behind the United States with incomes above $40,000.
The problem is that this is a measure of total wages, not just the middle class, and it includes the richest Americans whose incomes have risen enormously in recent years. Outside of Hungary, the United States has the most extreme income inequality in the OECD.
Video: Does money buy happiness?
Kirkegaard figures middle- and lower-income Americans are being squeezed by the flood of money going to the superwealthy. Democrats in Congress have the same view, and their tax proposals would shift the tax burden up the income ladder.
Wages vs. income
After the early 1990s, the incomes of "very well-off Americans increased much faster than those of both the middle class and the poor," figures Gary Burtless, an expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
For example, top corporate officers got pay increases of 9.5% a year in the 1990s, on top of high levels to start with.
This doesn't mean that Middle America incomes have been entirely flat. An analysis by Terry Fitzgerald, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, concludes that a "broad swath of Middle America experienced notable hourly wage gains" since 1975. In other words, children can still assume they have a better living standard, on average, than their parents did. To reach that conclusion, Fitzgerald had to disentangle a "confusing web of data." Two data series on individual hourly wage rates showed little, or even negative, growth over the past 30 years. But labor income for the entire national economy was shown to have grown 39% in that time span.
To square this apparent contradiction, Fitzgerald applied to the two wage series a broader price index (personal-consumption expenditures), which covers the basket of final goods and services that people consume each year.
The new result: Average hourly earnings rose 10%, rather than declining 4%, from 1975 to 2005. Median hourly wages also rose 20% rather than 12%. Then he factored fringe benefits into the wage calculation, since they have become increasingly expensive and "contribute to workers' well-being."
That combination accounted for 28% of the 39% growth of total labor income.
"This does not contradict the claim that wage inequality increased over this period -- it did," writes Fitzgerald in a bank publication. In other words, the rich are still getting proportionately richer.
This article was reported and written by David R. Francis for The Christian Science Monitor.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Surprising Ignorant Class
As of January of 2007, it was obvious for most people who pay a little attention, the stock markets and debt market had something amiss. When bonds fund specializing in collateral debt packages with 6% to 8% yields are paying 30% to its investors, something does not add up, the math does not add up, the risk taken does not add up, and the ratings companies overrated the products in purpose, as we know today.
There is no need of a Ph.D. in economics to realize something is not straight.
To obtain those results superfluous risks were taking and all CEO’s and top management at major leading financial institutions were accomplices and enablers of the big con on the people. To add INRI at this problem the so call self-regulators justified the creation of so called “hybrid investments” for decades every single time we create the golden goose is all the old con of the pyramid and when the pyramid it falls, poor Ponzy schemers look like saints.
After their con gets discovered we realized who was on it, lets start by the Chairman of the federal reserve whom “we have no signs of the housing market affecting the financial markets’ or “our banking institutions are strong” that what they say in June thru August, Now in September after it was clear they could not hide behind their false statements and Congress decided to have hearings int eh subject – can you imagine for congress to arrive to have hearings and the fed is deaf- the federal reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury –ex-Ceo of Goldman Sachs, and part of the big con- continued to deny any contagion from the housing debacle to the financial markets, in the mean time, behind the scenes the Treasury was having frantic meetings with major banks trying to figure out how to resolve this debacle.
If you had picked Trades magazine in April/ May 2007 edition, the front page was about the bonanza that these hedge funds and other hybrid investments did for 25 year olds, show them making hundreds of millions of dollars using “unregulated techniques”. Well, those hundreds of millions have to come from somewhere they do not get made out of thin air.
The sad part of the history is that as any other abusive operation it came from the most vulnerable, mostly from pension funds of municipal workers, teachers, basically anyone with a pension public or private. That is the sad part. In this story there is not much good to tell.
As long as most people pay taxes the government decides so create a supra welfare package to bail out all those heroes of the financial markets. Remember while these shenanigans are going on, kids are going to schools with not heat and bridges are failing in major cities and more than 90 millions Americans are under covered for medical ailments.
One has to wonder if the loss of people’s will to protest has created a new submissive slave society that refuses to evolve.
There is no need of a Ph.D. in economics to realize something is not straight.
To obtain those results superfluous risks were taking and all CEO’s and top management at major leading financial institutions were accomplices and enablers of the big con on the people. To add INRI at this problem the so call self-regulators justified the creation of so called “hybrid investments” for decades every single time we create the golden goose is all the old con of the pyramid and when the pyramid it falls, poor Ponzy schemers look like saints.
After their con gets discovered we realized who was on it, lets start by the Chairman of the federal reserve whom “we have no signs of the housing market affecting the financial markets’ or “our banking institutions are strong” that what they say in June thru August, Now in September after it was clear they could not hide behind their false statements and Congress decided to have hearings int eh subject – can you imagine for congress to arrive to have hearings and the fed is deaf- the federal reserve and the Secretary of the Treasury –ex-Ceo of Goldman Sachs, and part of the big con- continued to deny any contagion from the housing debacle to the financial markets, in the mean time, behind the scenes the Treasury was having frantic meetings with major banks trying to figure out how to resolve this debacle.
If you had picked Trades magazine in April/ May 2007 edition, the front page was about the bonanza that these hedge funds and other hybrid investments did for 25 year olds, show them making hundreds of millions of dollars using “unregulated techniques”. Well, those hundreds of millions have to come from somewhere they do not get made out of thin air.
The sad part of the history is that as any other abusive operation it came from the most vulnerable, mostly from pension funds of municipal workers, teachers, basically anyone with a pension public or private. That is the sad part. In this story there is not much good to tell.
As long as most people pay taxes the government decides so create a supra welfare package to bail out all those heroes of the financial markets. Remember while these shenanigans are going on, kids are going to schools with not heat and bridges are failing in major cities and more than 90 millions Americans are under covered for medical ailments.
One has to wonder if the loss of people’s will to protest has created a new submissive slave society that refuses to evolve.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Who Are The Stock Market Manipulators
As I wrote in the past, the bias is to keep the wheel of fortune spinning, it does not matter where it falls, the manipulator does not care, the idea is to keep it "all pink all the time."
Pink benefits them and makes those holding stocks feel pink. Their happiness it exposes them to a meager return of annualized 7% including dividends - as reported by Standard and Poor.
All is done using substantial amount of risk. Those risks shifts depending when you have to buy and sell stocks, and how much leverage those pools of pension money need to re float with extra leverage -thus increased risk.
The market operators have become extraordinary good at controlling public opinion and governments around the globe. Manipulators are confident -some say arrogant- to keep demanding the elimination of government guaranteed pensions, thus the risk is shifted to the individuals via “privatized pensions funds”, in other words they get people’s money to buy baseless assets. Thus a de facto transfer wealth towards those who control the access to debt and again sell back their liabilities to the pension pools.
The list of manipulators is short enough that can be compiled in one page.
To have an example how a market can be moved here is a press release on April 4 2007, that might offer some light.
“The indices are trading slightly higher midday as investors weigh more relief in the Middle East, a subsequent decline in oil prices, and upbeat analyst commentary against weak economic data.
The biggest headline today has been Iranian President Ahmadinejad announcing the release of the 15 British naval personnel captured nearly two weeks ago. The news has improved overall sentiment and pushed oil prices lower. However, given yesterday's sizable gains amid a lack of overwhelming news to support such a rally, it hasn't been overly surprising to see some hesitation on the part of buyers.
In fact, if it weren't for a 2.0% surge on the Nasdaq's most influential constituent and the third most heavily-weighted stock on the S&P 500 -- Microsoft (MSFT 28.43 +0.56), the indices would be exhibiting more noticeable consolidation. The Dow component is getting a boost after a Citigroup analyst raised his Q3 earnings estimates.”
In this case a major bank as Citigroup also one of the largest pools of pensions, issues a comments, that can be or not, but because it has under management and receives every day enough pension money to move the stock with a comments, not a fact.
As simplistic as it might sound there are some important mechanics behind issuing opinions with baseless facts.
If Citigroup knows that Microsoft is going to increase earnings, why do they need to tell the planet? Self interest? It can be broken down in two: one is sending a message to all other pension funds saying, we are not selling, for now; second to its fund mangers: reduce your selling of the stock. You might wonder why they do not send an email to all their fund managers, and keep it quiet having asymmetric advantage.
Well, that will have cross some many countries and at least thousands of fund managers that it will be a de facto stock manipulation. Because Microsoft float of share is so large it is easier to send the message in the open saying we are not selling, what about you?
Still this is an opinion that affects millions of people and around five trillion dollars worth of market capitalization.
That how big a comment like this is.
Pink benefits them and makes those holding stocks feel pink. Their happiness it exposes them to a meager return of annualized 7% including dividends - as reported by Standard and Poor.
All is done using substantial amount of risk. Those risks shifts depending when you have to buy and sell stocks, and how much leverage those pools of pension money need to re float with extra leverage -thus increased risk.
The market operators have become extraordinary good at controlling public opinion and governments around the globe. Manipulators are confident -some say arrogant- to keep demanding the elimination of government guaranteed pensions, thus the risk is shifted to the individuals via “privatized pensions funds”, in other words they get people’s money to buy baseless assets. Thus a de facto transfer wealth towards those who control the access to debt and again sell back their liabilities to the pension pools.
The list of manipulators is short enough that can be compiled in one page.
To have an example how a market can be moved here is a press release on April 4 2007, that might offer some light.
“The indices are trading slightly higher midday as investors weigh more relief in the Middle East, a subsequent decline in oil prices, and upbeat analyst commentary against weak economic data.
The biggest headline today has been Iranian President Ahmadinejad announcing the release of the 15 British naval personnel captured nearly two weeks ago. The news has improved overall sentiment and pushed oil prices lower. However, given yesterday's sizable gains amid a lack of overwhelming news to support such a rally, it hasn't been overly surprising to see some hesitation on the part of buyers.
In fact, if it weren't for a 2.0% surge on the Nasdaq's most influential constituent and the third most heavily-weighted stock on the S&P 500 -- Microsoft (MSFT 28.43 +0.56), the indices would be exhibiting more noticeable consolidation. The Dow component is getting a boost after a Citigroup analyst raised his Q3 earnings estimates.”
In this case a major bank as Citigroup also one of the largest pools of pensions, issues a comments, that can be or not, but because it has under management and receives every day enough pension money to move the stock with a comments, not a fact.
As simplistic as it might sound there are some important mechanics behind issuing opinions with baseless facts.
If Citigroup knows that Microsoft is going to increase earnings, why do they need to tell the planet? Self interest? It can be broken down in two: one is sending a message to all other pension funds saying, we are not selling, for now; second to its fund mangers: reduce your selling of the stock. You might wonder why they do not send an email to all their fund managers, and keep it quiet having asymmetric advantage.
Well, that will have cross some many countries and at least thousands of fund managers that it will be a de facto stock manipulation. Because Microsoft float of share is so large it is easier to send the message in the open saying we are not selling, what about you?
Still this is an opinion that affects millions of people and around five trillion dollars worth of market capitalization.
That how big a comment like this is.
Stocks The Biggest Casino in Human History
As you hear the news and you might get the feeling that you are getting some part of the truth about the underlining rational why stocks go up or down.
The answer is not simple. It can be summarize in two parts one is the transfer of wealth from the poor towards those with the access to large sums of borrowing, this is a new and extremely sophisticated class warfare, that can be see as the super-wealth taking advantage of the rest of the population. Second, linked to the first is the shift of risk from government responsibilities to the unprepared workers. Pension allocations is the primary driver of stocks prices second is the speculators from hedge funds that work for all major banks.
If you pay attention fear is the number one driver of news. Second is the building on the sense of wealth by using the power of central banks to create interest rates that will re-allocate the value of assets, as the wealth effect create by home value increases, with no underlining reason other than cheap borrowing costs. The dichotomy of fear and wealth creates uncertainty and the need for personal assessment of savings and pension risks.
Imagine if two and half billion people will give you for the next thirty years the present average of $290 a year and you can keep at least .5% of that money as custodian. No a bad deal, and it gets better. It does not matter what happen to the actual returns and performance of that money your cut stays the same.
Clearly, this “all is good” creates a bias and that is to keep the money flowing and people believing the downside needs to keep growing like a pyramid scheme you need money flowing in to absorb the all those fees accumulated over the movement of the money from fund a to b and the rotation keeps the grease and those manager multimillion dollar salaries alive. If you wonder why all the financial news are biased in the optimistic the reason is simple they want your money.
If you think about why stocks should be sold above any other asset, well that is the dirty secret, they do not need, but the are enough suckers to keep the game alive, and the use of the free capital rhetoric is not other than taking the pension of other people and place it into stocks does not matter if those stocks any intrinsic worth.
I think that it will be interesting to address some of the fallacies and talking points that the talking heads use when they talk about stocks and other risk investments.
Part of the same process is the boom and boost process that occurs every four or five years in the prices of stocks and other assets as real estate. I leave that for a future commentary.
The big question is what one should do to have a more stable system. It is not hat easy anymore, but there are action that you can take and one is to find people in your community that care about their future and are concern about the risk that the present system represents.
The answer is not simple. It can be summarize in two parts one is the transfer of wealth from the poor towards those with the access to large sums of borrowing, this is a new and extremely sophisticated class warfare, that can be see as the super-wealth taking advantage of the rest of the population. Second, linked to the first is the shift of risk from government responsibilities to the unprepared workers. Pension allocations is the primary driver of stocks prices second is the speculators from hedge funds that work for all major banks.
If you pay attention fear is the number one driver of news. Second is the building on the sense of wealth by using the power of central banks to create interest rates that will re-allocate the value of assets, as the wealth effect create by home value increases, with no underlining reason other than cheap borrowing costs. The dichotomy of fear and wealth creates uncertainty and the need for personal assessment of savings and pension risks.
Imagine if two and half billion people will give you for the next thirty years the present average of $290 a year and you can keep at least .5% of that money as custodian. No a bad deal, and it gets better. It does not matter what happen to the actual returns and performance of that money your cut stays the same.
Clearly, this “all is good” creates a bias and that is to keep the money flowing and people believing the downside needs to keep growing like a pyramid scheme you need money flowing in to absorb the all those fees accumulated over the movement of the money from fund a to b and the rotation keeps the grease and those manager multimillion dollar salaries alive. If you wonder why all the financial news are biased in the optimistic the reason is simple they want your money.
If you think about why stocks should be sold above any other asset, well that is the dirty secret, they do not need, but the are enough suckers to keep the game alive, and the use of the free capital rhetoric is not other than taking the pension of other people and place it into stocks does not matter if those stocks any intrinsic worth.
I think that it will be interesting to address some of the fallacies and talking points that the talking heads use when they talk about stocks and other risk investments.
Part of the same process is the boom and boost process that occurs every four or five years in the prices of stocks and other assets as real estate. I leave that for a future commentary.
The big question is what one should do to have a more stable system. It is not hat easy anymore, but there are action that you can take and one is to find people in your community that care about their future and are concern about the risk that the present system represents.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Can the same Occur in Other Countries!
Calpers Pressed to Drop Iran `Terrorism' Investments
By Alison Fitzgerald
March 19 (Bloomberg) -- California lawmakers are considering legislation that would force state pension funds to sell billions of dollars of shares in companies doing business with Iran.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System, the largest U.S. pension fund, and the state teachers' fund would have to unload shares in companies including BNP Paribas of France, Siemens AG of Germany and Eni SpA of Italy.
``Who's funding terrorism? It sure as hell shouldn't be our public employees,'' said Joel Anderson, a Republican assemblyman from El Cajon who introduced the measure. ``When you're looking at the war on terrorists, this is one of the best weapons we have -- just defunding them.'' Anderson estimated his legislation would affect $24 billion worth of investments.
California, which last year directed state pension funds to drop investments in Sudan, is among a growing number of U.S. states, from Texas to Maryland to New Jersey, moving to embrace so-called ``terror-free'' investing.
The movement, which includes federal legislation, against nations the State Department says sponsor terrorism, may put public pension managers in a front-line role in a debate over international policy. Some critics say the effort is misguided and would hurt small investors.
Calpers and the California State Teachers' Retirement System control $388 billion in investments. The legislation would affect overseas-based companies, since U.S. businesses are already mostly barred from trading with the countries on the State Department list: Iran, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.
Federal Action
U.S. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a measure last week that would require U.S. government pension funds to divest stocks of companies that invested more than $20 million in Iran's energy industry.
``This measure will serve as one more critical instrument to deny the Iranian regime the economic resources required to pursue its dangerous activities,'' she said in a statement.
William Reinsch, president of a trade group representing 300 multinational corporations, said the legislation would work against U.S. interests.
``We're going to destroy our relations with the very countries we need in a united front against Iran,'' said Reinsch of the Washington-based National Foreign Trade Council.
The council won a court challenge last month, overturning an Illinois law aimed at companies doing business in Sudan.
Heightening Tension
If public funds are forced to divest, he said, ``the real losers would be a bunch of retired policemen and firefighters.'' That's because pensions would have to sell international mutual funds, which have had high returns, he said.
The Bush administration has ratcheted up its criticism of Iran's government, accusing it of supplying insurgents in Iraq with weapons to kill U.S. troops.
Supporters of Israel, which has been the target of threats by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are backing the move to pressure Iran.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main U.S. pro-Israel lobbying group, will support divestment efforts against Iran in 10 states this year, Howard Kohr, executive director of the Washington-based group, said in a March 12 speech. Divestment ``would have a crippling effect on Iran's economy,'' Kohr said.
Shareholder Activism
A campaign to force companies to divest may affect ``a significant number of the world's largest companies,'' said Roger Robinson, who heads a company that tracks investing in terrorist nations. Robinson, a National Security Council aide in the Reagan administration, said he has no position on the California bill.
Edwina Frawley, a spokeswoman for Paris-based BNP Paribas, declined to answer questions about Iran. She said the company complies with ``all current ethical standards and regulations.'' Munich-based Siemens didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment, and a spokeswoman for Rome-based Eni declined to comment.
The California legislation puts Calpers, a leading proponent of good corporate-governance practices, in the position of being criticized itself.
``They have historically prided themselves on being ahead of the curve on issues like this,'' said Reinsch of the foreign trade council. ``One would think they would be ahead on this one.''
No Direct Investment
Calpers spokesman Clark McKinley said the fund doesn't invest directly in Iran, and he couldn't verify how much of its holdings might be affected by Anderson's measure. The Calpers board hasn't yet reviewed the legislation, he said.
The teachers' fund, known as Calstrs, hasn't taken a position either, said spokeswoman Brenna Neuharth. Calstrs already screens investments for geopolitical risk, including human rights abuses and money laundering, Neuharth said.
When the California assembly approved divesting from Sudan last year, Calpers said it wouldn't invest in nine companies. Calstrs sold stock in a Russian and a Chinese oil company.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year asked Ford Motor Co., Marathon Oil Corp. and six other companies to explain their activities in countries on the terrorism list.
The SEC asked Ford in a July 5 letter whether the company's ``reputation and share value'' were being compromised by its activities in Syria, Iran and Sudan. Ford said its business was limited and lawful.
Missouri, Georgia
Missouri has adopted a policy to require two state funds to divest from companies that do business with Iran, Sudan, North Korea and Syria. Georgia is also considering such legislation, and a bill will be introduced in Ohio next week.
Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman said she made the decision after learning the state was using BNP Paribas, France's biggest bank, to place its overnight money. It had been named as one of several European banks that lent $1 billion to Iran.
``We kicked them off our broker-dealer list and put in place policies that said we won't do business with companies that do business in Iran,'' she said.
In January, Steelman sent a letter to every state treasurer urging them to consider similar policies. ``This investment strategy provides an opportunity for many of us far from the front lines of the war on terrorism to do our part,'' she wrote.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at Afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net
By Alison Fitzgerald
March 19 (Bloomberg) -- California lawmakers are considering legislation that would force state pension funds to sell billions of dollars of shares in companies doing business with Iran.
The California Public Employees' Retirement System, the largest U.S. pension fund, and the state teachers' fund would have to unload shares in companies including BNP Paribas of France, Siemens AG of Germany and Eni SpA of Italy.
``Who's funding terrorism? It sure as hell shouldn't be our public employees,'' said Joel Anderson, a Republican assemblyman from El Cajon who introduced the measure. ``When you're looking at the war on terrorists, this is one of the best weapons we have -- just defunding them.'' Anderson estimated his legislation would affect $24 billion worth of investments.
California, which last year directed state pension funds to drop investments in Sudan, is among a growing number of U.S. states, from Texas to Maryland to New Jersey, moving to embrace so-called ``terror-free'' investing.
The movement, which includes federal legislation, against nations the State Department says sponsor terrorism, may put public pension managers in a front-line role in a debate over international policy. Some critics say the effort is misguided and would hurt small investors.
Calpers and the California State Teachers' Retirement System control $388 billion in investments. The legislation would affect overseas-based companies, since U.S. businesses are already mostly barred from trading with the countries on the State Department list: Iran, Sudan, Cuba, North Korea and Syria.
Federal Action
U.S. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, the senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a measure last week that would require U.S. government pension funds to divest stocks of companies that invested more than $20 million in Iran's energy industry.
``This measure will serve as one more critical instrument to deny the Iranian regime the economic resources required to pursue its dangerous activities,'' she said in a statement.
William Reinsch, president of a trade group representing 300 multinational corporations, said the legislation would work against U.S. interests.
``We're going to destroy our relations with the very countries we need in a united front against Iran,'' said Reinsch of the Washington-based National Foreign Trade Council.
The council won a court challenge last month, overturning an Illinois law aimed at companies doing business in Sudan.
Heightening Tension
If public funds are forced to divest, he said, ``the real losers would be a bunch of retired policemen and firefighters.'' That's because pensions would have to sell international mutual funds, which have had high returns, he said.
The Bush administration has ratcheted up its criticism of Iran's government, accusing it of supplying insurgents in Iraq with weapons to kill U.S. troops.
Supporters of Israel, which has been the target of threats by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are backing the move to pressure Iran.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main U.S. pro-Israel lobbying group, will support divestment efforts against Iran in 10 states this year, Howard Kohr, executive director of the Washington-based group, said in a March 12 speech. Divestment ``would have a crippling effect on Iran's economy,'' Kohr said.
Shareholder Activism
A campaign to force companies to divest may affect ``a significant number of the world's largest companies,'' said Roger Robinson, who heads a company that tracks investing in terrorist nations. Robinson, a National Security Council aide in the Reagan administration, said he has no position on the California bill.
Edwina Frawley, a spokeswoman for Paris-based BNP Paribas, declined to answer questions about Iran. She said the company complies with ``all current ethical standards and regulations.'' Munich-based Siemens didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment, and a spokeswoman for Rome-based Eni declined to comment.
The California legislation puts Calpers, a leading proponent of good corporate-governance practices, in the position of being criticized itself.
``They have historically prided themselves on being ahead of the curve on issues like this,'' said Reinsch of the foreign trade council. ``One would think they would be ahead on this one.''
No Direct Investment
Calpers spokesman Clark McKinley said the fund doesn't invest directly in Iran, and he couldn't verify how much of its holdings might be affected by Anderson's measure. The Calpers board hasn't yet reviewed the legislation, he said.
The teachers' fund, known as Calstrs, hasn't taken a position either, said spokeswoman Brenna Neuharth. Calstrs already screens investments for geopolitical risk, including human rights abuses and money laundering, Neuharth said.
When the California assembly approved divesting from Sudan last year, Calpers said it wouldn't invest in nine companies. Calstrs sold stock in a Russian and a Chinese oil company.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year asked Ford Motor Co., Marathon Oil Corp. and six other companies to explain their activities in countries on the terrorism list.
The SEC asked Ford in a July 5 letter whether the company's ``reputation and share value'' were being compromised by its activities in Syria, Iran and Sudan. Ford said its business was limited and lawful.
Missouri, Georgia
Missouri has adopted a policy to require two state funds to divest from companies that do business with Iran, Sudan, North Korea and Syria. Georgia is also considering such legislation, and a bill will be introduced in Ohio next week.
Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman said she made the decision after learning the state was using BNP Paribas, France's biggest bank, to place its overnight money. It had been named as one of several European banks that lent $1 billion to Iran.
``We kicked them off our broker-dealer list and put in place policies that said we won't do business with companies that do business in Iran,'' she said.
In January, Steelman sent a letter to every state treasurer urging them to consider similar policies. ``This investment strategy provides an opportunity for many of us far from the front lines of the war on terrorism to do our part,'' she wrote.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at Afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net
Friday, March 16, 2007
Risk and Standard Deviations of Risk
The latest home mortgage worries have a very dangerous component to the stability of debt markets, that is the underlining risk regrading also commonly known as CDO's.
The algorithms that take 70% of a bundle of junk bonds mixed with 20% of AAA bonds or debt and 10% of AA and wiht a few stirrings of magic the whole package turns into AAA.
That is how big is the mortgage problem. I has touched from good to bad and worse stopping over all over the derivatives of merges and adquisitions to car financing, but lucky for us, the Chiense and Japanese pension system are the ones holding the bag. So you will be able to laugh out loud while you life under a 110% financed home, a 100% finanaced luxury car and maybe if you are lucky enough like The Donald 400% finanaced live style while claiming billions in assets.
(I personally know it. I worked for the Donald).
The dollar just hit and all time low against all major currencies, so here you haveit, a strong dollar policy, it means a real weak dollar, so every time you hear "we are commited to a strong dollar policy" it does not mean that "they" are doing anything to keep the dollar strong, is like been committed to rain in Las Vegas, it never rains. so spend five minutes and see what your dollar can buy around the planet, that might give you some food for thought why most people need to buy at Wal-Mart and not at Whole Foods or Carrefour.
The algorithms that take 70% of a bundle of junk bonds mixed with 20% of AAA bonds or debt and 10% of AA and wiht a few stirrings of magic the whole package turns into AAA.
That is how big is the mortgage problem. I has touched from good to bad and worse stopping over all over the derivatives of merges and adquisitions to car financing, but lucky for us, the Chiense and Japanese pension system are the ones holding the bag. So you will be able to laugh out loud while you life under a 110% financed home, a 100% finanaced luxury car and maybe if you are lucky enough like The Donald 400% finanaced live style while claiming billions in assets.
(I personally know it. I worked for the Donald).
The dollar just hit and all time low against all major currencies, so here you haveit, a strong dollar policy, it means a real weak dollar, so every time you hear "we are commited to a strong dollar policy" it does not mean that "they" are doing anything to keep the dollar strong, is like been committed to rain in Las Vegas, it never rains. so spend five minutes and see what your dollar can buy around the planet, that might give you some food for thought why most people need to buy at Wal-Mart and not at Whole Foods or Carrefour.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Shameless Defiants
You might think the increase in news about ethics-related corporate wrongdoing will make some faces red -corporate leaders and politicos- hot. No luck.
Corporatists have found a new who-cares attitude, their shameless shenanigans can continue without much damage to their personal reputation or the corporate image. Sadly, they are right.
Most shareowners have decided irresponsibility is OK. Thus this new found arrogance is thriving in the corporate boards, and corporate directors find themselves better than ever in saint status.
But who actually support these un-ethical low-lifers.
The Answer can be found here:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&Date=20070221&ID=6514348
These guys in teh article are only a couple of many hundreds that are supporting the whole mechanics of corrupting the savings of most citizens.
They follow a sacrosanct litany of “super-hero of the moneyed” to favor the pilfering of the average Joe savings thru abusive commissions on pensions and funds -money- management.
If you think that in a democracy you elect leaders to protect you from white glove robbers, tough luck, politicos have become part of the takers, you might call corrupted, and all this, is proven that system so much laud is becoming irreversely corrupted.
Lesson: Do not trust your shadows.
Corporatists have found a new who-cares attitude, their shameless shenanigans can continue without much damage to their personal reputation or the corporate image. Sadly, they are right.
Most shareowners have decided irresponsibility is OK. Thus this new found arrogance is thriving in the corporate boards, and corporate directors find themselves better than ever in saint status.
But who actually support these un-ethical low-lifers.
The Answer can be found here:
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&Date=20070221&ID=6514348
These guys in teh article are only a couple of many hundreds that are supporting the whole mechanics of corrupting the savings of most citizens.
They follow a sacrosanct litany of “super-hero of the moneyed” to favor the pilfering of the average Joe savings thru abusive commissions on pensions and funds -money- management.
If you think that in a democracy you elect leaders to protect you from white glove robbers, tough luck, politicos have become part of the takers, you might call corrupted, and all this, is proven that system so much laud is becoming irreversely corrupted.
Lesson: Do not trust your shadows.
Your real tax rate: 40% or 46%
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx
Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, 'sin' taxes and the rest add up to a virtual flat tax nationwide.
By Scott Burns
We have a national flat tax, albeit one with bumps and potholes.
The fact that the political parties won't acknowledge this is one reason they are doing a disservice to the voting public.
Instead, both parties have a vested interest in the theatrical possibilities created by the idea of graduated tax rates. Notice that I said "the idea of" graduated tax rates. That should not be confused with reality.
Democrats argue that taxes on the rich should be raised because others need the money. This wins votes from the legions of voters who aren't rich.
Republicans argue, with great piety, that high taxes crush incentives and should be reduced, and that only then will the American way see a new dawn.
Politicians talk this way because they generally talk about only one tax: the federal income tax, which offers graduated rates from 10% to 35%.
Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn't be a waste of time.
Well, two researchers did it.
In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.
Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.
As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%. There are some exceptions: A 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year, for instance, pays 24.4%, and a 60-year-old couple making $150,000 a year faces a tax rate of 47.7%.
The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.
Video: Don't worry about an audit
That's not a big range, particularly when you notice that it covers an income rise of 2,500%.
So I have a modest proposal: Ask your senators or representative if they have a clue about this. If they don’t, regardless of party, they shouldn't be in office. Vote accordingly.
Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, 'sin' taxes and the rest add up to a virtual flat tax nationwide.
By Scott Burns
We have a national flat tax, albeit one with bumps and potholes.
The fact that the political parties won't acknowledge this is one reason they are doing a disservice to the voting public.
Instead, both parties have a vested interest in the theatrical possibilities created by the idea of graduated tax rates. Notice that I said "the idea of" graduated tax rates. That should not be confused with reality.
Democrats argue that taxes on the rich should be raised because others need the money. This wins votes from the legions of voters who aren't rich.
Republicans argue, with great piety, that high taxes crush incentives and should be reduced, and that only then will the American way see a new dawn.
Politicians talk this way because they generally talk about only one tax: the federal income tax, which offers graduated rates from 10% to 35%.
Politicians rarely talk about what real people experience: the true maze of taxes and government benefits. If someone put them all together, we could see what our actual tax burden was. We could see who pays at the highest or lowest rates. Discussions of tax policy wouldn't be a waste of time.
Well, two researchers did it.
In a study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson have found that our all-in marginal tax rate is 40%, give or take a bit. Yes, you read that right: 40%.
Most workers will pay about that much on each dollar of income when all taxes -- federal and state income taxes, sales taxes, taxes for benefit programs, etc. -- are considered.
As a consequence, a 30-year-old couple earning only $20,000 a year has a marginal tax rate of 42.5%, while a 45-year-old couple earning $500,000 pays at 43.2%. There are some exceptions: A 30-year-old couple earning $50,000 a year, for instance, pays 24.4%, and a 60-year-old couple making $150,000 a year faces a tax rate of 47.7%.
The average marginal tax rate on incomes between $20,000 and $500,000 is 40.3%, the median tax rate is 41.8%, and the standard deviation of all of those rates is 5.3 percentage points. Basically, most of us pay about 40%, plus or minus 5.3 percentage points.
Video: Don't worry about an audit
That's not a big range, particularly when you notice that it covers an income rise of 2,500%.
So I have a modest proposal: Ask your senators or representative if they have a clue about this. If they don’t, regardless of party, they shouldn't be in office. Vote accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)