SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45360)11/21/2008 12:27:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Fleck was on CNBC tonight and said he's been shorting successfully for about a decade...Fleck did say we have been witnessing "Q1 of 2000 in reverse"...He said he's "in the process of closing out his Short Fund"...He also said there are some amazing buying opportunities out there...he thinks it will be very tough to time the bottom.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45360)11/21/2008 1:02:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
What Next for Obama's Network?
_______________________________________________________________

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Columnist
The Washington Post
Friday, November 21, 2008

While the nation's capital obsesses over Barack Obama's next Cabinet pick, the president-elect's lieutenants are engaged with what may be a more important long-term issue: What will become of Obama's vast grass-roots network?

Electoral campaigns, like circus tents, quickly disappear after the show is over. But Obama is our first community-organizer president, and he sees the way he got elected as being almost as crucial as the fact that he won. Because of the emphasis he put on organizing, barackobama.com might fairly be seen as the most successful high-tech startup of the past two years.

Over and over, Obama has spoken of change coming from "the bottom up," and the organization he built down to the precinct and neighborhood level could be an agent of that change. But how?

The discussion among Obama's lieutenants focuses on several alternatives. In one view, the Obama apparatus could be integrated into the Democratic Party and be run through the Democratic National Committee. Many of Obama's top aides, including campaign manager David Plouffe, are veterans of traditional Democratic politics.

Turning the Obama network into a vast national party organization could give Democrats durable advantages that the party has not enjoyed since the New Deal era, when Franklin Roosevelt built an alliance between local political machines and a growing labor movement.

But Plouffe himself has been much affected by the new way of campaigning he oversaw. His regular video reports to the troops turned him into something of a hero to the Obama faithful.

Moreover, Steve Hildebrand, Obama's deputy campaign manager, has argued that members of the network include many who are averse to traditional party politics: young people with weak party loyalties, independents and even some Republicans. He has been suggesting at Democratic gatherings that the Obama apparatus might instead constitute itself as an independent political organization -- friendly and parallel to the Democratic Party but a separate entity nonetheless. Obama supporters are also discussing how local networks could integrate into their communities through various forms of service work and activism. Obama's Web site is raising money for the victims of the Southern California fires.

The importance of cultivating the network and keeping it intact was underscored by an online survey that Plouffe sent to supporters on Tuesday. The survey explicitly asked: "How would you like to see this organization move forward in the months and years ahead?"

Offering a clue as to what Obama insiders are thinking, the survey asked supporters to rank four objectives: helping the new administration "pass legislation through grass-roots efforts"; helping elect state and local candidates "who share the same vision for our country"; training others in the organizing techniques perfected by the campaign; and "working on local issues that impact our communities."

Notably absent from that list was the word "Democrat."

Yet there is only so much distance that Obama either can or wants to keep from his party. He is, in important ways, a loyal Chicago organization Democrat. Plouffe is currently using the Obama fundraising network to help the Democratic National Committee erase its deficit.

Obama supporters have been moving into Georgia to help Democrat Jim Martin in his Dec. 2 runoff election against incumbent Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Yet Obama himself has yet to make clear how forcefully he'll intervene in a state that he lost. A Martin victory would signal the depth of the nation's desire for change, but a new president-elect with soaring popularity may not want to subject himself to such an early test on not-entirely-hospitable terrain.

One Democratic strategist said that parts of the Obama organization are still mistrustful of the national committee, seeing it as a redoubt for Hillary and Bill Clinton loyalists. But this view is waning, since Obama, as the party's undisputed leader, will inevitably take over the party apparatus, and he is making peace with the Clintons, notably by suggesting he may want Sen. Clinton as his secretary of state.

The urgency of the organizational discussion signals that Obama's lieutenants see the 2008 campaign as having fundamentally altered the contours of American politics.

Democrats believe (and many Republicans fear) that Obama allowed his party and its allies to take an enormous leap forward in both technological sophistication and grass-roots activism. Preserving those gains and building on them is a priority for a man who sees organizing not only as instrumental but also as a way of transforming democracy itself.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45360)11/21/2008 1:10:50 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Carmaker Rescues May Fuel `Stones-and-Glass-Houses' Trade Spats

By Jennifer M. Freedman

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S.-triggered spate of global carmaker-bailout proposals may spark trade disputes over whether the Americans are unfairly trying to subsidize their industry or just making up for state aid foreign rivals already enjoy.

As the U.S. considers throwing a lifeline to General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, officials in Europe are preparing their own assistance packages -- even as they threaten to lodge a World Trade Organization complaint against any U.S. bailout. Other governments also may take issue with an American rescue as their own automakers press them to follow the U.S.'s lead.

Any WTO complaints may open a Pandora's Box, bringing to a head a long-simmering dispute over government policies that U.S. automakers say unduly aid their rivals, including state-financed health-care and retirement benefits, and currency policies.

``Frankly, it's stones and glass houses,' said Garel Rhys, professor of automotive economics at Cardiff Business School in Wales. ``Everybody has been at this game for their own interests; nobody is pure.'

Congress is trying to reach a compromise on giving U.S. automakers $25 billion they say they need to survive the next year, either by speeding up the use of funds already approved to develop more fuel-saving technologies and models or providing a new source of funds. President-elect Barack Obama supports helping the industry.

Defending Interests

Similar proposals are proliferating around the globe. ``When one of the major powers grants subsidies to a high-profile industry, the other is inevitably led to react by defending its own interests,' said Pierre Kirch, a trade lawyer at Paul Hastings in Paris.

In Europe, where car sales fell almost 15 percent in October, the sixth consecutive monthly drop, auto companies are lobbying the European Union for 40 billion euros ($50 billion) in loans.

In response, EU officials are drafting a plan to provide loans through the European Investment Bank to promote clean-car technology. The bank plans to increase overall financing levels by as much as 15 billion euros next year, President Philippe Maystadt said Nov. 14; a portion would go to the auto industry.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said her government will decide on an aid request from GM's Opel unit by Christmas. Opel asked for ``somewhat more than' 1 billion euros in credit guarantees, said Carl-Peter Forster, GM's Europe chief. The state government in Hesse, where Opel employs 15,000 people, agreed to give the company and regional parts suppliers loan guarantees of as much as 500 million euros.

Tax Cuts

Carmakers in the U.K., where sales slid 23 percent in October, have asked for tax cuts and permission for their finance companies to access funding available to British banks. French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde called for national and European ``actions' to ``support' the industry on Nov. 17.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Nov. 15 that his government may follow any U.S. effort with an aid package for his country's manufacturers and parts suppliers, including Magna International and Linamar Corp.

Chinese carmakers also want aid. Slowing demand and rising competition have caused SAIC Motor Corp., the nation's biggest domestic automaker, to tumble 78 percent this year in Shanghai trading.

Chen Jianguo, an official with China's National Development and Reform Commission, has said the government is considering lowering sales taxes on alternative-energy vehicles. The government's 4 trillion-yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package may also help, said Winfried Vahland, Volkswagen's China head.

`Really Severe'

``The situation is really severe,' said Zeng Qinghong, general manager of Guangzhou Automobile Group Co., a partner of Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., on Nov. 18. ``We hope the government can introduce policies to stimulate demand.'

Japanese Finance Minister Shoichi Nakagawa told Bloomberg Television his government probably won't object to the U.S. helping GM because its collapse ``would be huge -- not just for America, but for Europe and Japan as well.'

That doesn't mean Japanese carmakers won't also put their hands out.

``If the money is given because bankruptcy would cause a lot of problems, this may be unfair' to Japanese carmakers, said Takeshi Miyao, a Tokyo-based analyst at automotive consulting company CSM Worldwide. ``The question of why the Japanese government isn't helping the Japanese carmakers will definitely arise.'

Under Scrutiny

Any American package will be scrutinized by other countries to see if it runs afoul of WTO rules, which allow certain kinds of subsidies, such as those that protect the environment, but bar others, including payments to exporters.

The EU threatened to lodge a complaint against any U.S. auto package on Nov. 14, when European Commission President Jose Barroso said the bloc was examining the rescue proposal and would ``certainly act at the WTO' if it contravenes trade rules.

Korean President Lee Myung-bak told CNN on Nov. 17 that he supports a U.S. bailout but warned that it must ``give more serious consideration to the method' because it ``could run counter to WTO rules and set a bad precedent. Then, other countries may follow the example of the U.S. to directly subsidize their automakers.'

China ``quite possibly' may lodge a WTO complaint if the U.S. bails out its industry, said Kirch, the trade lawyer. ``It might also bring a case if Europe does.'

Scoff at Notion

American automakers scoff at the notion that they may be accused of benefiting from unfair subsidies.

``We're the only country in the world that expects its auto industry to exist without some government support,' said Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Center for Automotive Research, at a conference in Los Angeles. The Ann Arbor-Michigan-based group's Web site says it ``maintains strong relationships with industry' and others in the ``international automotive community.'

One of the Americans' biggest gripes involves Japan's currency, which they claim is kept artificially cheap against the dollar. The Automotive Trade Policy Council, which represents GM, Ford and Chrysler, said in October 2007 that the weak yen at that time gave Japanese automakers a $4,000-a-car advantage on their imports to the U.S.

Toyota dismisses that argument. ``Our vehicles sell well, and are profitable, because our operations are efficient, because our vehicles represent quality and value, and because they represent the needs and wants of the public,' Toyota spokesman Bruce C. Ertmann wrote on a company blog in January. ``Their profitability has nothing at all to do with some nefarious program of currency manipulation.'

Wagoner's Complaint

GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner has repeatedly complained that his company is disadvantaged by pension and retiree-health costs -- benefits that are heavily subsidized in competitor countries, including Italy, Germany and France. Italy also helps companies like Fiat SpA pay unemployment benefits, making temporary production cuts less expensive.

To be sure, taxes in those countries tend to be higher, offsetting the advantage.

Rhys, the automotive economics professor, notes that many European carmakers that were once state-controlled -- such as Renault SA in France, Volkswagen AG in Germany and Alfa Romeo in Italy -- got loans at preferential rates. Renault, which is still 15 percent-owned by the French government and has enjoyed the most state largesse, would have collapsed without it, Rhys said.

Cost of Credit

``Just about every one of the European automakers, apart from Mercedes, have had a rescue of some sort or another,' Rhys said. And Toyota has benefited from Japan's ``incredible low cost of credit,' he added. ``It wasn't technically state aid, but it certainly wasn't the sort of conditions companies in Europe or North America could borrow at.'


Any complaints that grow out of the current bailout-proposal war will be complicated by the industry's web of cross-border subsidiaries, said Ed Kim, an analyst at consulting firm AutoPacific Inc. in Tustin, California.

If Ford gets U.S. help, that may indirectly benefit Hiroshima, Japan-based Mazda, because the American company owns 13 percent of it. GM controls GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. of Inchon, South Korea, and it acquired the bankrupt Daewoo Motor Co. in 2002. Chrysler is negotiating a partnership with China's Chery Automobile Co. Chery already has agreed to provide a model for Chrysler to sell in South America.

Back in 1979, when the U.S. bailed out Chrysler, things were ``remarkably straightforward' because the company lacked a significant international presence, said Maryann Keller, an independent automotive analyst and consultant in Greenwich, Connecticut.

``Chrysler today would be more complicated,' she said. ``Do we subsidize Chrysler so they can work with Chery and create a stronger automotive competitor?'

To contact the reporter on this story: Jennifer M. Freedman in Geneva at jfreedman@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: November 21, 2008 00:00 EST



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45360)11/21/2008 8:01:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
The Lame-Duck Economy
_______________________________________________________________

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
The New York Times
November 21, 2008

Everyone’s talking about a new New Deal, for obvious reasons. In 2008, as in 1932, a long era of Republican political dominance came to an end in the face of an economic and financial crisis that, in voters’ minds, both discredited the G.O.P.’s free-market ideology and undermined its claims of competence. And for those on the progressive side of the political spectrum, these are hopeful times.

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932 — namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

It’s true that the interregnum will be shorter this time: F.D.R. wasn’t inaugurated until March; Barack Obama will move into the White House on Jan. 20. But crises move faster these days.

How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot. Consider how much darker the economic picture has grown since the failure of Lehman Brothers, which took place just over two months ago. And the pace of deterioration seems to be accelerating.

Most obviously, we’re in the midst of the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression: the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has now fallen more than 50 percent from its peak. Other indicators are arguably even more disturbing: unemployment claims are surging, manufacturing production is plunging, interest rates on corporate bonds — which reflect investor fears of default — are soaring, which will almost surely lead to a sharp fall in business spending. The prospects for the economy look much grimmer now than they did as little as a week or two ago.

Yet economic policy, rather than responding to the threat, seems to have gone on vacation. In particular, panic has returned to the credit markets, yet no new rescue plan is in sight. On the contrary, Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, has announced that he won’t even go back to Congress for the second half of the $700 billion already approved for financial bailouts. And financial aid for the beleaguered auto industry is being stalled by a political standoff.

How much should we worry about what looks like two months of policy drift? At minimum, the next two months will inflict serious pain on hundreds of thousands of Americans, who will lose their jobs, their homes, or both. What’s really troubling, however, is the possibility that some of the damage being done right now will be irreversible. I’m concerned, in particular, about the two D’s: deflation and Detroit.

About deflation: Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s taught economists that it’s very hard to get the economy moving once expectations of inflation get too low (it doesn’t matter whether people literally expect prices to fall). Yet there’s clear deflationary pressure on the U.S. economy right now, and every month that passes without signs of recovery increases the odds that we’ll find ourselves stuck in a Japan-type trap for years.

About Detroit: There’s now a real risk that, in the absence of quick federal aid, the Big Three automakers and their network of suppliers will be forced into liquidation — that is, forced to shut down, lay off all their workers and sell off their assets. And if that happens, it will be very hard to bring them back.

Now, maybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it’s a decision that should be taken carefully, with full consideration of the costs and benefits — not a decision taken by default, because of a political standoff between Democrats who want Mr. Paulson to use some of that $700 billion and a lame-duck administration that’s trying to force Congress to divert funds from a fuel-efficiency program instead.

Is economic policy completely paralyzed between now and Jan. 20? No, not completely. Some useful actions are being taken. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the lending agencies, have taken the helpful step of declaring a temporary halt to foreclosures, while Congress has passed a badly needed extension of unemployment benefits now that the White House has dropped its opposition.

But nothing is happening on the policy front that is remotely commensurate with the scale of the economic crisis. And it’s scary to think how much more can go wrong before Inauguration Day.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45360)11/21/2008 8:58:52 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 149317
 
Waxman Win Is Boon for Environmentalists, Bust for Utilities

By Lorraine Woellert

Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- A wall-sized poster of Earth hangs in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an image that Chairman John Dingell once boasted showed the reach of his panel.

Dingell will no longer rule the planet. House Democrats yesterday handed the committee's gavel to Representative Henry Waxman, 69, a Californian who promises a different agenda for a panel that touches nearly every sector of business -- climate change, health care, telecommunications and trade.

Energy providers such as Allegheny Energy Inc. and Exxon Mobil Corp. and polluting industries including carmaker General Motors Corp. and Dow Chemical Co. will be most affected by the leadership shift. Waxman, whose district includes Beverly Hills, has long been at odds over environmental issues with Dingell, 82, a Dearborn, Michigan, lawmaker who during his 52 years in Congress has defended automakers and their unions.

``The champion of the environment has replaced the champion of the automotive industry,'' said Daniel Becker, an environmental lawyer and director of the Safe Climate Campaign in Washington.

House Democrats voted 137-122 for Waxman in a secret ballot. Waxman, who now leads the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told fellow lawmakers that a change in leadership of the energy panel was needed to push through President-elect Barack Obama's agenda when Congress reconvenes in January.

`A New Opportunity'

``We have a new opportunity that maybe comes only once in a generation,'' Waxman said after the vote. ``We must meet the challenge.''

Environmental issues have been a chief focus of Waxman's oversight panel, which has taken aim at greenhouse gas emissions, Environmental Protection Agency decisions and coal pollution.

Waxman's win ``signals a sea change'' in congressional efforts to move global-warming legislation, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said. ``It's going to be a big difference in the sense of having a colleague on the other side rather than someone with whom I disagree.''

Waxman and Massachusetts Representative Edward Markey in March introduced a bill to ban construction of coal-fired power plants that don't limit greenhouse gases. The measure would block states and the EPA from issuing permits for factories that don't capture and store carbon dioxide emissions.

`Hydraulic Fracturing'

Waxman also is a foe of ``hydraulic fracturing,'' a decades-old drilling technique that environmentalists complain threatens the safety of drinking water. Waxman last year held a hearing on the practice, which is regulated by states, and called for tougher oversight.

Obama has promised to spend $15 billion a year to help private industry develop clean energy technology and to institute a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Waxman and Dingell have demonstrated different approaches to environmental issues.

Dingell sided with the EPA's decision to oppose California's request for a waiver from federal rules so the state could impose more stringent pollution controls on cars. The state's effort was challenged in court by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and opposed by President George W. Bush.

Waxman used his panel to investigate why the agency blocked California's waiver, which would have made the state the first in the nation to limit greenhouse-gas emissions from autos. The investigation uncovered communication between the White House and the EPA's political appointees.

Indecency

Waxman opposed legislation, which Dingell's committee approved, to increase fines in 2005 for broadcast indecency. Broadcasters opposed the bill, which boosted maximum penalties tenfold, to $325,000.

``It increases the power of government to censor programming that some might consider indecent and others might not,'' Waxman said during congressional debate.

Dingell said the bill addressed a ``betrayal of the public trust'' by broadcasters who put ``their own drive for ratings and profits ahead of their responsibilities to the public.''

The fines apply to broadcasters including CBS Corp., News Corp.'s Fox, Walt Disney Co.'s ABC television network and General Electric Co.'s NBC.

The measure passed amid debate over the baring of singer Janet Jackson's breast at the Super Bowl championship football game on CBS in 2004. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold the FCC rule.

`More Pragmatic'

On health-care policy, Waxman's policies will be similar to Dingell's, though his style may be different, said Robert Laszewski, an analyst with Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Alexandria, Virginia. ``Waxman is a little more pragmatic,'' he said. ``It increases the likelihood of something happening. They'll be more disciplined and organized.''

Waxman will have a built-in line of communication with the incoming administration: his longtime chief of staff Phil Schiliro is now part of Obama's transition team and will be the administration's chief congressional liaison.

With Waxman as chairman, legislation to address climate change ``will happen faster and smoother,'' said Representative Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat. ``Henry is in a better position to guide it.''

Rough Times Ahead

Waxman's win signals rough times ahead for energy producers, said Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a free-market research group in Washington.

``Waxman is as liberal as it gets, and he's a very effective legislator,'' Pyle said. For energy providers, Waxman's win creates ``about as hostile a climate as there could possibly be.''

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, called Waxman's win ``a loud wake-up call to American business leaders that the 111th Congress is not going to play nicely with them.''

Waxman gave Dingell notice of his bid for the Commerce chairmanship in a phone call on Nov. 5, just hours after Obama's win. The battle between the two political veterans divided Democrats, pitting the Rust Belt against Silicon Valley, Big Labor against the new economy, and the party's old guard against relative newcomers.

Waxman has earned a reputation for pit-bull partisanship, a characterization that is more a reflection of his job as oversight chairman than his inclination, said Democrat Gerry Sikorski, a lobbyist at Holland & Knight LLP.

``Henry tends to talk people through things,'' Sikorski said.

Impassioned Rhetoric

Amid his sometimes-impassioned rhetoric, Waxman has a track record of bipartisanship on the oversight committee, working closely with the top Republican, Representative Thomas Davis of Virginia, on government contracting issues.

Waxman perhaps is best known for taking on the tobacco industry in 1994 as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment. His hearings exposed the industry campaign to cast doubt on scientific studies linking smoking to cancer.

Waxman's biggest lifetime donors have been unions and trial lawyers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Dingell's top lifetime contributors were the automotive industry.

Dingell yesterday congratulated Waxman on his victory, calling 2008 ``clearly a change year.''

Dingell served as the top Democrat on the energy panel for 28 years, as chairman when Democrats were in the majority and as the ranking member when Republicans controlled Congress. He has served in the House since 1955. His wife is the president of the General Motors Foundation.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: November 21, 2008 00:11 EST