China's central bank on Wednesday acknowledged the case for a stronger renminbi, days ahead of the arrival in Beijing of US President Barack Obama for talks expected to highlight mounting international concern over Chinese currency policy. The People's Bank of China said foreign exchange policy would take into account "capital flows and major currency movements", a pointed reference to the large speculative inflows of capital that China is receiving and US dollar weakness.
The People's Bank of China said foreign exchange policy would take into account "capital flows and major currency movements", a pointed reference to the large speculative inflows of capital that China is receiving and US dollar weakness.
Economics Minister Rainer Bruederle told reporters in Berlin that the restructured Opel will focus on Western Europe. GM sees a need for EUR3.3 billion to finance the restructuring of Opel, Bruederle said. He added that GM will present a restructuring plan for Opel in the near term. Smith requested the meetings in Berlin after discussions earlier this week with GM executives and workers' representatives at Opel's headquarters in Ruesselsheim, near Frankfurt. GM's board made a surprise decision last week to keep Opel rather than sell it to a consortium led by Austrian-Canadian auto parts maker Magna International Inc.
Smith requested the meetings in Berlin after discussions earlier this week with GM executives and workers' representatives at Opel's headquarters in Ruesselsheim, near Frankfurt.
GM's board made a surprise decision last week to keep Opel rather than sell it to a consortium led by Austrian-Canadian auto parts maker Magna International Inc.
With nearly half of Opel's 50,000 work force in Germany, Berlin's efforts were an effort to protect jobs while safeguarding a company whose roots in Germany go back more than a century. However, critics of the deal in Britain, Spain and other countries with Opel plants argued that Berlin's financing of Magna would leave workers outside Germany more vulnerable when Opel's new owners reduced overcapacity and cut jobs. ... While the decision to call off the sale stunned German politicians, it was a sign of G.M.'s new assertiveness. And with bankruptcy behind them, and market conditions improving in both the United States and Europe, executives are signaling a fresh approach. "We do need to change how we operate in Europe, just as in the U.S.," Mr. Henderson said. "We weren't successful in the U.S."
However, critics of the deal in Britain, Spain and other countries with Opel plants argued that Berlin's financing of Magna would leave workers outside Germany more vulnerable when Opel's new owners reduced overcapacity and cut jobs.
...
While the decision to call off the sale stunned German politicians, it was a sign of G.M.'s new assertiveness. And with bankruptcy behind them, and market conditions improving in both the United States and Europe, executives are signaling a fresh approach.
"We do need to change how we operate in Europe, just as in the U.S.," Mr. Henderson said. "We weren't successful in the U.S."
I have a to do-list for Vattenfall, which pretty much means rolling back all their idiocy.
Even further, it's not clear if they want to take part in the new British nuclear projects (kinda ok with me) or buying the old shitty UK gas nukes from EdF (terribly stupid).
So, who to blame. The management of Vattenfall obviously, but also the extremely weak owner, the Swedish state, both during the current government but especially during the former soc-dem government who were happy as long as the dividends rolled in.
Also, today the CEO of Vattenfall published an Op-ed in Sweden's no.1 paper where he claims:
Hospitals and schools would be transformed into John Lewis-style partnerships under radical plans that could form a central plank of Labour's general election manifesto.Public sector bodies, which would also include leisure centres, housing organisations and social care providers, would be allowed to take control of their own affairs if staff and users voted in favour.According to a senior adviser, the government wants to resuscitate some of the ways services were run before 1945 when local communities were far more involved.News of the Labour plan comes after David Cameron delivered a speech outlining his vision of the public sector in which control of public services would be devolved to local groups and charities.
Hospitals and schools would be transformed into John Lewis-style partnerships under radical plans that could form a central plank of Labour's general election manifesto.
Public sector bodies, which would also include leisure centres, housing organisations and social care providers, would be allowed to take control of their own affairs if staff and users voted in favour.
According to a senior adviser, the government wants to resuscitate some of the ways services were run before 1945 when local communities were far more involved.
News of the Labour plan comes after David Cameron delivered a speech outlining his vision of the public sector in which control of public services would be devolved to local groups and charities.
There is nothing the administration hates more than the anti-propaganda truth, especially the kind that discloses the pathetic situation of the economy. Which is why Larry Summers must be positively loathing the most recent report from the Pew Center On The States, entitled "Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril", which, as the observant among you may surmise, discusses states in fiscal peril. In short, that would be all of them. A snippet: "California's problems are in a league of their own. But the same pressures that drove it toward fiscal disaster are wreaking havoc in a number of states, with potentially damaging consequences for the entire country." And while the Fed may hope to bail out the ongoing contraction at the Federal level indefinitely (or until it runs out of toner cartridge), the options facing the various states are much less sanguine. To wit: This examination by the Pew Center on the States looks closely at nine states, in addition to California, that are particularly affected. All of California's neighbors--Arizona, Nevada and Oregon--and fellow Sun Belt member Florida were severely hit by the bursting of the housing bubble and landed on Pew's top 10 list of recession-stricken states facing a similar set of fiscal difficulties. A Midwestern cluster comprising Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin emerged, too, as did the Northeastern states of New Jersey and Rhode Island. These states' budget troubles can have dramatic consequences for their residents: higher taxes, layoffs or furloughs of state workers, longer waits for public services, more crowded classrooms, higher college tuition and less support for the poor or unemployed. But they also pose challenges for the country as a whole. The 10 states account for more than a third of America's population1 and economic output.2 And actions taken by state governments to balance their budgets--such as tax increases and drastic spending cuts--can slow down the nation's economic recovery. (Graphs from the Pew Report.)
And while the Fed may hope to bail out the ongoing contraction at the Federal level indefinitely (or until it runs out of toner cartridge), the options facing the various states are much less sanguine. To wit:
This examination by the Pew Center on the States looks closely at nine states, in addition to California, that are particularly affected. All of California's neighbors--Arizona, Nevada and Oregon--and fellow Sun Belt member Florida were severely hit by the bursting of the housing bubble and landed on Pew's top 10 list of recession-stricken states facing a similar set of fiscal difficulties. A Midwestern cluster comprising Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin emerged, too, as did the Northeastern states of New Jersey and Rhode Island. These states' budget troubles can have dramatic consequences for their residents: higher taxes, layoffs or furloughs of state workers, longer waits for public services, more crowded classrooms, higher college tuition and less support for the poor or unemployed. But they also pose challenges for the country as a whole. The 10 states account for more than a third of America's population1 and economic output.2 And actions taken by state governments to balance their budgets--such as tax increases and drastic spending cuts--can slow down the nation's economic recovery.
These states' budget troubles can have dramatic consequences for their residents: higher taxes, layoffs or furloughs of state workers, longer waits for public services, more crowded classrooms, higher college tuition and less support for the poor or unemployed. But they also pose challenges for the country as a whole. The 10 states account for more than a third of America's population1 and economic output.2 And actions taken by state governments to balance their budgets--such as tax increases and drastic spending cuts--can slow down the nation's economic recovery.
Banks are set up and supported by government for the further benefit of the macro economy via providing a payments system and lending in a way that is specifically defined by regulators. Newsflash: the public purpose of banking is NOT to provide profits per se to shareholders. Rather, the provision of the ability to earn profits is only a tool used to support the attendant public purpose. Banks should only be allowed to lend directly to borrowers, and then service and keep those loans on their own balance sheets. There is no further public purpose served by selling loans or other financial assets to third parties, but there are substantial real costs to government in regulating and supervising those activities. There are severe consequences for failure to adequately regulate and supervise those secondary market activities as well. Banks should be prohibited from engaging in any secondary market activity because it serves no public purpose and may result in severe social costs in the case of regulatory and supervisory lapses. Some argue that these areas might be profitable for the banks, but this is not a reason to extend government sponsored enterprises into those areas. Therefore, banks should not be allowed to buy (or sell) credit default insurance. The public purpose of banking as a public/private partnership is to allow the private sector to price risk, rather than have the public sector pricing risk through publicly owned banks. If a bank instead relies on credit default insurance, then it is transferring that pricing of risk to a third party, which is counter to the public purpose of the current public/private banking system. Banks should not be allowed to engage in proprietary trading or any profit-making ventures beyond basic lending. If the public sector wants to venture out of banking for some presumed public purpose it can be done through other outlets. If the activities of the banks are not facilitating the production and movement of real goods and services what public purpose do they serve? It is clear they have made a small number of people fabulously wealthy. It is also clear that they have damaged the prospects for disadvantaged workers in many parts of the world. It's more obvious to all of us now that when the system comes unstuck through the complexity of these transactions and the impossibility of correctly pricing risk, the real economies across the globe suffer. The consequences have been devastating in terms of lost employment and income and lost wealth. All governments should sign an agreement which would make all financial transactions that cannot be shown to facilitate funding for real goods and services illegal. Simple as that. When we keep these principles at the front of the argument, we can see that what Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank are arguing about is akin to how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Banks should be prohibited from engaging in any secondary market activity because it serves no public purpose and may result in severe social costs in the case of regulatory and supervisory lapses. Some argue that these areas might be profitable for the banks, but this is not a reason to extend government sponsored enterprises into those areas. Therefore, banks should not be allowed to buy (or sell) credit default insurance. The public purpose of banking as a public/private partnership is to allow the private sector to price risk, rather than have the public sector pricing risk through publicly owned banks.
If a bank instead relies on credit default insurance, then it is transferring that pricing of risk to a third party, which is counter to the public purpose of the current public/private banking system. Banks should not be allowed to engage in proprietary trading or any profit-making ventures beyond basic lending. If the public sector wants to venture out of banking for some presumed public purpose it can be done through other outlets.
If the activities of the banks are not facilitating the production and movement of real goods and services what public purpose do they serve? It is clear they have made a small number of people fabulously wealthy. It is also clear that they have damaged the prospects for disadvantaged workers in many parts of the world.
It's more obvious to all of us now that when the system comes unstuck through the complexity of these transactions and the impossibility of correctly pricing risk, the real economies across the globe suffer. The consequences have been devastating in terms of lost employment and income and lost wealth.
All governments should sign an agreement which would make all financial transactions that cannot be shown to facilitate funding for real goods and services illegal. Simple as that. When we keep these principles at the front of the argument, we can see that what Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank are arguing about is akin to how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Peter W. Galbraith, an influential former American ambassador, is a powerful voice on Iraq who helped shape the views of policy makers like Joseph R. Biden Jr. and John Kerry. In the summer of 2005, he was also an adviser to the Kurdish regional government as Iraq wrote its Constitution -- tough and sensitive talks not least because of issues like how Iraq would divide up its vast oil wealth. Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract... Mr. Galbraith received the rights after he helped negotiate a potentially lucrative contract that allowed the Norwegian oil company DNO to drill for oil in the promising Dohuk region of Kurdistan, the interviews and documents show. He says his actions were proper because he was at the time a private citizen deeply involved in Kurdish causes, both in business and policy.
Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract...
Mr. Galbraith received the rights after he helped negotiate a potentially lucrative contract that allowed the Norwegian oil company DNO to drill for oil in the promising Dohuk region of Kurdistan, the interviews and documents show.
He says his actions were proper because he was at the time a private citizen deeply involved in Kurdish causes, both in business and policy.
Right now, DNO is limited to local sales, on smallish volumes, which I doubt generate more than a few tens of millions in yearly turnover, let alone profit. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
