ATHENS, July 24 - Greece will get a second aid tranche of a European Union and International Monetary Fund bail-out as it has met the conditions set in an austerity plan, its finance minister was quoted as saying on Saturday.EU, IMF and European Central Bank officials will be in Athens on Monday to check whether Greece is implementing its €110bn (£92bn $141.6bn) programme to secure another €9bn in aid. Greece received a first payment of €20bn from its eurozone partners and the IMF in May."The disbursement of the second tranche depends on whether we meet the targets we have been set to meet by June 30," finance minister George Papaconstantinou said in an interview with the weekly Kosmos tou Ependyti newspaper."These conditions have been met and we have taken a further step by passing the pension reform bill."
ATHENS, July 24 - Greece will get a second aid tranche of a European Union and International Monetary Fund bail-out as it has met the conditions set in an austerity plan, its finance minister was quoted as saying on Saturday.
EU, IMF and European Central Bank officials will be in Athens on Monday to check whether Greece is implementing its €110bn (£92bn $141.6bn) programme to secure another €9bn in aid. Greece received a first payment of €20bn from its eurozone partners and the IMF in May.
"The disbursement of the second tranche depends on whether we meet the targets we have been set to meet by June 30," finance minister George Papaconstantinou said in an interview with the weekly Kosmos tou Ependyti newspaper.
"These conditions have been met and we have taken a further step by passing the pension reform bill."
WASHINGTON -- An epic fight is brewing over what Congress and President Obama should do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, with such substantial economic and political consequences that it could shape the fall elections and fiscal policy for years to come. Democratic leaders, including Mr. Obama, say they are intent on letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled at the end of this year. But they have pledged to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 -- what Democrats call the middle class. Most Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone, and some Democrats agree, saying it would be unwise to raise taxes on anyone while the economy remains weak. If no action is taken, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains and estates would all rise. The issue has generated little public attention this year as Congress grappled with health care, financial regulation, energy, a Supreme Court nomination and other divisive topics. But it will move to the top of the agenda when lawmakers return to Washington in September from their summer recess, just as the midterm campaign gets under way in earnest. In recent days, intense discussions have begun at the Capitol. Beyond the implications for family checkbooks, the tax fight will serve as a proxy for the bigger political clashes of the year, including the size of government and the best way of handling the tepid economic recovery.
WASHINGTON -- An epic fight is brewing over what Congress and President Obama should do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, with such substantial economic and political consequences that it could shape the fall elections and fiscal policy for years to come.
Democratic leaders, including Mr. Obama, say they are intent on letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled at the end of this year. But they have pledged to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 -- what Democrats call the middle class.
Most Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone, and some Democrats agree, saying it would be unwise to raise taxes on anyone while the economy remains weak. If no action is taken, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains and estates would all rise.
The issue has generated little public attention this year as Congress grappled with health care, financial regulation, energy, a Supreme Court nomination and other divisive topics. But it will move to the top of the agenda when lawmakers return to Washington in September from their summer recess, just as the midterm campaign gets under way in earnest. In recent days, intense discussions have begun at the Capitol.
Beyond the implications for family checkbooks, the tax fight will serve as a proxy for the bigger political clashes of the year, including the size of government and the best way of handling the tepid economic recovery.
Big Fight Ahead on Expiration of Bush Tax Cuts
Fight, schmight ... after all the posturing the tax cuts for the wealthy will remain. Who do you think runs Washington? Let the peasants starve. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
and sadly true. keep to the Fen Causeway
LONDON -- To some, he is a real-life Willy Wonka. To others, he is a Bond-style villain bent on taking over the world's supply of chocolate. In a stroke, a hedge fund manager here named Anthony Ward has all but cornered the market in cocoa. By one estimate, he has bought enough to make more than five billion chocolate bars. Chocolate lovers here are crying into their Cadbury wrappers -- and rival traders are crying foul, saying Mr. Ward is stockpiling cocoa in a bid to drive up already high prices so he can sell later at a big profit. His activities have helped drive cocoa prices on the London market to a 30-year high.
In a stroke, a hedge fund manager here named Anthony Ward has all but cornered the market in cocoa. By one estimate, he has bought enough to make more than five billion chocolate bars.
Chocolate lovers here are crying into their Cadbury wrappers -- and rival traders are crying foul, saying Mr. Ward is stockpiling cocoa in a bid to drive up already high prices so he can sell later at a big profit. His activities have helped drive cocoa prices on the London market to a 30-year high.
The wheat markets, in particular, in this country are the outcome of a process of development of over 150 years. And that is why, from about 1903 to 2003, the real price of wheat in this country has gone down. And this was one of the great reasons for America's great twentieth century, the fact that we had cheap food, we had cheap bread. And Goldman, in 1991, came up with a new idea and a new product, which, as I said before, completely restructured this market and completely threw it out of whack..... How did this work? Instead of a buy-and-sell order, like everybody does in these markets, they just started buying. It's called "going long." They started going long on wheat futures. OK? And every time one of these contracts came due, they would do something called "rolling it over" into the next contract. So they would take all those buy promises they had made and say, "OK, we still--we're just going to--we'll buy more later. And plus we're going to buy more now." And they kept on buying and buying and buying and buying and accumulating this unprecedented, this historically unprecedented pile of long-only wheat futures. And this accumulation created a very odd phenomenon in the market. It's called a "demand shock." Usually prices go up because supply is low, right? That's the idea. There's not a lot of supply, so the price goes up. In this case, Goldman and the other banks had introduced this completely unnatural and artificial demand to buy wheat, and that then set the price up. Now, a lot of people are saying, "Oh, it was biofuel production. It was drought in Australia. It was floods in Kazakhstan." Let me tell you, hard red wheat generally trades between $3 and $6 per sixty-pound bushel. It went up to $12, then $15, then $18. Then it broke $20. And on February 25th, 2008, hard red spring futures settled at $25 per bushel.
How did this work? Instead of a buy-and-sell order, like everybody does in these markets, they just started buying. It's called "going long." They started going long on wheat futures. OK? And every time one of these contracts came due, they would do something called "rolling it over" into the next contract. So they would take all those buy promises they had made and say, "OK, we still--we're just going to--we'll buy more later. And plus we're going to buy more now." And they kept on buying and buying and buying and buying and accumulating this unprecedented, this historically unprecedented pile of long-only wheat futures. And this accumulation created a very odd phenomenon in the market. It's called a "demand shock." Usually prices go up because supply is low, right? That's the idea. There's not a lot of supply, so the price goes up. In this case, Goldman and the other banks had introduced this completely unnatural and artificial demand to buy wheat, and that then set the price up. Now, a lot of people are saying, "Oh, it was biofuel production. It was drought in Australia. It was floods in Kazakhstan." Let me tell you, hard red wheat generally trades between $3 and $6 per sixty-pound bushel. It went up to $12, then $15, then $18. Then it broke $20. And on February 25th, 2008, hard red spring futures settled at $25 per bushel.
It may safely be assumed that a chocolate lover will not find himself in the possession of a Cadbury wrapper. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Goldman Sachs is facing a threat by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to bring in outside accountants to comb through the bank's systems for data on its derivatives business, the panel's chairman has said.The commission will not back down from demands for information Goldman's executives have maintained they do not track, Phil Angelides told the Financial Times."We have a deep level of questioning about whether we're getting the straight scoop here and whether Goldman is working with us on information that they surely have," Mr Angelides, chairman of the US Congress-appointed commission.His comments mark the latest episode in the dispute between Goldman and the commission, which has scolded the bank for its "abysmal" response to the inquiry. The frustration of FCIC members was evident several weeks ago when two of Goldman's executives, Gary Cohn, president, and David Viniar, chief financial officer, told the panel the bank's accounting systems did not break out trading revenue generated strictly from derivatives.
The commission will not back down from demands for information Goldman's executives have maintained they do not track, Phil Angelides told the Financial Times.
"We have a deep level of questioning about whether we're getting the straight scoop here and whether Goldman is working with us on information that they surely have," Mr Angelides, chairman of the US Congress-appointed commission.
His comments mark the latest episode in the dispute between Goldman and the commission, which has scolded the bank for its "abysmal" response to the inquiry. The frustration of FCIC members was evident several weeks ago when two of Goldman's executives, Gary Cohn, president, and David Viniar, chief financial officer, told the panel the bank's accounting systems did not break out trading revenue generated strictly from derivatives.
My reading of contemporary Republican thinking is that there is no chance of any attempt to arrest adverse long-term fiscal trends should they return to power. Moreover, since the Republicans have no interest in doing anything sensible, the Democrats will gain nothing from trying to do much either. That is the lesson Democrats have to draw from the Clinton era's successful frugality, which merely gave George W. Bush the opportunity to make massive (irresponsible and unsustainable) tax cuts. In practice, then, nothing will be done. Indeed, nothing may be done even if a genuine fiscal crisis were to emerge. According to my friend, Bruce Bartlett, a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some "conservatives" (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control. It should be noted, in passing, that a federal default would surely create the biggest financial crisis in world economic history. To understand modern Republican thinking on fiscal policy, we need to go back to perhaps the most politically brilliant (albeit economically unconvincing) idea in the history of fiscal policy: "supply-side economics". Supply-side economics liberated conservatives from any need to insist on fiscal rectitude and balanced budgets. Supply-side economics said that one could cut taxes and balance budgets, because incentive effects would generate new activity and so higher revenue. The political genius of this idea is evident. Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party. It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending. Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?
Indeed, nothing may be done even if a genuine fiscal crisis were to emerge. According to my friend, Bruce Bartlett, a highly informed, if jaundiced, observer, some "conservatives" (in truth, extreme radicals) think a federal default would be an effective way to bring public spending they detest under control. It should be noted, in passing, that a federal default would surely create the biggest financial crisis in world economic history.
To understand modern Republican thinking on fiscal policy, we need to go back to perhaps the most politically brilliant (albeit economically unconvincing) idea in the history of fiscal policy: "supply-side economics". Supply-side economics liberated conservatives from any need to insist on fiscal rectitude and balanced budgets. Supply-side economics said that one could cut taxes and balance budgets, because incentive effects would generate new activity and so higher revenue.
The political genius of this idea is evident. Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party. It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending. Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?
If you tried to test the safety of cars or children's toys using the same method the European Union applied in its stress tests on banks, you would end up in jail. How so? Simply because the testing mechanism was calibrated to fix the result. The purpose of the exercise was to ensure that the only banks that failed it were those that would have to be restructured anyway.At the same time, the supposedly clever idea was to demonstrate to the outside world that the rest of the banking system remained sound. The purpose of this cynical exercise was to pretend that the EU was solving a problem, when in fact it was not.It is too early to judge whether the ploy worked. But from the informed reaction on Friday night, I suspect not. Expectations were not very high. But the EU undershot the lowest of them.
At the same time, the supposedly clever idea was to demonstrate to the outside world that the rest of the banking system remained sound. The purpose of this cynical exercise was to pretend that the EU was solving a problem, when in fact it was not.
It is too early to judge whether the ploy worked. But from the informed reaction on Friday night, I suspect not. Expectations were not very high. But the EU undershot the lowest of them.
