Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

October 23, 2009

China clinches biggest buyout in Australia

Press TV- October23, 2009 19:32:03 GMT

A coal dredger seen in operation at the Loy Yang Open Cut coal mine near Melbourne in early August. China's Yanzhou has won the takeover of Australia's mining giant Felix.

A Chinese company has succeeded in the biggest-yet takeover bid of an Australian firm in a move seen as an exploit amid bitter investment relations.

The Australian authorities on Friday approved the 3.5-billion-dollar bid by China's Yanzhou Coal for mining giant Felix, AFP reported.

Felix produces about 4.8 million metric tons of coal a year.

The Chinese enterprise would be running its Australia-based mines through an Australian company.

"The Australian Securities Exchange listing of all of Yanzhou's Australian assets ... is a significant development," Australia's Assistant Treasurer Nick Sherry said in a statement.

"It represents the first time a Chinese state-owned enterprise operating in Australia will list on our stock exchange," he added.

"As such, it demonstrates the strength of the developing bilateral economic and investment partnership between Australia and China," Sherry said.

October 22, 2009

PetroChina's First West-to-East Pipeline Supplies 60 BCM


The once proposed TAPI pipeline of decades past which is widely cited in the alternative media as a rationale for ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has been superseded and made redundant by more recent developments.

Xinhua Economic News - 10/21/2009

PetroChina's First West-to-East pipeline has supplied an accumulative 60 billion cubic meters of natural gas since it entered operation in 2004, reported CNPC's website.

The First West-to-East pipeline is designed to have an annual transportation capacity of 12 billion cubic meters and in the past years it has been in full operation, helping meet China's climbing natural gas consumption that spiraled up from 41 billion cubic meters in 2004 to 78 billion cubic meters in 2008.

The report said China's accumulative additional gas consumption during the 2004-2008 period reached 83.4 billion cubic meters, PetroChina's First West-to-East pipeline sold a total of 46.699 billion cubic meters during the period.

PetroChina is currently building the Second West-to-East pipeline that will pump Turkmenistan gas from western Xinjiang to eastern Guangdong province with annual transportation capacity of 30 billion cubic meters.


Update: 01-08-10 | Asia Times

... Turkmenistan has committed its entire gas exports to China, Russia and Iran. It has no urgent need of the pipelines that the United States and the European Union have been advancing. Are we hearing the faint notes of a Russia-China-Iran symphony?

The 182-kilometer Turkmen-Iranian pipeline starts modestly with the pumping of 8 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Turkmen gas. But its annual capacity is 20bcm, and that would meet the energy requirements of Iran's Caspian region and enable Tehran to free its own gas production in the southern fields for export...



China's push for oil in Gulf of Mexico puts U.S. in awkward spot

By David Pierson
LA Times
Excerpts - October 22, 2009

The state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., or CNOOC, reportedly is negotiating the purchase of leases owned by the Norwegian StatoilHydro in U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico, the source of about a quarter of U.S. crude oil production.

China's push to enter U.S. turf comes four years after CNOOC's $18.5-billion bid to buy Unocal Corp. was scuttled by Congress on national security grounds. The El Segundo oil firm eventually merged with Chevron Corp. of San Ramon.

Whether CNOOC's second attempt to lock up U.S. petroleum assets will trigger a similar political backlash remains to be seen. The sour U.S. economy and the need for Washington and Beijing to cooperate on potentially larger issues could mute any outcry.

The U.S. could also find it difficult to rebuff China when it has long welcomed other foreign investment in the gulf. In addition to StatoilHydro, foreign oil companies with stakes in deep-water projects there include Spain's Repsol, France's Total, Brazil's Petrobras, British oil giant BP and the Dutch-British multinational Shell.

The U.S. risks undercutting its foreign policy goals as well. Concern is growing over China's aggressive investment in oil-rich nations with anti-U.S. [anti-Zionist] regimes, including Iran and Sudan. Denying China a shot at drilling in U.S. waters would only encourage Beijing to make deals in volatile regions given that new oil reserves in stable, democratic nations are getting harder to find. [...]

Beijing has urged the four major state-run oil corporations -- China National Petroleum Corp., Sinopec, CNOOC and Sinochem -- to acquire more international assets. [...]

At $14.9 billion so far this year, the value of Chinese oil and gas mergers and acquisitions in 2009 is already double last year's figure, according to research firm Dealogic.

The largest this year was Sinopec's $8.9-billion purchase of the Swiss oil exploration company Addax Petroleum Corp. The deal, which was announced in June, gave the Chinese access to potentially vast oil deposits off the coast of West Africa and in northern Iraq.

China has also extended huge sums of credit, including a $25-billion loan to Russian companies Rosneft and Transneft, to pay off debt and develop the East Siberia Pacific Ocean pipeline in exchange for 300,000 barrels a day of oil.

The Chinese Development Bank lent Brazil's Petrobras $10 billion to help with its $170-billion, five-year plan to increase its crude output. In exchange, Petrobras agreed to give the Chinese 200,000 barrels a day of oil exports.

China extended a $4-billion loan to Venezuela to expand various oil projects, according to the Energy Information Administration. Chinese companies are also reportedly eyeing new oil deals in Nigeria and Ghana.

The positive effect of all that investment, some analysts said, is that Beijing is helping expand the world's oil supply at a time when many major oil companies have scaled back.

"The [global economic] crisis has put a stop in foreign company expansion plans, freezing mergers and acquisitions because profits are deteriorating," said Lilian Luca, chief operating officer of advisory group Beijing Axis. "China remains one of the few sources of capital."

But much of that capital is being funneled to governments with poor human rights records and links to terrorism [support for anti-Zionist resistance].

China's importing of crude oil from war-torn Sudan increased 13.8% in August from a year earlier, according to Chinese state media.

Imports from Iran jumped 14.7% in the same period. Over the last five years, China has signed an estimated $120 billion in oil deals with Tehran -- money some worry will undermine efforts by the U.S. and its allies to tighten economic sanctions against Iran to pressure it to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

China has defended its most controversial oil deals, contending that its investments will eventually spur stability in troubled states.

China's shopping spree has been aided by the nation's foreign reserves, which recently reached a record $2.3 trillion -- about two-thirds of which is estimated to be in U.S. dollars. Buying natural resources such as oil is a way for China to diversify holdings that have been heavily concentrated in U.S. securities.

Despite the recent activity, analysts say, China's oil production overseas will take years of development before it can match long-established companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP, which are huge players in the gulf.

Full article

October 20, 2009

Brazil to Impose Tax on Foreign Inflows, Mantega Says

By Adriana Brasileiro and Andre Soliani

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Brazil will impose taxes on purchases by foreign investors of real-denominated, fixed-income securities and on purchases of stocks, Finance Minister Guido Mantega said.

The measures are being taken “to avoid an excess speculation in the stock market and in capital markets,” Mantega told reporters in Sao Paulo.

The real has gained 35 percent since the beginning of the year, the best performer amid the 16 most traded currencies tracked by Bloomberg. The currency has gained 5.3 percent in the past month.

The central bank started purchasing dollars on May 8 in a bid to temper the real gains. The currency weakened 0.5 percent to 1.7177 per U.S. dollar at 4:28 p.m. New York time.

Earlier today, the Brazilian real was cut to “underweight” from “overweight” in RBC Capital Markets’ model portfolio on concern the government would impose new taxes.

Today’s announcement reverses last year’s decision to end such taxes. In October 2008, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva eliminated a tax, known locally as IOF, of 1.5 percent on foreign investments in certain financial products and of 0.38 percent on foreign-currency loans.

“Excess global liquidity could lead to an over-appreciation of the real,” Mantega said. That would threaten to hurt the country’s exporters and further fuel demand for imports.

Foreign investor will pay a 2 percent tax when they enter the country to buy stocks or fixed-income securities.

In the short term, the measure may help keep the real above 1.7 per U.S. dollar, said Antonio Madeira, chief economist at MCM Consultores Associados Ltd. As the market creates new investment strategies to bypass the tax, the impact in the currency market will be lost, he said.

Mantega said the measures may not lead the real to weaken, but are designed to slow its appreciation and prevent the creation of bubbles in Brazilian markets. “These are to prevent excesses,” he said.

Latin America’s biggest economy has rebounded from its first recession since 2003, powered by local demand. Industrial production expanded in the past eight months, companies resumed hiring and retail sales have returned to pre-crisis levels.

Gross domestic product, after contracting in the last quarter of 2008 and first quarter this year, expanded 1.9 percent in the April-June period from the previous quarter, beating analyst expectations for a 1.7 percent rise. Mantega has said the economy can grow 5 percent next year.

Brazilian central bank President Henrique Meirelles said in an interview last week that emerging-market currencies that have been appreciating as economies recover from a global recession may become volatile as markets overprice assets.

‘Unnecessary Volatility’

Central banks need to “alert investors and markets of the risks of exaggeration in the formation of prices, which can lead to future corrections and create unnecessary volatility,” Meirelles said in the interview in New York.

The real’s gain this year is the largest among the world’s 16 most-traded currencies. The Bovespa stock index rose 1.9 percent today and is up 80 percent this year.

The currency is gaining even as the central bank buys dollars daily in a bid to stem the advance.

Brazil’s international reserves have risen by $26.1 billion this year to $232.2 billion on Oct. 16, according to data compiled by the central bank.

Analysts estimate the real will end the year at 1.75, according to the median of 20 forecasts compiled by Bloomberg.

Brazilian economists raised their year-end forecast for the real to 1.7 from 1.76, according to a weekly central bank survey of about 100 analysts published today.

“We don’t want short-term speculation, we don’t want exaggerations,” Mantega said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Adriana Brasileiro in Rio de Janeiro at abrasileiro@bloomberg.net; Andre Soliani in Brasilia at asoliani@bloomberg.net

October 19, 2009

U.K. Professors Warn Government Not to Subsidize Nuclear Power


By Catherine Airlie

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. professors from Imperial College, Sussex University and University of Greenwich will advise the government against subsidizing or fixing prices for new sources of nuclear power.

“If the government caves in to nuclear industry demands for subsidies and guarantees, it will be electricity consumers and taxpayers that will pay huge additional costs,” Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, said today in an e-mailed statement.

The academics are scheduled to present their views before U.K. lawmakers, policy advisers and nuclear industry executives today. Any subsidies for new nuclear power stations could lead to legal challenges under European Union competition law, the professors said.

October 18, 2009

EU firm to develop Lavan gas field

Press TV - October 18, 2009 12:00:39 GMT

A European company has received state permit to
participate in the development of Lavan gas field in Iran.

Iran has finalized with an unnamed European company the technical and financial aspects of the development contract of Lavan gas field in southern Iran.

"The Iranian Offshore Oilfields Company (IOOC) has reached an agreement with a European firm which has prepared the Master Development Plan of the Lavan gas field," the head of IOOC Mahmood Zirakchianzadeh told Iran's energy news agency SHANA on Sunday.

He added that there would be 4 million tons of LNG exports to Europe every year after ongoing talks with the European company reached a result.

"The European company has received a state permit to participate in the project in Iran," he said.

Zirakchianzadeh said earlier in April that the development of the gas field would require a $3 to $6 billion investment, but declined from naming the European company who would make the investment.

The Lavan gas field, which was discovered in 2003, has in-place gas reserves of around 12 trillion cubic feet.

Turning gas into liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export purposes was the main objective in developing the Lavan gas field.

Iran sits on the world's second-largest gas reserves after Russia.

October 16, 2009

Funding Sweatshops Globally

Akash - Child Labor, ZORIAH's blog
By Stephen Lendman
October 16, 2009

In July 2008, SweatFree Communities (SFC) released a report titled, "Subsidizing Sweatshops: How Our Tax Dollars Fund the Race to the Bottom, and What Cities and States Can Do" in which it studied 12 factories in nine countries that produce employee uniforms for nine major companies.

Widespread human and labor rights violations were revealed, including child labor; illegal below-poverty wages; few or no benefits; forced or unpaid overtime; hazardous working conditions; verbal, physical, and sexual abuses; forced pregnancy testing to be hired and while employed; excessive long working hours causing physical ailments, stress, and harm; denial of free expression, association, and collective bargaining rights; and elaborate schemes to commit fraud and deceive corporate auditors.

In April 2009, Subsidizing Sweatshops II followed to provide more evidence of a global problem. It tracked developments in four factories from the first report and four new ones in five countries on three continents producing uniforms for nine major firms in China, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and America.

Two cases relied on investigations by independent factory monitors. Three others used personal worker interviews conducted by "credible local unions and non-governmental organizations with expertise in labor rights." Three more are based on SFC-conducted interviews.

In all cases, the global economic crisis materially increased worker hardships leaving them more vulnerable, in jeopardy, and unable to secure their rights. Most often, the following violations were found:

-- children as young as 14 forced to work the same long hours as adults and under the same onerous conditions;

-- wages so low, they only cover one-fourth to one-half of essential needs;

-- workers in at least two factories not paid overtime;

-- because of excessive production quotas, workers forced to skip breaks, not go to the bathroom, and work sick through grueling 12-hour or longer days;

-- unhealthy work environments in stifling heat and thick fabric dust detrimental to health;

-- numerous sewing machine accidents causing wounds and loss of fingers; and

-- instances of severe repression against union supporters and organizers, including harassment, intimidation, firing, and blacklisting from further employment elsewhere.

The report's findings "are corroborated by scores of academic research and industry investigations." Human and labor rights violations are the norm, not the exception. Monitoring alone won't change them, but perhaps public disclosure can help.

The Honduran Alamode Factory

Employing about 500 workers, it makes public employee uniforms and other apparel for Lion Apparel, Cintas Corporation, and Fechheimer Brothers Company. In 2008, the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) reported some of the worst working conditions in the region, but months later corrective measures had been taken, thanks to exposing the situation to public scrutiny.

Alamode agreed to pay minimum wages, provide back pay, enroll all workers in the Honduran social security system to give them access to health care, paid injury leave and other benefits, and establish an injury log as required.

However, other issues remained unresolved, including:

-- further improvement of health and safety issues;

-- ending verbal harassment; and

-- making overtime work voluntary, not mandatory.

Despite improvements, Alamode workers still earn sub-poverty wages, and full compliance with labor rights falls far short.

The Mexican Vaqueros Navarra Factory

The factory produces jeans and uniforms, including the Dickies brand. In May 2007, its workers tried to form a union but faced extreme harassment and intimidation, as reported by a labor rights monitor on the scene. It's investigation:

"found that workers had been psychologically and verbally harassed, dismissed without warning, and forced to sign resignation letters for attempting to form an independent union at the factory and that at least some workers dismissed for union activities have been blacklisted....the official reason given for workers dismissed....was 'lack of work.' "

Two months after voting to affiliate with the Garment Workers Union, employees were told the plant shut down for lack of work. Yet three buyers, Gap, Warnaco, and American Eagle, placed orders with the factory in support of their right to organize.

In July 2008, the Tehuacan Valley Human and Labor Rights Commission filed a complaint with WRC alleging that another Navarra Group factory, Confecciones Mazara, discriminated in its hiring practices. WRC investigated and found "overwhelming evidence that Confecciones Mazara engaged in unlawful discrimination against union supporters in hiring decisions, otherwise known as 'blacklisting.' "

Twenty former Vaqueros Navarra workers applying for jobs were rejected. Another initially hired was fired on her first day after her former union organizing activities were discovered. In response to WRC complaints, the company refused to comply and continues its blacklisting practices.

The Dominican Republic's Suprema Manufacturing, Wholly Owned by Propper International (PI)

It operates three plants and employs about 1,000 workers making uniforms and other apparel items. PI is one of the largest makers of US military clothing. In 2008, Suprema Manufacturing's employees described low wages, high production quotas, unhealthy work conditions, and extreme hardships, all unaddressed by the company.

At the same time, PI distributed a threatening notice to its Puerto Rico workforce accusing the union and workforce of defamation. The same notice said that SweatFree Communities' publications expressed "a defamatory tone toward Propper (alleging) that the Department of Defense is subsidizing companies with terrible work conditions, and safety and human rights violations." The notice concluded saying:

"SAY NO TO THE UNION. DON'T SIGN ANOTHER CARD."

In March 2009, Federation of Workers of Free Trade Zones (FEDOTRAZONAS) workers and volunteers and their counterparts at the National Federation of Free Trade Zone Workers (FENOTRAZONAS) conducted over two dozen interviews on behalf of SweatFree Communities (SFC). They revealed extreme poverty, exhaustion, intense pressure to meet production quotas, an unhealthy work environment, and intimidation-instilled fear against openly supporting union organizing. Even though Suprema has a certified union, only a handful of workers belong. As a result, it's weak, unable to represent workers effectively or organize to recruit more.

Workers said to get by, they need other jobs and loans (at 10% weekly interest) to pay unexpected medical and other expenses. Their work load is so exhausting, it makes "my whole body hurt," according to one employee. "When I leave work, I am tired and exhausted....All I want to do is lie down, but I have my obligations." Another machine operator said:

"The work is hard and the production quota is killing us (and earning minimum pay) isn't enough for anything, for what's needed at home."

Other workers complained of health-related issues related to poor air quality, extreme heat, and fabric dust. According to workers interviewed, they can't act individually or collectively to address issues as important as these or any others. According to one:

"In the event that we complain, normally they don't listen to us but you have to suffer the consequences. One time I complained about the high temperatures in the factory and said it is not good for our health. And the manager said to me, 'If you are not comfortable you can leave."

Another worker said "we discuss problems at work amongst the other workers, but not with management because we are afraid....If you complain too much, they fire you. So we don't complain because we need employment...."

They also fear recrimination over union organizing or joining one. In 2000, 300 union members were fired. After reviewing the case, the Dominican Labor Department ordered 30 leaders reinstated with back pay. When they returned, management ordered workers not to speak to them or be fired. Workers today live in fear, endure harsh conditions, and put up with whatever they're ordered to do.

New Bedford, Massachusetts-based Eagle Industries

Eagle supplies tactical gear to the Pentagon and state governments. In November 2007, it acquired a New Bedford, Massachusetts facility that made headlines in March 2007 when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents raided the factory, discovered sweatshop conditions, and arrested hundreds of alleged undocumented workers.

In its 2008 report, SweatFree Communities (SFC) highlighted Eagle's failure to address abusive sweatshop conditions as well as its hostility to an ongoing union organizing campaign at the time.

In February 2009, SFC conducted in-depth interviews with eight union supporters and learned the following:

-- Eagle raised its minimum wage by 50 cents an hour to an average of about $9 an hour;

-- it included a week's vacation in worker benefits bringing the total to two, including an annual July shutdown;

-- a new sick day policy requires a doctor's note, and time off remains unpaid; and

-- workers expressed concerns over low pay, poor benefits, dangerous working conditions, and everyday harassment of union supporters by company managers.

Examples cited:

-- machines need lots of oil; in operation, it "shoots into your eyes," according to workers;

-- excessive heat, lack of circulation, smoke and oppressive smell causes dizziness, head and stomachaches, and for some vomiting;

-- forklifts go everywhere and sometimes hit people, causing injuries;

-- fabrics used are so heavy and stiff, they inflict abrasions, leave fingers bent and stiff, and cause chronic pain;

-- no health insurance is provided;

-- without a doctor's note, no sick days are offered and if taken are unpaid;

-- workers are constantly watched and checked, even when they go to the bathroom;

-- action is taken against anyone suspected of supporting a union; new hires must sign a declaration agreeing not to join one;

-- pressure and harassment are constant "to produce a lot;" and

-- departments are shut down and workers reassigned to divide and separate them from each other.

As a result, workers feel a union is their only hope because it "offers a contract and a negotiating table with the owner of the factory where he will have to realize the suffering we have endured working for him for so long, making money for him so he will have a good future while our future is bleak," according to one worker.

Tijuana, Mexico's Safariland

A division of Armor Holdings, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, Inc., Safariland's 700 employees produce bulletproof vests and accessories, belts and personal accessories, and grenade and pistol holsters.

Workers told researchers that management told them in response to questioning to say everything is fine and not complain. Reality, however, concealed lives of extreme poverty, living at home with:

"No water, no electricity, and no terrace. One room made of garage doors and cardboard. The electricity we have is stolen. We buy water because there is no running water. There is no floor. The roof is made of laminate and cardboard." Workers expressed little hope for future change, even less now in economic crisis hitting Tijuana like most everywhere.

In recent months, thousands lost jobs, and when openings exist, long lines queue up to apply. Women must take pregnancy tests, a violation of Article 3 of Mexico's labor law requiring equal treatment of both genders. Article 26 requires worker contracts with wage guarantees, their amount, how they're paid, working hours, breaks, vacations, and other benefits. Yet Safariland offers only temporary ones, then chooses whether or not to renew them, a violation of Article 37.

Pressure and harassment are constant to meet quotas, arrive on time, and respect supervisors. Failure is punished by suspensions without pay for one to three days.

However, Mexican Labor Law is clear, yet Safariland disobeys it. The Constitution's Article 123 establishes an eight hour work day, including breaks. So does the Labor Law's Article 61 and under its Article 67, double pay is required for overtime. In addition, Article 110 prohibits pay deductions for any reason, but Safariland gets around it by suspending workers.

Articles 177 and 178 let 14 - 16 year old minors work for up to six hours daily, including a one-hour rest after three hours, if they pass a medical examination. Workers said children worked the same hours as adults.

They also reported dangerous and unhealthy conditions, including accidents with sewing and riveting machines and material cutters, resulting in wounds and lost fingers. In addition, hazardous substances are used, including thinners, solvents, and Resistol 5,000 glue, the notorious narcotic used by Latin American street children.

Other complaints included supervisors' indifference to worker concerns, and according to one account: "They do not listen to us, and if we complain they treat us like troublemakers." Anyone caught supporting a union "would be fire(d) or at least consider(ed) troublemakers," said another. "They would put us on the blacklist," a believed widespread practice in Tijuana.

The Dickies de Honduras Factory

Located in Choloma, its 1,000 workers produce apparel under oppressive conditions. Wages are sub-poverty, and at best cover half a family of four's basic necessities. Work days are long, 11 - 12 hour days, four days a week, and constant pressure to produce. According to one worker, illness is no excuse for missing work.

Union organizing is forbidden, and those caught or suspected are fired. One union leader explained how organizers are treated. In 1998, Dickies fired 80 supporters. In 2003, alleged leaders were fired, then in 2005, 280 workers got legal recognition to form a union. A month later, a Mexican Ministry of Labor representative and three union officials attempted to deliver official documents to the company. They were denied entry. The officials and others were fired, and Dickies stonewalled government summonses to answer for the action. Other firings followed, and the company refused to recognize a union, bargain collectively with it, or address employee grievances.

Workers nonetheless persisted until the current economic crisis became challenging. Claiming lack of orders and a need to cut costs, worker dismissals began in December 2008. By March 2009, 58 were gone, in all cases for supporting a union, in violation of Honduran Labor Law's Article 96 that prohibits employers from "firing or persecuting their workers in any way because of their union affiliation."

China's Genford Shoes

Located in Guangdong Province, its 10,000 employees produce work, exercise, casual, and dress shoes, 80% for Ohio-based Rocky Brands. According to the company, Genford is independently audited for social compliance, but SFC research found evidence of widespread labor law violations.

Workers are constantly pressured to produce for low pay under poor conditions:

-- new employees get no income for their first three days; they also must pay $4 for a physical examination, $10 for housing, and another $10 for ten days' meals in the company cafeteria - in total, around a week's wages;

-- wages are sub-poverty;

-- no rest days are allowed for an entire month during peak production periods, in violation of Article 38 of China's Labor Law requiring at least one per week;

-- children as young as 14 work the same hours as adults and are hidden when customers visit the factory; Article 28 of China's Labor Law prohibits employing children under age 16; it also protects 16 - 18 year olds from "over-strenuous, poisonous or harmful labor or any dangerous operation" and requires employers to follow state laws regarding types of jobs, hours worked, and labor intensity for adolescents;

-- excessive over time is mandatory at below the legal double hourly pay rate for daytime work on weekends;

-- by law, workers can cancel their labor contracts by giving 30 days notice, but are penalized by loss of wages when they do;

-- they live 12 to a room in crowded dorms of around 200 square feet with ten cold showers for 264 workers;

-- pollution levels are oppressive; workers describe discharged black, foul smelling effluent into the adjacent river; and

-- at the end of every work day, body searches are conducted, similar to but not full strip searches.

Genford employs a complex system of bonuses and fines to achieve output. Workers get bonuses for meeting quotas that must be maintained hourly, but no one understood how they're calculated. They also complained that they're hard to reach, and they're constantly pressured to work faster for maximum production. In addition, fines are levied for arriving a few minutes late, leaving early, skipping work, or causing trouble.

It's also not easy to quit even though Article 37 of China's Labor Law lets workers do it by giving 30 days advance written notice or three days during their probationary periods. Employers must then fully compensate workers, but they don't.

Frackville, Pennsylvania's City Shirt Company

Its owner, Elbeco Inc., a producer of public employee uniforms, "was the first major uniform company to endorse SweatFree Communities' campaign for worker rights," and it shows in how it treats its employees.
According to one, "I am pretty much able to cover my needs. Anybody can always use more money, but I do pretty well, I can say."

The average worker makes about $11 an hour, but some get up to $19 because the company is unionized and was able to bargain collectively for decent wages and benefits. In addition, workers have "a seat at the table with the company....affording them a sense of ownership and respect."

City Shirt's employees are also much older than at other factories studied, a sign of greater stability and a contented workforce staying in place, happy to be there, and for many, hoping to stay for the rest of their working lives.

Yet they worry that their jobs may not last because of factors beyond the plant's control forcing layoffs to cut costs and stay viable. Apparel manufacturing in America is dying. In addition, the current environment is taking its toll closing factories across America, and City Shirt has had to cut one-third of its workforce in the past 18 months.

The alternative is the global sweatshop as oppressive or worse than the ones described above. The company's employees hope to reach retirement age before their operation gets outsourced, but making it won't be easy.

In today's global economy, in good times and bad, worker rights are subordinated to greed and private profit, and future prospects look grim. Job losses are continuing. Wages are stagnating at best. Benefits are eroding, and job security is a thing of the past at a time governments, in alliance with business, are indifferent to protecting them. The result, more and more, is that workers are on their own to endure against very long odds. It's all the more important for harder struggle because it's the only way they have a chance.

Anti-Sweatshop Legislation in Congress

On January 23, 2007, S. 367: The Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act was introduced in the Senate "to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to prohibit the import, export, and sale of goods made with sweatshop labor, and for other purposes." It was referred to committee but never passed.

On April 23, 2007, HR 1992: The Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act was introduced in the House for the same purpose. It, too, was referred to committee but never passed.

Both bills were introduced in a previous congressional session and failed. They may be re-introduced later in 2009.

Sweatshop labor takes different forms, some far worse than others. On February 14, 2007, Charles Kernaghan, Executive Director of the National Labor Committee in Support of Human and Worker Right, testified about the worst kind at a Senate committee hearing on Overseas Sweatshop Abuses, Their Impact on US Workers, and the Need for Anti-Sweatshop Legislation.

Citing the December 2001 US - Jordan Free Trade Agreement, he gave examples of human trafficking and involuntary servitude abuses that followed:

-- Jordan's 114 garment factories employ over 36,000 foreign guest workers from Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka and India;

-- Bangladeshi guest workers had to borrow at exorbitant interest rates $1,000 - $3,000 to pay unscrupulous manpower agencies for two-to-three year contracts to obtain work;

-- they were trapped in involuntary servitude at one factory and couldn't leave;

-- they were promised benefits, then reneged on, including free food, housing, medical care, vacations, sick days, and at least one day a week off;

-- on arrival in Jordan, their passports were seized;

-- they were forced to work shifts of "15, 38, 48, and even 72 hours straight, often going two or three days without sleep;"

-- they worked seven days a week for as little as 2 cents an hour, 98 hours a week;

-- those complaining were beaten and abused;

-- 28 workers shared one small 12 x 12-foot dorm with access to running water only every third day;

-- legally owed back wages were never paid nor were factory owners prosecuted for human trafficking, involuntary servitude, or treating their employees abusively;

-- they sewed clothing for Wal-Mart; and

-- other Jordanian, Chinese and other factory workers are treated the same way; some worked under conditions so hazardous that "scores of young people (are) seriously injured, and some maimed for life."

Kernaghan's National Labor Committee (NLC) web site highlights the problem by saying that corporate predators "roam the world to find the cheapest and most vulnerable workers....mostly young women in Central America, Mexico, Bangladesh, China, and other poor nations, many working 12 to 14-hour days for pennies an hour."

Corporate unaccountability is responsible for this moral crisis of our time - a dehumanized, expendable workforce ruthlessly exploited for profit. NLC believes worker rights are as inalienable as human rights and civil liberties and says "now is the time to secure them for (everyone) on the planet."

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

October 14, 2009

Turkey boosts ties with Syria amid renewed Israel row

By Rim Haddad
Agence France Presse
October 14, 2009

ALEPPO, Syria: Turkey boosted its ties with Syria on Tuesday at the first meeting of a newly formed cooperation council, only days after Ankara’s relations with Damascus foe Israel took a downturn. The foreign, defense, interior, economy, oil, electricity, agriculture and health ministers of the two countries attended the strategic talks in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo.

Their agenda called for a series of meetings between respective ministers in their fields and the signing of diplomatic and economic agreements.

The foreign ministers signed a deal on scrapping visa requirements for each other’s nationals.

Turkish-Syrian relations have improved after decades of mistrust based on Ankara’s accusations that Damascus supported Turkey’s banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

But Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told a news conference with Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu that Damascus regarded the PKK as a “terrorist organization banned” in his country.

Turkey’s ties with Israel took a turn for the worse on Sunday when Israel announced Ankara had decided to exclude it from the “Anatolian Eagle” joint military exercises.

The move came after Syria and Turkey signed an agreement in Istanbul last month to establish the cooperation council as part of efforts to forge closer links. Under the accord, the council will meet once a year.

The air force exercises involving Turkey, Israel and members of the NATO military alliance had been due to be held near Konya in central Turkey from October 12 to 23.

On Tuesday, Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom urged Turkey “to come to its senses” following the spike in tensions between the two allies.

“Turkey is an important Muslim state sharing strategic ties with Israel. I hope the Turks come to their senses and realize that the relationship between the two states is in their interest no less than ours,” he said.

“The deterioration of ties with Turkey in recent days is regrettable,” Shalom said.

In contrast,Moallem said “it is natural that we would welcome” Ankara’s decision to exclude Israel from the maneuvers.

“The Turkish decision was taken because of Turkey’s position toward the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip” between last December and January, he said.

Damascus “welcomes the cancellation, because Israel always attacks the Palestinian people, maintains an embargo on Gaza and rejects any Turkish effort to resume peace talks” between Syria and Israel, Moallem added.

Syria and Israel began indirect peace talks through Turkey in May 2008.

But they were suspended last December after Israel launched a 22-day war on the Gaza Strip that killed more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.

In Aleppo, Davutoglu underlined the importance of the Aleppo meeting for the two Muslim neighbors. “Turkey is the gateway for Syria to Europe just as Syria is the gateway for Turkey to the Arab world.” – AFP

“Global Imbalances” versus Internal Inequalities: Understanding the World Economy

By James Petras
October 14, 2009

The deep and ongoing crises of leading capitalist countries, especially the United States, has provoked a debate over the causes, consequences and appropriate policies to remedy it.

The debate has revealed a deep division over the causes and remedies, with Anglo-Franco American (AFA) politicians, columnists and economists on one side and their Asian-German (AG) counterparts on the other. In general terms the AFA spokespeople put the blame for the crises on external factors, or more specifically they point their finger at the positive trade surpluses, dynamic export sectors and high investment rates in productive sectors and low levels of consumption in the AG countries as the cause of ”unbalances” or “disequilibrium” in the world economy .

In contrast, the AG countries reject this argument which speaks to prejudicial external practices. They emphasize the internal “imbalances” within the AFA countries, which has weakened their international, commercial and financial position.

In this paper I am going to argue that both internal economic policies and external empire building strategies of the AFA countries have been the driving force for global imbalances. The structural differences between the two regions and the differences in class structure and economic configurations in each bloc precludes any easy or immediate solution. On the contrary for the foreseeable future, the conflict between dynamic emerging export powers and the declining western bloc is likely to intensify, leading to greater trade conflicts and possible military confrontations.

The AFA charges against China’s commercial ‘imbalances’ conflates trade with the West with Beijing’s relations with the rest of the world. China has balanced trade or even trade deficits with Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Latin American countries. Moreover, the AFA countries have trade imbalances with other regions including the Middle East and Germany. Even if the AFA countries curtailed imports from China, it is most likely that other Asian countries would replace them, including Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Bangladesh and India. The resulting trade deficits of the AFA would remain about the same.

The AFA countries blame China’s “undervalued” currency, and claim that Beijing authorities manipulate the exchange rate to under price exports and beat out competitors (namely producers within the AFA). Yet China’s currency has been revalued steadily upward over 20% the past five years, and yet the AFA still run a deficit, suggesting that their domestic producers have still not been able to compete with Chinese manufacturers . More recently AFA writers have complained about low interest rates set by the Chinese government as a “subsidy” to its exporters. Yet AFA interest rates are at zero percent or even negative, to no avail. Moreover, the AFA have provided over 1.5 trillion in bailout funds and over 1.3 billion in stimulus spending – a subsidy five times greater than China’s stimulus package, without improving their trade balance.

What is telling, given the sectoral allocations, of each regime’s bailout – subsidy – stimulus packages, China has fully recovered and is growing at 8% by mid 2009, while the AFA continue to wallow in negative territory and continue running up trade deficits. This points to the centrality of internal factors, namely, the economic sectors which receive the state subsidies and how they invest it and as a result how their decisions affect trade balances.

The AFA charge that China’s low cost labor, its exploitation of workers, accounts for trade imbalances. Yet an increasing percentage of China’s exports are based on technological advances, not cheap labor. This is because low labor cost competitors are emerging in Asia.

The AFA complain that China over-emphasizes its ‘export’ strategy at the expense of producing for the domestic market. Yet nearly half of China’s exports to the US are made by US owned multi-nationals who have invested, subcontracted and co-produced with Chinese counterparts. In other words, US internal policy, the deregulation of capital flows, has facilitated the movement of US manufactures abroad, resulting in a decline of local production, an increase in imports and greater trade deficits.

Internal Causes of Trade Deficits (and Unbalanced World Economy)

The most obvious and striking correlation with the growth of AFA trade imbalances is the growth and dominance of the financial sector . The financialization of the AFA economies and Wall Street’s CEOs dominant role in the strategic economic positions of the state is transparent to the mass of the people and has even been acknowledged by most private economists and academics. Trade deficits increased in direct proportion to the growing political and economic power of the financial sector. In large part, this was due to the transfer of capital from manufacturing to financial services, leading to the decline of the manufacturing sector’s investments in innovations and competitive management strategies. The financial sector’s, high salaries, bonuses and quick returns attracted most of the self-styled “best and the brightest”. MBA graduates multiplied while advanced engineering school graduates diminished. Advanced skilled worker training programs disappeared while low skill retail sales recruitment grew.

The problem was that financial services did not, could not replace the overseas earnings which formerly accrued to the country through manufacturing sales. Least of all in the highly regulated financial markets of China, Japan, India and the rest of Asia, where banking was subordinated to the expansion of manufacturing -namely financing industries targeted by state officials. The dominance of finance capital and the related sectors of real estate and insurance, led to a highly polarized class structure: in which billionaire and millionaire investment bankers presided at the top and an army of low paid service workers (retail employees, cleaners and sweepers, etc.) immigrant and non-union workers occupied the bottom. Presently income inequalities in the US exceed those of any other “advanced” capitalist country. The inequalities in Manhattan exceed those of Guatemala.

The growing concentration of wealth is accompanied by decline of median wages over the past three decades. As a result the purchasing power of US workers is declining, thus reducing the demand for locally produced quality goods. The purchase of imported cheap textiles, shoes and other accessories results. The result was a decline in local saving and domestic investment in manufacturing leading to a decline in competitiveness. Moreover, the competition among financial lenders furthered consumer spending and greater individual indebtedness at a time when manufacturing exports were declining, starved of investments.

Most manufacturing firms transformed themselves into financial corporations, channeling investment funds in sectors not earning foreign exchange. Worst of all in pursuit of higher profits, manufacturers turned into commercial vendors, closing down plants and sub-contracting production to China and other Asian countries and importing final products into the US creating the trade imbalances. The large scale relocation of US multinationals abroad further exacerbated the trade imbalances.

The key role of the state in creating domestic imbalances leading to global disequilibrium is a result of the financial sector’s takeover of the state, and the deregulation of financial markets. The result was the long term promotion of an economic policy, in which the central bank (the Federal Reserve) and Treasury encouraged the growth of finance, real estate and insurance sectors over manufacturing. The finance based strategy was justified by a large army of academics and publicists who spoke of a “post industrial”, or “service” or “information” economy as a “higher stage”, rather than a perversely unbalanced, unsustainable and unjust economy.

Financial supremacy coincided with the growing militarization of US foreign policy. Throughout the last thirty years, US overseas economic expansion was gradually eclipsed by the growing reliance on military intervention, and the build-up of military bases in hundreds of sites. As financialization weakened the productive capacity of US manufacturing exporters’ efforts to capture markets, US policymakers increased their reliance on the supremacy of military power. The channeling of billions into military spending drained resources from efforts to upgrade the competitiveness of US civilian industry and was a major factor-in its declining share of export markets. The end result of militarization was a loss of export earnings and the growth of trade deficits.

If we combine the three great internal imbalances in the AFA economics, but especially in the US, the financialization of the economy, the militarization of foreign policy and the concentration of wealth at the top, we can best understand why the US has such a huge and growing trade deficit.

China Export Driven Strategy

China’s emphasis on an export driven strategy and the resultant growing class inequalities is largely a result of the class composition of the state and its social structure. In other words internal factors are the driving force of its pursuit of trade surpluses. What is ironic is that some of the AFA critics, who rightly point to the internal ‘imbalances’ in China, overlook similar problems in the West. Namely no mention is made of the absence of a national health plan in the US, the growth of inequalities and declining mass purchasing power – even as they point to these deficiencies in China. What Western advocates of greater social welfare in China do not discuss, is the capitalist class power, privilege and profits which hinder greater mass consumption. Least of all do they discuss the motor force for lifting working class and peasant living conditions, namely the class struggle. Instead they rely on technocratic appeals to Chinese elites for greater social spending.

The Chinese state has evolved into a powerful machine for manufacturing goods and billionaires. Today China has the highest growth, the highest rate of exploitation and the greatest class inequalities in Asia. Increasing wages to stimulate local consumption means reducing profits, anathema to all capitalists including Chinese. Increasing public spending on universal health coverage especially for the 700 million uninsured peasants and rural workers means higher taxes on the rich, including the families and colleagues of the governing elite. In contrast, producing for export markets does not require increasing domestic consumer power, on the contrary it requires lower wages.

A shift from an export-driven to a domestic market driven strategy, requires not only a ‘change in policy’ but a deep shift in class power, from the current capitalist class and its state backers to the workers and peasants. To realize large scale, long term commitments of public revenues to social services for the rural poor and higher wages for exploited workers requires sustained popular mobilizations, uprisings, strikes to secure the independent trade unions and peasant associations necessary to secure a shift in state allocations toward domestic consumption.

China’s “imbalances” are largely internal, social and political. An imbalance of social power between an all powerful capitalist state and a repressed powerless mass of workers and peasants; an imbalance in income between a super-rich banking, real estate, manufacturing export elite and a low paid working class and subsistence peasantry; an imbalance between a highly organized state linked by family, ideology and economic interests to the capitalist class and a dispersed, fragmented and isolated mass of working people.

China’s ruling class, its outward billion dollar investments in western capitalist enterprises via its sovereign wealth funds, its billion dollar investments in overseas extractive enterprises, is driven by the mass of capital accumulated that is extracted via intense levels of labor exploitation and the elimination of state funded pensions, health plans and education. China’s role as an emerging imperial power is rooted in the imbalance between global power and social welfare decay.

The fact that western capitalist writers, policymakers and their academic camp followers point to the same social imbalances in China as its domestic working class critics should not obscure a basic point. The Wall Street critics are defending the AFA financial elite against China’s export industrialists’ greater productivity; while the domestic working class critics are criticizing the capitalists and the state for their high rates of exploitation and concentration of wealth.

The key to reducing imbalances in world trade is reducing socio-economic inequalities within each region. The US requires a profound shift from a finance dominated economy to a manufacturing economy, where finance, high tech and higher education is directed to creating a competitive, productive economy based on skilled labor. The link at the top between Wall Street and the Pentagon must be replaced by a link from below between the industrial working class, low paid service workers and public sector employees and professionals.

The structural transformation of the US economy is necessary but not sufficient. If US efforts to pursue a military driven empire persist, this will divert resources away from domestic and overseas economic priorities. Military driven empires alienate trading partners, have high costs and low returns, isolate economic investors and traders from productive partnerships and are destructive of domestic and overseas civilian productive facilities.

The way out of the massive imbalances is for the US to engage in a large scale, long term domestic structural transformations – namely de-financialization and de-militarization. But the political and economic forces benefiting from the current configuration are deeply entrenched, in control of both major parties and dominate the mass media and its message. Yet, despite their profound institutional power they suffer several fatal flaws. In the first instance they have created unsustainable global imbalances, which will sooner or later lead to a collapse of the dollar and renewed and more virulent and costly financial bubbles.

Secondly, the free market which is the main ideological prop of the deregulated financial power elite is totally discredited as evidenced by the single digit support and trust of Wall Street.

Thirdly, military driven empire building has run its course: after nine years of war in Afghanistan the vast majority of the US public has sent a message to the political elite of both parties, the White House and Congress, that its time to shift from funding failed overseas adventures to solving the problem of 20% under and unemployed Americans (30 million), the 100 million or 33% of Americans with no or costly and inadequate health coverage. No amount of media and political pundit scapegoating of China for our own self-induced “imbalances” can divert American opinion from their direct experiences with our own internal inequalities and policy failures.

© Copyright 2009 by AxisofLogic.com

October 12, 2009

A Dollar Rout or More Bernanke Trickery?

By MIKE WHITNEY
October 12, 2009

Consumer credit is falling fast. In July, consumer credit plunged by $19 billion, followed by an August drop of $12 billion, a 5.8 percent annual rate. Credit card spending decreased by nearly $10 billion in August, while non-revolving debt, including auto loans, fell by $2 billion. Credit has shrunk for 7 consecutive months, the longest period of decline since 1991. The banks have shrugged off their commitment under the TARP program to increase lending to consumers and businesses. They've either deposited their excess reserves with the Fed, where they earn interest, or invested them in the equities markets for better returns. The bottom line: Credit is shrinking and the economy is slipping further into deflation.

From MarketWatch:
U.S. banks are reducing their lending at the fastest rate on record ... According to weekly figures provided by the Federal Reserve, total loans at commercial banks have fallen at a 19% annual rate over the past three months, while loans to businesses have dropped at a 28% annualized pace...

... if the decline is mainly due to weak banks unable or unwilling to lend, then a turnaround in credit creation may have to wait until banks' balance sheets are repaired, a process that could be delayed by further expected defaults in consumer loans, mortgages and commercial real-estate loans. (Rex Nutting, "Banks cutting back on loans to businesses", Marketwatch)
Unemployment is rising and the pool of creditworthy borrowers is declining. When credit contracts in an economy where salaries have stagnated and joblessness is increasing, demand falls and recession deepens. That is, unless government spending takes up the slack in excess capacity.

There is no organic growth in the economy at present. The so-called recovery is a result of fiscal stimulus and the Fed's extraordinary liquidity injections into the financial system. True growth and prosperity do not come via the printing press. The Fed's actions are just putting more and more pressure on the dollar.

From Bloomberg today:
Central banks flush with record reserves are increasingly snubbing dollars in favor of euros and yen, further pressuring the greenback after its biggest two- quarter rout in almost two decades...

Policy makers boosted foreign currency holdings by $413 billion last quarter, the most since at least 2003, to $7.3 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Nations reporting currency breakdowns put 63 percent of the new cash into euros and yen in April, May and June...the highest percentage in any quarter with more than an $80 billion increase.

Global central banks are getting more serious about diversification, whereas in the past they used to just talk about it,” said Steve Englander, a former Federal Reserve researcher who is now the chief U.S. currency strategist at Barclays in New York. “It looks like they are really backing away from the dollar.” (Bloomberg News)
Congress has no say-so. Neither do the American people. The decision to skewer the dollar was made by the big banks and their allies at the Federal Reserve. Everyone else is just along for the ride. The Fed wants a cheaper dollar to increase exports, provide cheap capital for Wall Street, and to lower the true value of household and financial sector debt. But there are many pitfalls to "inflating one's way out of debt". It is a policy which should have been debated by the representatives of the people and not decided by unelected bank-oligarchs pursuing their own self-interests.

The dollar's share of global reserves is steadily falling. Private industry and central banks are shedding dollars to avoid painful adjustments in the future. Last week, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines launched currency market interventions to keep the dollar from plummeting. The situation is grave. The Fed's monetization and liquidity programs have made dollar-holders jittery. The central banks actions are the first sign of a disorderly unwind. The prospect of a dollar crash is now real.

Surprisingly, there is also a good chance that the dollar will strengthen short-term and that the misinformation about the dollar's future is being used to achieve the Fed's objectives. Fed chair Ben Bernanke is already monetizing the debt (via quantitative easing) and has slashed interest rates to zero. What else can he do? The only way to weaken the dollar further is through asymmetrical warfare, a disinformation campaign aimed at triggering a sell-off before the dollar strengthens when the stock market corrects and credit tightens even more. Is that what Bernanke has in mind?

The Fed has its back to the wall. It will do whatever is necessary to micro-manage the dollar's decline and retain its stranglehold on the global system.

Mike Whitney can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com

Source

October 11, 2009

Pharmaceutical giant Baxter accused of overcharging Medicaid

Swine flu vaccine supplier has to pay back millions

Rajeev Syal and Sakshi Ojha
The Observer, October 11, 2009

A company producing swine flu vaccine for Britain has paid millions of pounds in out-of-court settlements after being accused of fraudulently overcharging for medicines.

Baxter, the US pharmaceutical giant, reached at least seven huge settlements over the past 12 months, some of them for millions of dollars. The company had been accused of fraud amid allegations that it had overpriced medicines by as much as 1,300%.

The disclosure comes days after Baxter's vaccine, Celvapan H1N1, was given approval by the European Medicines Agency and will raise fears about the growing costs of the swine flu pandemic. Vaccines are expected to cost the government £155m over the next four years.

Baxter became involved in prolonged litigation after being accused of fraudulently overcharging Medicaid, the US health programme that provides a safety net for the poorest families. Executives from the company paid out $2m to the Kentucky state government this year. Jack Conway, the Kentucky attorney general, said: "All of this could have been easily avoided if Baxter… had done what the law requires: report truthful prices.

"Taxpayers are footing the bill for these inflated drug prices, and my office is seeking to recover the money the Medicaid programme lost as a result of this deception and overpayment."

Medicaid relies on published average wholesale prices (AWPs) to calculate the cost of medicines which pharmaceutical companies then provide at a reduced rate. But several US states have accused a series of pharmaceutical companies of grossly overinflating the AWPs. Seven other states have reached settlements with Baxter: Texas, Alabama, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Illinois and Wisconsin.

In May, Baxter was one of six pharmaceutical manufacturers that agreed to pay $89m to the state of Alabama. In February this year Baxter paid out $1.1m to Wisconsin. Three years ago the company agreed to pay out $8.5m to Texas.

Baxter was one of five companies that paid California state authorities $22.5m following accusations of Medicaid fraud, and the company also paid out $400,000 to Hawaii. In Alaska, Baxter agreed to pay compensation to settle a court claim. The company is also facing court action in Mississippi. Illinois has recovered $6.8m from Baxter, according to reports.

Despite the scandal, Baxter was one of two companies awarded the contract to produce 132 million doses of vaccine for Britain. The other company, GlaxoSmithKline, received a "positive opinion" for its drug, Pandemrix, last month. Britain is reported to have ordered enough swine flu vaccine to give each person two doses. The growing cost of the vaccines has prompted concerns from politicians, but the Department of Health and the drug companies have declined to say exactly how much each vaccine costs.

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, wrote to the National Audit Office in July asking whether the contract with GSK represented value for money. The National Audit Office has replied and is broadly happy with the deal, according to reports.

Sir Liam Donaldson, the government's chief medical officer, said that while swine flu could still cause potentially fatal complications Britain may have had a "lucky break" with a second wave of illness being lower than expected.

A spokeswoman for Baxter said that similar settlements with US states have been paid out by many other US drug companies and arose because of the unusual purchasing system employed by the Medicare system. "Baxter was in no way trying to defraud the system and has acted in a responsible, lawful and transparent manner. We will continue to work closely with the British authorities," she said.

October 10, 2009

Italian Tax Evaders Repatriate Funds at Record Pace Amid Slump

By Elisa Martinuzzi

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Italian tax evaders, lured by the country’s third amnesty since 2001, are repatriating funds at a record pace as the recession prompts them to pump cash into their companies.

“We’ve already received interest for twice as many funds that may be repatriated as in the previous amnesty,” Luca Caramaschi, head of private wealth management at Deutsche Bank AG in Italy, said in a telephone interview from Milan.

Italy’s parliament voted last week to forgive past false accounting under the amnesty, allowing companies to repatriate funds. Asset managers say the amount moving back home is poised to exceed both previous amnesties combined, when about 80 billion euros ($118 billion) was returned. Evaders have until Dec. 15 to apply for pardon in return for a 5 percent fee.

“There’s definitely an acceleration of interest,” said Giuseppe Marino, a tax consultant, author and a professor of fiscal law at Bocconi University in Milan. “It’s driven by the need to inject fresh capital in companies.”

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has pledged that Europe’s most indebted nation will spend the proceeds from the amnesty on state universities and health care. Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti said last month the measure will help small companies stay afloat as the economy emerges from recession. Italy’s economy is set to contract about 5 percent this year and tax income is shrinking, according to the Ministry of Economy.

‘Moment of Crisis’

“In a moment of crisis, we expect a return of company money,” Attilio Befera, who runs Italy’s tax collector, the Agenzia dell’Entrate, said yesterday at a Milan briefing organized by Mediolanum SpA, the financial services firm partly owned by Berlusconi. Befera declined to estimate how much he expects to be repatriated.

While entrepreneurs are likely to account for the bulk of repatriations, older people who have stashed personal savings outside Italy are also seeking to move money back to share with family members, said Ferruccio Ferri, chairman of UBS AG’s Italian fiduciary unit, which administers client assets.

“Estates held abroad are re-emerging in notable dimensions,” said Ferri. UBS has about 16 billion euros under management at its Italian wealth management unit. “There’s been a significant increase in interest this early on in the amnesty.”

The push by Group of 20 leaders to target tax havens and clamp down on money laundering may also be boosting repatriations, according to Bocconi’s Marino, author of “Paradisi e paradossi fiscali,” (“Fiscal Paradises and Paradoxes”) published by Egea in 2009.

“The global context this time is different,” said UBS’s Ferri. “It’s not just an Italian initiative.”

The amnesty started on Sept. 15. The tax collector will take into account the complexities involved in moving assets, Befera said. Evaders can send in their paperwork after the deadline expires if they have paid beforehand, he added.

“There may be some difficulties given the relatively short timeframe,” Francesco de Ferrari, chief executive officer of Credit Suisse Group AG’s private banking unit in Italy, said in an e-mailed response to questions. “Interest is very strong among individuals and entrepreneurs.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Elisa Martinuzzi in Milan at emartinuzzi@bloomberg.net

Time for a War Tax

How to Pay for Escalation in Afghanistan

By STEVE BREYMAN
October 10, 2009

The United States has spent $228.2 billion on combat operations in Afghanistan since October 2001, so the Congressional Research Service tells us. The White House recently said that the single most cost-effective option--withdrawing US fighting forces--was not on the table during its ongoing review of AfPak strategy. This means, among other things, that the cost will continue to mount whether General McChrystal gets his additional tens of thousands of troops or not. The quarter trillion dollar figure does not include the current cost of recruiting young men and women to fight the war (hundreds of millions of dollars per year), the future cost of veterans’ benefits (likely to be gigantic), nor the cost of debt service on the borrowed money. The latter figure could rise as high as $200 billion, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Put together, these figures rival those of the Wall Street bailout.

This has been a war, as is the war in Iraq, and as was the war in Vietnam, that the US waged on future taxpayers’ dimes. One consequence of the Johnson- and Nixon-era war splurge was the stagflation of the 1970s, and the withering of Great Society programs. The self-imposed pay-as-you-go spending rule enacted by Congress in 1990 expired in 2002 just as George W. Bush prepared to invade Iraq. This was a period during which the US ran budget surpluses for the first time since the 1950s. The rule mandated that any new spending be budget neutral: new spending had to be offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget. A new version of the rule recently passed the House and is currently before the Senate. President Obama has said he will sign the bill into law. As written, the bill does not exempt war spending.

The president also (re)committed to paying for the wars through the regular budget process (this was a campaign promise)—following one 2009 supplemental war spending bill that overwhelmingly passed both houses. Supplementals required a straight up or down vote; no amendments were permitted, as in the regular budget process. Obama’s FY2010 defense budget reflects this more honest approach. But this forthcoming budget simply adds the rapidly growing tab of the wars to the national debt. A truly honest approach would pay for the wars with real money, not funds borrowed from the Chinese and our great-great-grandchildren.

The United States invented the telephone excise tax to help finance the Spanish-American War in 1898. Renewed many times afterwards, during times of both war and peace, the tax (which applies today only to local calls spelled out as such on a phone bill) has essentially been made obsolete by cell phones and bundled service. The revenues, which ended up in the general fund anyway, were never enough to pay the full toll for any war. The War Tax Act of 2010 could remedy this and other defects in the American tradition of paying (or not) for war.

A war tax, called such and sized to cover the full cost of the wars, would signal an important break from the lies and chicanery of the George W. Bush years. The tax should be progressive rather than regressive. It should be renewed or reinstated every year US forces engage in combat on foreign soil, air, or water. The Blackwaters, Lockheed Martins, and Halliburtons—contemporary war profiteers—should pay the lion’s share through targeted and loophole-free corporate income taxes. But none of us who make incomes above a genuine poverty level—not the federal government’s shameful underestimate--should be exempt. Why? Because war is too easy without basic fiscal responsibility.

A vote for war funding—a leading cause of deficit spending--is today without political risk for all but a handful of members of Congress. It does not take much if any deliberation for most members to vote “yes” on “authorizations for the use of force,” and for the supplemental bills to “pay” for the force. Indeed, the only risk they face comes should they vote against war spending. Presidents notice, and potential challengers back home notice. Hardly surprising then that Bush and Obama received everything they’ve asked for in Iraq and Afghanistan from Congress these past eight years.

That same Congress is unlikely to show much enthusiasm for a war tax. Why should it? The current arrangement works just fine for most members, thank you very much. Institution of a war tax would, like all good things, require a years long, focused and strategic grassroots campaign against extraordinary odds and fierce resistance. A war tax addresses the fiscal root of the problem by simply paying for war on an as-you-go basis. A war tax is the fiscal policy equivalent of universal single-payer health care. But it stands even less chance of implementation.

There is no cost-effective alternative to a war tax besides the off-the-table immediate exit strategy. The administration has boxed itself into a deficit-spending corner. It is virtually certain that whatever revised policy emerges from the present round of meetings, it will cost more than the exorbitant status quo.

Congressional war hawks (who double as deficit hawks, even during a recession) the Washington Post editorial board, and General McChrystal are pushing Obama to escalate the eight-year-old war. Again, the White House announced that declaring victory over al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (a fair claim, according to the president) and holding a parade is, unfortunately, not on the near-term horizon.

It’s a shame that the economic cost of the war has not figured at all in the current debate over US AfPak policy. Were it to, escalation would be the first option off the table.

Steve Breyman teaches at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Reach him at breyms@rpi.edu

Source

The Securitization Boondoggle

Down the Rat Hole

By MIKE WHITNEY - October 10, 2009

The relentless financialization of the economy has resulted in a hybrid-system of credit expansion which depends on pools of loans sliced-and-diced into tranches and sold into the secondary market to yield-seeking investors. The process is called securitization and it lies at the heart of the current financial crisis. Securitization markets have grown exponentially over the last decade as foreign capital has flooded Wall Street due to the ballooning current account deficit. A significant amount of the money ended up in complex debt-instruments like mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) which provided trillions in funding for consumer and business loans. Securitization imploded after two Bear Stearns hedge funds defaulted in July 2007 and the secondary market collapsed. Now the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are working furiously to restore securitization, a system they feel is crucial to any meaningful recovery.

But is that really a wise decision? After all, if the system failed in a normal market downturn, it's likely to fail in the future, too. Is Fed chair Ben Bernanke ready to risk another financial meltdown just to restore the process? The Fed shouldn't commit any more resources to securitization (over $1 trillion already) until the process is thoroughly examined by a team of experts. Otherwise, it's just good money after bad.

Here's Baseline Scenario's James Kwak digging a bit deeper into the securitization flap:
"The boom in securitization was based on investors’ willingness to believe what investment banks and credit rating agencies said about these securities. Buying a mortgage-backed security is making a loan. Ordinarily you don’t loan money to someone without proving to yourself that he is going to pay you back...

The securitization bubble happened because investors were willing to outsource that decision to other people — banks and credit rating agencies — who had different incentives from them." (Baseline Scenario)
Investors are no longer willing to trust the ratings agencies or rush back into opaque world of structured finance. The reason the securitization boycott continues, is not because of "investor panic" as Fed chair Ben Bernanke likes to say, but because people have made a sensible judgment about the quality of the product itself. It stinks. That said, how will the economy recover if the main engine for credit production is not repaired? That's the problem.

Here's an excerpt from the New York Times article "Paralysis in Debt Markets Deepens Credit Drought":
"The continued disarray in debt-securitization markets, which in recent years were the source of roughly 60 percent of all credit in the United States, is making loans scarce and threatening to slow the economic recovery. Many of these markets are operating only because the government is propping them up.

Enormous swaths of this so-called shadow banking system remain paralyzed. Depending on the type of loan, certain securitization markets have fallen 40 to 100 percent.

A once-thriving private market in securities backed by home mortgages has collapsed, from $744 billion in 2005, at the peak of the housing boom, to $8 billion during the first half of this year.

The market for securities backed by commercial real estate loans is in worse shape. No new securities of this type have been issued in two years." ("Paralysis in Debt Markets Deepens Credit Drought" Jenny Anderson, New York Times)
Securitization could be fixed with rigorous regulation and oversight. Loans would have to be standardized, loan applicants would have to prove that they are creditworthy, and the banks would have to hold a greater percentage of the loan on their books. But financial industry lobbyists are fighting the changes tooth-and-nail. That's because securitization allows the banks to increase profits on miniscule amounts of capital. That's the real story behind the public relations myth of "lowering the cost of capital, disaggregating risk, and making credit available to more people." It's all about money, big money.

Securitization also creates incentives for fraud, because the banks only interest is originating and selling loans, not making sure that borrowers can repay their debt. The goal is quantity not quality. In fact, this process continues today, as the banks continue to originate garbage mortgages through off-balance sheet operations which are underwritten by the FHA. A whole new regime of toxic loans are being cranked out just to maintain the appearance of activity in the housing market. The subprime phenom is ongoing, albeit under a different name.

So why did the banks switch from the tried-and-true method of lending money to creditworthy applicants to become "loan originators"? Isn't there good money to be made in issuing loans and keeping them on the books?

Yes, there is. Lots of money. But not as much money as packaging junk-paper that has no capital-backing and then dumping it on credulous investors. That's where the real money is. Unfortunately, the massive build-up of credit without sufficient capital support generates monstrous bubbles which have dire consequences for the entire economy.

And do we really need securitization? Nobel economist Paul Krugman doesn't think so:
"The banks don’t need to sell securitized debt to make loans — they could start lending out of all those excess reserves they currently hold. Or to put it differently, by the numbers there’s no obvious reason we shouldn’t be seeking a return to traditional banking, with banks making and holding loans, as the way to restart credit markets. Yet the assumption at the Fed seems to be that this isn’t an option — that the only way to go is back to the securitized debt market of the years just before the crisis."
There are only two ways to fix the present system; either regulate the shadow banking system and every financial institution that trades in securitized assets, or ban securitization altogether and return to the traditional model of banking. Regrettably, the Fed is pursuing a third option, which is to pour more money down a rathole trying to rebuild a system that just blew up. It's madness.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com
Source

Dollar Dilemma

By Doug Noland - October 09, 2009

Renewed U.S. dollar weakness has evoked calls for Washington to implement a true strong dollar policy. Larry Kudlow is calling for a supply-side cut of marginal corporate tax rates and for the Federal Reserve to hike rates 25 bps in support of our currency. He knows “none of this is gonna happen.” Others believe the focus should be trimming our massive federal deficit. A move to fiscal and monetary restraint is surely needed to help stabilize the dollar. Restraint is not going to happen.

Perhaps chairman Bernanke tossed a tiny bone to the currency markets yesterday evening. Yet everyone in the world knows U.S. policymaker focus is on aggressive short-term stimulus with the objective of jump-starting rapid economic recovery. Officials from both the Federal Reserve and Treasury have stated their view that a strong U.S. economy is the best prescription for a strong dollar. Simple enough. So, perhaps they’ll increasingly be compelled to tweak their comments in hope of influencing currency trading. But don’t hold your breath waiting for a meaningful shift in strategy – say aggressively boosting rates or slashing spending – to protect the value of our currency. Current policy is not the primary issue anyway.

Non-productive Credit expansion/inflation is the bane of currency stability. The dollar’s fundamental problem these days lies with the underlying structure of the U.S. economy. As much as near zero interest-rates and Trillion dollar deficits don’t improve the situation, they are symptomatic of much broader systemic issues. Indeed, ultra-loose monetary policy, scary deficits, and ongoing dollar devaluation are all consequences of deep structural maladjustments to the services and consumption-oriented U.S. “bubble” economy.

And I would make the point that this maligned economic structure has been the driver for both policy and dollar weakness. With the collapse of the Wall Street/mortgage finance Bubble, acute structural fragilities required unprecedented stimulus in order to stem implosion. Once stabilized, policy focus turned immediately to short-term performance – positive GDP growth, spending recovery and job creation. Not surprisingly, the focus remains on finding a quick fix, with scant attention to structural issues.

As it relates to the dollar stability, I would argue that the central policy issue should be to create a backdrop conducive to far-reaching adjustment and repair to the economic structure. Aggressive stimulus would be expected to spur short-term performance gains. However, this would be at the cost of delaying necessary structural corrections. This dynamic may help explain why the bulls have been right on stocks this year but wrong that U.S. recovery would boost the dollar. Washington may believe that big GDP growth numbers will support a strong dollar, but global markets (and policymakers) seem to recognize clearly that the course of U.S. policy undermines the long-term value of our currency (and their dollar holdings).

Decades of credit excess cultivated an economic structure that produces too little and survives on too much credit. The Credit inflation/dollar debasement dilemma was masked for years. The dollar indulged both in its global reserve status and the world’s keen desire to participate in our financial asset Bubble. For years, the U.S. “private”-sector Credit apparatus (Wall Street securitizations, GSE obligations, derivatives, etc.) was the global “asset class” demonstrating the strongest (most alluring) inflationary bias. As fast as our Credit system inundated the world with dollar liquidity, these financial flows would as quickly be recycled right back into U.S. securities. The dollar was king on the back of reflexive speculative flows.

The dollar was not ok – it was fundamentally weak. But it looked ok relatively, in a world of weak currencies and expansive global speculation. And as long as this recycling mechanism functioned smoothly, the U.S. Credit system could easily expand Credit on an annual basis sufficient to boost various types of “output” that tallied in GDP. And with Wall Street and mortgage credit at the heart of the U.S. Credit Bubble, financial excess fed a self-reinforcing boom in lending, asset inflation, consumption, business investment and government expenditures. Moreover, any bout of financial turmoil would see U.S. yields collapse and a virtual buying panic for agency and mortgage-related securities – rapidly reflating our Bubbles.

Many things changed with the bursting of the Wall Street/mortgage finance Bubble. For one, our “private”-sector Credit mechanism was no longer capable of creating sufficient Credit to sustain inflated real estate Bubbles or the inflation-distorted Bubble economy structure. For two, the U.S. Credit system decisively relinquished it status as the most alluring global “asset class.” Years of dollar debasement had already worked to sway the inflationary biases away from the U.S. toward energy, gold, commodities and the “emerging” markets and economies. The unfolding post-Wall Street Bubble reflation has found – for the first time - the “developing” and commodities worlds supplanting the U.S. as the favored destination for speculative finance. This is big.

Granted, deleveraging and unwinding of dollar bearish bets initially propelled the dollar higher. Yet I would argue that the global crisis will be looked back on as a seminal event for our currency. Our policymakers have much less flexibility in the new financial and economic landscape. Both fiscal and monetary measures have lost potency. Trillions of dollars of deficits, zero interest rates and a $2 Trillion Fed balance sheet today get less system response than hundreds of billions and a few percent would have achieved previously. This hurts the dollar. And acute financial and economic fragilities ensure extreme policy measures will remain in place for much longer than would have previously been necessary. This also hurts dollar confidence.

Meanwhile, the “developing” world currencies, markets and economies dramatically outperform the United States. Global reflationary dynamics have put a premium on asset markets in China, Asia and the developing world. This robust inflationary bias, then, places a premium on things consumed in - and demand from - these economies.

So much of our economic structure evolved during - and for - a different era. Our Bubbles were inflating; market dynamics had created great power and flexibility for policymaking; the U.S. consumer was the king; and our securities and economic booms were the focus globally. While some of our multinational companies will benefit, too much of our economic structure is poorly positioned for today’s new global landscape. Not only does our maladjusted economic structure today require too much non-productive Credit creation, it lacks the type of real economic returns necessary to attract global financial flows. This is a big predicament not easily remedied.

It is worth noting that Australia’s central bank was this week the first major central bank to begin the process of removing monetary stimulus. Global markets reacted by pushing the dollar even lower. The “commodity” currencies, gold, energy, commodities and global equities surged higher.

I’ll take the markets’ reaction to uncommon central banking rationality as early confirmation that attempts to tighten ultra-loose monetary conditions globally will be impeded by speculative inflows already bent against the dollar. This dynamic reinforces already strong reflationary forces in non-dollar markets, while intensifying speculative selling pressure against the greenback. Expect foreign central banks to be pressured to buy a lot more dollars and global markets to experience even more destabilizing Monetary Disorder.

Source