Saving the planet from short-termism will take man-on-the-moon commitment
JFK's lunar vision is needed if business is to see the long-term benefits of greening the economy as well as the short-term costs

Posted by Larry Elliott, economics editor
Sunday 20 October 2013 13.23 BST The Guardian

... We choose to go to the moon. So said John F Kennedy in September 1962 as he pledged a manned lunar landing by the end of the decade.

The US president knew that his country's space programme would be expensive. He knew it would have its critics, but he took the long-term view. Warming to his theme in Houston that day, JFK went on: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others too."

That was the world's richest country at the apogee of its power in an age where both Democrats and Republicans were prepared to invest in the future. Kennedy's predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, took a plan for a system of interstate highways and made sure it happened.

Contrast that with today's America, which looks less like the leader of the free world than a banana republic with a reserve currency. Planning for the long term now involves last-ditch deals on Capitol Hill to ensure the federal government can remain open until January and debts can be paid at least until February.

The US is not the only country with advanced short-termism. It merely provides the most egregious example of the disease. This is a world of fast food and short attention spans, of politicians so dominated by a 24/7 news agenda that they have lost the habit of planning for the long term...

/... http://www.theguardian.com/global/economics-blog/2013/oct/20/short-termism-climate-change-green-economy

[center] [/center]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36569.htm

Here I sit, in West Virginia, staring down at January 1, 2014. That’s when my health insurance policy expires and I have a decision to make — renew or not renew? Right now, I’m paying about $7,000 a year in premiums for a monster deductible and yearly out of pocket of about $15,000 for myself and my family. My health insurance company informed me yesterday that my premium will be doubled to $14,000 on January 1.

I’ve been trying to get onto the Obamacare web site now for ten days to search for an alternative. No luck. I made it through four pages yesterday — then got a message saying I’d have to wait because there was too much traffic. When I clicked the continue button, it wiped out the information I had typed into the first three pages. But even if I do get onto the exchanges, it’s probably not going to matter. I read in a newspaper that Highmark is the only health insurance company on the exchange in West Virginia. Yesterday, I called Highmark and spent an hour on the phone with a nice young man — but the results were not good. The skimpiest plan is going to cost me more than I’m paying now for a higher deductible and out of pocket result.

Thank you Obamacare.

My insurance agent told me yesterday I had only one alternative — wait for six years until Medicare kicks in and keep fighting for single payer. Obviously, the Democrats and anyone who defends them are not going to be of any help in the next round. They are irrevocably tied to President Obama and Obamacare and even those Democrats nominally in favor of single payer refuse to criticize it for the industry written law that it is. I agree with Dr. Quentin Young of Physicians for a National Health Program when he says that Obamacare should have been defeated because it enshrines and solidifies corporate domination of the health care system.

But what to do next? Well, first thing is to watch a movie called Healthcare — The Movie. It’s a short documentary — 62 minutes — but packs a big punch. The movie was produced by a husband wife team — the wife Canadian — Laurie Simons — and the husband American — Terry Sterrenberg. The movie toggles back and forth between the USA and Canada — with Americans struggling with bankruptcy, death from lack of health insurance and the dark cloud of health insurance armageddon menacing their lives from cradle to an often early grave. The Canadians, by contrast, are living in a relative health care nirvana, thanks in large part to Tommy Douglas, a boxer and Premier of Saskatchewan who stood up to the red baiting being dished out at the time by the Canadian medical establishment. Douglas emerged victorious and his efforts resulted in the creation of Canada’s single payer Medicare for all. The movie is narrated by actor Kiefer Sutherland — Tommy Douglas’ grandson. The film features great historic clips — including a remarkable scene where a CBC television show host asks the question — who is the greatest Canadian? And then, in reality show format, puts it up to a vote.

“After six weeks, ten finalists, and more than a million votes,” the CBC host says, “it ended tonight with one name. And I have the envelope here. The greatest Canadian as decided by you is — Tommy Douglas.” Imagine that — the country says that Tommy Douglas, the father of single payer in Canada, is greater than its greatest hockey player — Wayne Gretzky. Tommy Douglas’ courageous act — standing up for the people of Canada against the vicious attacks of the powers that be — has resulted in a system that delivers health care for all Canadians — no complex bills, no deductibles, no deaths from lack of health insurance, no medical bankruptcies — all funded by a progressive tax system. The movie profiles Canadians with serious medical illness — who come out financially unscathed — no bills, no bankruptcy, no health related financial worries. And then compares those Canadians to the suffering human beings south of the border. The movie does a good job of making us Americans feel like crap compared to our cousins up north.

Check out this sequence, for example:



One of the stars of this film is a young American from Portland, Oregon named Lindsay Caron.



Caron finds out what polls in Canada consistently confirm — that the vast majority of Canadians would never in a thousand years give up their Medicare coverage for the nightmare south of the border.

It all came about because Tommy Douglas had the guts to stand up to the political and medical establishment and do what is right for the Canadian people.

Canada did it. There is no reason we can’t do it. It’s simply a matter of reordering our priorities...Repeal Obamacare. Replace it with single payer.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/19502-for-thousands-keeping-your-old-health-insurance-policy-isnt-an-option

Health insurance companies are sending notices of cancellation to hundreds of thousands of people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more expensive policies. Insurers say the cancellations are necessary because the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are canceling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

By all accounts, new policies to replace the canceled ones offer consumers better coverage, in some cases for comparable cost – especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. They cover 10 “essential” benefits the law now requires, including prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care, and they generally have lower thresholds for what consumers will have to spend before the plan picks up the full cost of treatment. But the cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them.

“I don’t feel like I need to change, but I have to,” said Jeff Learned, a television editor in Los Angeles who must find a new plan for his teenage daughter, who has a health condition that has required multiple surgeries.

An estimated 14 million people purchase their own coverage because they don’t get it through their jobs. The impact of the cancellations has been felt across the country. Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual business in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh has canceled about 20 percent of its individual market policies, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is canceling about 45 percent. Both Independence and Highmark are canceling so-called “guaranteed issue” policies, which were sold to customers who had pre-existing medical conditions when they signed up. Policyholders with regular policies because they did not have health problems will be given an option to extend their coverage through next year.

Consumer advocates say such cancellations raise concerns that companies may be targeting their most costly enrollees. They may be “doing this as an opportunity to push their populations into the exchange and purge their systems” of policyholders they no longer want, said Jerry Flanagan, an attorney with the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog in California. Insurers deny that, saying they are encouraging existing customers to re-enroll in their new plans. “We continue to cover people with all types of health conditions,” said Highmark spokeswoman Kristin Ash. She said some policyholders who may have faced limited coverage for their medical conditions will get new plans with “richer benefits,” and the policies, “in most cases, will be at a lower rate.”

This thread is our lifeline, as well as our news source.

What can't be cured must be endured.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-18/states-clamping-down-on-workers-mislabeled-as-contractors.html

....

An employer can save on average $3,710 annually in employment taxes for each worker earning a salary of $43,007, according a June 14 report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration...

“It is fraud plain and simple that drains governments at every level of much needed revenue,” Sarah Leberstein, a staff attorney with National Employment Law Project in New York, said in an interview.

Investigations at the state level back up the latest national audits, which suggest the problem is worsening. A Department of Labor study of nine states in 2000 found that up to one third of employers misclassified workers. In 1984, an Internal Revenue Service report put the figure at 15 percent, leading to 3.4 million misclassified workers and a $1.6 billion revenue loss. The agency is in the process of updating its estimates.

“There’s just a general increase in lawlessness among employers,” Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based non-profit group affiliated with organized labor.

In Tennessee, the growth of the construction industry led to worsening wages and unregulated workplace arrangements, according to a 2010 report co-authored by William Canak, professor of sociology at Middle Tennessee State University. Using U.S. Labor Department data, the report found that 9,098 construction workers in Tennessee were misclassified in 2006, leading to losses in unemployment insurance payments of up to $14.9 million and missed workers compensation premiums of as much as $91.6 million. In addition, federal income tax loss for 2007 filings was high as $73.4 million while Social Security and Medicare losses ranged from $7.8 million to $42 million. On-the-job construction deaths reached 33 in 2008, indicating “a strong correlation between construction fatalities and the characteristics of the underground economy,” according to the report. Even though they have been mislabeled, workers dubbed independent contractors are liable for taxes and fees that employers would otherwise be responsible to cover....Misclassification is prevalent in the construction industry where independent contractors often work alongside regular employees. Contractors own their own business, work for different customers, control their hours, and are responsible for a portion of their payroll taxes, unemployment tax, or workers’ compensation insurance. George Perry, a construction worker from Dayton, Ohio, did not fit that description. Still, he said he agreed in 2010 to be labeled an independent contractor as a condition for work building housing for the homeless under a federal grant.

“I went along with it because I felt my back was up against the wall,” Perry, 57, said in an interview. “I have a family. My fiance was in school. I’m the only bread winner.”

Prevailing Wage

Perry said he was initially paid $10 an hour, less than half of the prevailing wage for the type of work he was doing. He and his co-workers were told to file tax returns as if they were independent contractors or face layoff. The following year he was hurt on the job leaving him unable to perform heavy work. After being terminated, he was denied unemployment benefits because he was wrongly labeled a contractor.

“There’s all kinds of losers and victims here,” Capece said in an interview. “Of course the workers. Good employers. State and federal governments are losing revenue.”

General contractors often use workers supplied by labor brokers who process paychecks and distribute tax forms, Capece said. Employers and labor brokers may use check cashing companies to hide payments to misclassified workers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-17/sec-to-release-crowdfunding-rule-easing-investor-verification.html

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/10/12/debt-ceiling-why-the-us-wont-lose-aaa-rating.aspx

In 2011, lawmakers merely threatened a government shutdown as the United States' debt surged toward the debt ceiling. Standard & Poor's, owned by McGraw-Hill Financial, then went on the offensive, slashing the government's debt rating to AA+. So, too, did the smaller Egan-Jones. The other ratings agencies, Moody's and Fitch, kept the U.S. government at AAA, the best possible credit rating. What followed after was interesting, to say the least. In 2012, Egan-Jones became subject to an inquiry by the SEC, which later voted to bring administrative action to strip away its ability to rate government debt for 18 months.

In 2013, the Justice Department brought a suit against Standard & Poor's for its financial crisis-era ratings. This was the first of federal action against the agency for its involvement in rating subprime debt as AAA credits. But that February 2013 suit only named Standard & Poor's. Moody's and Fitch -- which had also issued AAA ratings for mortgage securities that proved to be anything but high quality -- never got their time in the courtroom. Standard & Poor's shot back quickly, claiming they would defend themselves "vigorously." The battle is far from over -- these kinds of lawsuits tend to take years to reach a conclusion. But whether or not Standard & Poor's wins or loses, it'll have a costly legal bill to pay either way. Lawyers are the only winners in a high-profile case.

A grand conspiracy?

It's been more than eight months since the Justice Department sued Standard & Poor's, but Moody's and Fitch have remained scot-free. Egan-Jones is still in the sandbox, unable to issue ratings with a government stamp of approval. This may explain why Moody's and Fitch have been so quiet through this government shutdown and debt ceiling debacle. Moody's recently reaffirmed its AAA-rating of U.S. debt with a stable outlook, noting an improved debt trajectory. Fitch merely said that failure to raise the debt limit in a "timely manner" would force it to reconsider its ratings. That's it -- warnings of action, not action. Any downgrade from Moody's and Fitch would come only when the government absolutely deserves it -- if it allows the government to default on its debt.

If you're watching and waiting for the U.S. government to lose its gold-standard, AAA-rating, you can probably forget about it. The last two agencies that went so far to strip an AAA rating from the U.S. government found themselves subject to regulatory scrutiny. Moody's and Fitch have their own pre-financial crisis skeletons in the closet. Lowering the government's debt rating from AAA would be a surefire way to bring these problems back into the light. For that reason, I wouldn't expect a downgrade any time soon, if at all. The agencies are just too chicken to call out Congress' shenanigans.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/10/08/2-Billion-NSA-Spy-Center-Going-Flames

The National Security Agency's $2 billion mega spy center is going up in flames. Technical glitches have sparked fiery explosions within the NSA's newest and largest data storage facility in Utah, destroying hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, and delaying the facility's opening by one year.

And no one seems to know how to fix it. For a country that prides itself on being a technology leader, not knowing the electrical capacity requirements for a system as large as this is inexcusable. Within the last 13 months, at least 10 electric surges have each cost about $100,000 in damages, according to documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal. Experts agree that the system, which requires about 64 megawatts of electricity—that's about a $1 million a month energy bill--isn't able to run all of its computers and servers while keeping them cool, which is likely triggering the meltdowns.

The contractor that designed the flawed system—Pennsylvania-based Klingstubbins--said in a statement that it has "uncovered the issue" and is working on "implementing a permanent fix." But that's not the case, according to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), which is in charge of overseeing the data center's construction. ACE disagreed with the contractor and said the meltdowns are "not yet sufficiently understood." A report by ACE in the Wall Street Journal said the government has incomplete information about the design of the electrical system that could pose new problems if settings need to change on circuit breakers. The report also said regular quality controls in design and construction were bypassed in an effort to "fast track" the project.

The facility—named the Utah Data Center—is the largest of several new NSA data centers central to the agency's massive surveillance program that was exposed by former NSA contractor turned leaker Edward Snowden earlier this year. Communications from all around the world in the form of emails, cell phone calls and Google searches, among other digital details are stored in the center's databases, which are said to be larger than Google's biggest data center. But due to the major system meltdowns, the NSA hasn't been able to use the center's databases, which it has claimed are crucial for national security.

http://vimeo.com/77082456

The company I work for did a big portion of the mechanical systems and some of the structural steel for the place. We were not allowed to call it the Utah Data Center, we had to refer to it as UDC because it was a secret. I say burn baby burn.

I'm terribly afraid it was merely incompetence.

With any luck at all, this boondoggle will never become fully operational.

Or a con job by the ops folks who are tasked with information assembly and distribution?

It's not like the NSA doesn't own the cloud administered by the Goo and AMZ.

I CAN'T FIGURE OUT IF THIS IS SATIRE, OR JUST IN POOR TASTE...

http://thoughtcatalog.com/rachael-sacks/2013/10/im-not-going-to-pretend-that-im-poor-to-be-accepted-by-you/

I came straight from the Mulberry Sample Sale, big ass shopping bag in tow back to the Gristedes by my West Village Apartment. I get to the checkout and there’s this girl in front of me probably a little older than I am talking to the cashier. The girl says to the cashier “I went in-state to save my parents money for school”. The Cashier then replies “That’s smart”. They then both glare at me with my shopping bag and my Coco Lite snack cakes and Diet Coke as if to say here’s daddy’s little princess wasting money, that little piece of shit. They exchange words and then the girl leaves. I try to be chipper and ask the cashier how her day is and she doesn’t answer me. She just looks down and scans my items not saying a word or even glancing in my direction. I say have a great day, as happily as I can and walk out feeling like a turd.

What the fuck? Could they not be that obvious? I should have stopped at my apartment and put my bags down then if they were going to judge me like that. And I got my purse at a 70% discount so they can fuck off. I am sorry that I was born into great financial circumstances and my father likes to provide for me. I am sorry I don’t have to go to a state school to save my parents money. What do you want from me?

People shouldn’t make others feel bad about their own personal finances. How people spend their money is their own choice. There is a certain amount of tact you should show around people who can’t buy exorbitantly expensive things. But should you classify someone as a person based on how they are showing their wealth, or lack of it? It just seems really petty and makes you look bitter and unhappy with your own life if you are casting nasty glares at college girls in Gristedes because you’re a cashier. What purpose does it serve if all you want to do is reflect your own misery on other people?

Fortunately I grew up with a decent amount of money in a decently rich area where people who work for the government go to raise their perfect kids. But I went to private school when I was younger and there would always be someone so much richer than me. There were kids who owned their own horses and whose parents were billionaires, so I had no idea that I had any money until I was about 14 and people called me “Rachael Sacks of Cash”. My parents bought me clothes from Old Navy and I ate at McDonalds on weekends when I was a kid.

I’m not one of those people who try to be poor to relate to people. I think that’s honestly really disgusting behavior, it’s as if you’re saying that you have to make yourself into something you think is beneath you to get others to like you. Thinking that other people are beneath you just because of the financial circumstances they were born into is just gross. People give Gwyneth Paltrow shit for saying that she can’t live like someone who makes $25,000 a year. The statement itself is accurate, she was born into Hollywood royalty, it’s just the sneer implied with that type of statement that is disgusting. It’s the fact that she had to point out how much of a gap exists between her and someone who earns that income. That she is placing them in the dirt eating cheese from a can while she gets freshly made cheese from Genoa or some shit delivered by a damn fairy.

What I’m saying is that it should not be made into a spectacle that there are differences in income. It should not be made to define who people are, even though we do it all the time. And if we do judge people for displaying wealth or not we should attempt to show tact because fortune can change.

ARTICLE FOLLOWS:

http://priceonomics.com/how-the-0001-made-its-money/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/10/natanyahu-wants-larry-summers-running-israels-banks/70712/


WHAT WAS HE THINKING??!! (I MEAN, NETANYAHU)

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/10/investors-are-increasingly-challenging-states-constitutional-court-decisions-in-investor-state-tribu.html

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT, BARBARA!

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205866/boxers-bill-aims-to-take-debt.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/multi-billion-dollar-criminal-probe-wont-end-any-time-soon-for-jpmorgan-2013-10

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co CEO Jamie Dimon has pleaded with and complained to the U.S. Justice Department but cannot convince the government to end its criminal probe of his bank because prosecutors are not yet certain of their findings, people familiar with the matter said.

Dimon has negotiated a tentative $13 billion deal to settle many of the U.S. investigations into mortgage bonds that JPMorgan - and the banks it bought during the financial crisis - sold to investors.

But the criminal investigation proved to be a sticking point during negotiations, the sources said, and Dimon's inability to win this point underscores the breadth of the problems his bank faces even after it resolves these mortgage suits.

The criminal probe relates to whether JPMorgan misrepresented the quality of the mortgages it was packaging into bonds and selling to investors.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/multi-billion-dollar-criminal-probe-wont-end-any-time-soon-for-jpmorgan-2013-10#ixzz2iM2bMETS

there shouldn't be any negotiation going on at all...

Hope you're a really good shot.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BUSINESS_ECONOMISTS_SURVEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-21-06-35-17

Despite uncertainty in Washington and rising oil prices and interest rates, companies are upbeat on the prospects for economic growth in the next year, according to a quarterly survey of business economists.

But economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics weren't as optimistic about hiring, according to the survey released Monday. Only 27 percent reported rising employment at their firms from July through September, down from 29 percent in the second quarter. And 37 percent expected their companies to expand payrolls in the next six months, down from 39 percent in the second quarter.

The slower hiring occurred even as sales and profit margins grew during the third quarter, according to the survey.

Still, optimism about future economic growth remained strong last quarter. Almost 70 percent of the economists in the survey predicted gross domestic product growth of 2-to-3 percent, with another 19 percent expecting growth of 1-to-2 percent. The figures are nearly identical to those from the second-quarter survey, released in July.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WORLD_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-21-07-06-05

LONDON (AP) -- Financial markets were flat-footed Monday ahead of a run of economic data and corporate earnings statements, particularly out of the U.S. Oil was the standout mover as the benchmark rate fell below $100 a barrel for the first time since early July.

Now that a deal to raise the U.S. debt ceiling has been agreed, investors can move on and focus on other matters, such as the underlying health of the global economy and when the Federal Reserve will start reducing its monetary stimulus.

During the partial U.S. government shutdown of recent weeks, much of the U.S. economic data was postponed. With the government now functioning fully, many of those data reports will be released over the coming days, including September's nonfarm payrolls figures. That's due on Tuesday and could provide investors a steer as to when the Fed will start reducing its $85 billion-worth of monthly asset purchases.

Until the U.S. debt crisis this month, most investors thought the Fed's so-called "tapering" of its stimulus program would start by December. Many now think it won't start until Janet Yellen takes the chair in early 2013.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EARNS_HALLIBURTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-21-07-36-58

HOUSTON (AP) -- Halliburton Co.'s third-quarter net income climbed 17 percent as revenue rose overseas. Its adjusted results topped analysts' estimates, but revenue fell slightly short.

The stock slipped 17 cents to $52.30 in premarket trading Monday.

For the three months ended Sept. 30, the Houston-based oilfield operator earned $706 million, or 79 cents per share. A year earlier it earned $602 million, or 65 cents per share.

Removing restructuring charges, income from continuing operations was 83 cents per share.

Analysts predicted earnings of 82 cents per share.

***speaking of zombies...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_JAPAN_TRADE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-21-05-50-53

TOKYO (AP) -- Japan's trade deficit ballooned to a fresh record for September as costs for imports of food and other necessities outstripped growth in exports.

Preliminary customs data Monday show September's deficit was 932 billion yen ($9.5 billion), the 15th consecutive monthly shortfall. The deficit for April-September rose to nearly 5 trillion yen ($51 billion), also a record for the first half of the fiscal year.

Imports rose 16.5 percent in September from a year earlier to 6.90 trillion yen ($70.3 billion), while exports, helped by recoveries in key overseas markets such as the U.S. and EU, climbed 11.5 percent to 5.97 trillion yen ($60.9 billion).

The yen has weakened by almost 25 percent against the U.S. dollar in the past year, making Japan's exports cheaper overseas but also raising costs for imports.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24602273

Former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said that a repeat of the crisis that brought the country close to default is "perfectly conceivable".

He told the BBC that he had not seen another situation in Washington where "compromise" seemed so far away.

Mr Greenspan confessed to sympathies with the aims of the Tea Party, the Republican faction that fought the government during debt ceiling talks.

But the former central banker said the movement's tactics were "undemocratic".

***there seems to be zombies everywhere this morning.

He must be really out of the loop and into the hot water...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/mcdonald-s-to-blackrock-add-jets-as-luxury-models-rebound.html

U.S. corporations including McDonald’s Corp. (MCD) and BlackRock Inc. (BLK) are starting to return to the business-jet market after putting off aircraft upgrades since the recession five years ago.

Buyers are opting for larger, longer-range planes even with global shipments poised to fall in 2013, Honeywell International Inc. (HON) said in its annual industry forecast today. Jet deliveries in North America, anchored by the U.S., also will increase as a share of the world’s total, the study found.

The U.S. comeback marks a turnabout from recent years, when chief executive officers deferred fleet renewals as the worst slump since the Great Depression crimped profits and made corporate aircraft a low priority -- and potential public-relations embarrassment. Now Fortune 500 CEOs are shopping again and hunting for the most luxurious models.

“They just basically went dormant during the downturn and now they’re coming back on,” said CEO Larry Flynn at Gulfstream Aerospace, the General Dynamics Corp. (GD) unit that makes the new G650 jet. “It’s a significant market opportunity.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-20/abe-invokes-thatcherism-in-reform-push-raising-disparity-risks.html

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe evokes the late Margaret Thatcher as he repeats “there is no alternative” to his platform of economic change. One of the byproducts: prospects for a Thatcherite division of wealth.

Tomoko Kawamura, 33, a pharmaceutical-company worker in Tokyo, bought a Louis Garneau bicycle costing about 50,000 yen ($510) and a MacBook Air laptop with proceeds from stock investments this year. She owns a one-bedroom apartment in Tokyo’s well-heeled Meguro district. Eight hundred kilometers (500 miles) to the southwest in Ehime prefecture, Miyoko Yamazaki, 81, is struggling to cover the rising cost of gasoline for her regular hospital trips.

“Prices are going up, making our lives tougher,” said Yamazaki, a retired taxi driver who doesn’t hold stocks or property. “I don’t really feel that the economy is booming.” In a restaurant on the 20th floor of a building with views over central Tokyo, Kawamura tells it differently: “I’m enjoying the benefits of Abenomics.”

The fortunes of Kawamura and Yamazaki exemplify the danger that Abenomics will impose social strains on an economy where the income gap between the richest 10 percent and the poorest is a less than a third that in the U.S. Pressure may rise for aid to the less fortunate, adding to the fiscal strain of a nation with the world’s largest debt burden.

when it's YOUR savings, retirement, health care, house, education, future....

when it's THEIRS, however, all kinds of creative alternatives are devised.




Good morning, X! How are things this Monday morning? It's 49F, high of 55F and then killer frosts all week.

Mercury is also retrograde for the next 3 weeks, just to make it interesting.

what's that gonna mean for us?

it's getting cold here too.

i can't keep from turning on the heat too much longer.

It's time to leave it on during the day, so the pipes don't freeze.

Not sure if there's anything specific for Aries...but I'm not expecting any let-up.

and dropped us into the 50s for a few days. I have it set high in the living room where the floor furnace is and where I do my sitting at the computer. That keeps it in the low 60s in the rest of this dump, good temperature for working at various things.

I usually try to wait until 10/21, in remembrance of all the Boston slumlords who wouldn't turn the heat on until that date, snow or no snow. That was the date the heat had to be turned on if they didn't want to pay hefty fines.

They say that "Duck Dynasty and Honey BoBO are the highest rated TV shows of all time. Thankfully there is 103.1 Comedy."
if that is true then I truly have hope and see no future.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/why-the-maximizing-shareholder-value-theory-of-corporate-governance-is-bogus.html

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/what-if-we-thought-of-obamacare-new-model-future-government-programs.html

There will be no point in staying.

Obama-doesn't-care is the perfect template for WHAT NOT TO DO, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME for ANYTHING.

It's rather like the Treaty of Versailles....which ensured WWII as it purported to end WWI.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/10/snowden-offers-to-fix-health-insurance-marketplace.html?utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=borowitz&mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28187%29

The N.S.A. leaker Edward Snowden today reached out to the United States government, offering to fix its troubled healthcare.gov Web site in exchange for immunity from prosecution. Speaking from an undisclosed location in Russia, Mr. Snowden said he hacked the Web site over the weekend and thinks he is “pretty sure what the problem is.”

“Look, this thing was built terribly,” he said. “It’s a government Web site, O.K.?”

Mr. Snowden said that if an immunity deal can be worked out, “I can get to work on this thing right away—I don’t need a password.”

In addition to full immunity, Mr. Snowden said he is requesting that he be allowed to work from home.

At the White House, President Obama offered a muted response to Mr. Snowden’s proposal: “Edward Snowden is a traitor who has compromised our national security. Having said that, if he knows why we keep getting those error messages, that could be a conversation.”




TRUST ME, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN...WE AREN'T THAT KIND OF REALISTS AROUND HERE. ESPECIALLY THAT "WORKING FROM HOME" PART!