..or something like that. Goldoman Sachs chief, Lloyd Blankenfield [sic] says that it is long overdue to curb bank, more clearly, investment banker incentives and bonuses.
He says that these investment bankers serve no social purpose and thus, they don't need all of that money heaped up on them.
You want to know something? He is sort of right!
Take for example the catalyst that started the banking crisis and hence the economic crisis? Derivatives that were collateralized into debt obligations (CDO's) which had no true value, outside of the mortgages they stood for.
These products were hollow to a large extent. But, their values were raised, based on the risk they represented and the returns they could make if in the event the CDO lost value (chiefly mortgage backed securities).
To me, it is one big shell game. Could even be a Ponzi scheme. It held no true benefit for the shareholder, especially if bonuses were paid to investment bankers to the tune of millions out of the "returns" they created.
So....to the end with them, until investment bankers learn how to appreciate what they have.
The other side of it is is that the government and the average person, does not understand to the extent to which these products are and how they are supposed to work for profit.
Seeing this, not only should investment banker incentives be cut as a way to curb the enthusiasm towards getting into such a "seemingly" corrupt career, but also the products which they create should be supervised with the same enthusiasm and a cap on such activities be placed into the regulatory system, post haste!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Capital buffers for banks? Call from the G-20!
FT Article.
Don't know what this is supposed to mean. But, the Fed has done a good job with stepping in to add additional capital. Nothing is wrong with balance sheets aside from having some toxic assets on them and a few others have gone out of business. That's the nature of the business.
What this sounds like IS socialism. But, banks do need certain capital requirements to operate as lending institutions. So, the issue is more than capital buffers-- but investment and expansion criteria as it relates to capital on bank's balance sheets.
Essentially; how do banks assess making risky investments to what they have as cash on hand and is that enough to absord loss due to certain variables and exposure.
Don't know what this is supposed to mean. But, the Fed has done a good job with stepping in to add additional capital. Nothing is wrong with balance sheets aside from having some toxic assets on them and a few others have gone out of business. That's the nature of the business.
What this sounds like IS socialism. But, banks do need certain capital requirements to operate as lending institutions. So, the issue is more than capital buffers-- but investment and expansion criteria as it relates to capital on bank's balance sheets.
Essentially; how do banks assess making risky investments to what they have as cash on hand and is that enough to absord loss due to certain variables and exposure.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
What do you know or care about American Health care?
I have to be totally honest; I didn't know a thing about American Health care, or the issues surrounding it, until this debate came about and just seemingly won't die down.
From what I understand, the insurance companies are getting away with murder, charging folks with high premiums and no oversight as to what they price. The insurance companies, as I understand it, feel as if the American government wants to kill the private insurance industry.
Hospitals are denying care to folks without health coverage, but are mandated to see you, if whether or not they do have health insurance, once the person is in dire need of life threatening medical assistance.
The vaunted public option, is for the government to provide a health care insurance option, for anyone who wishes to be a part. There are estimated to be anywhere from over 40 to 60 million Americans that are uninsured.
The private insurance companies don't want the competition from government in the form of a public option. For obvious reasons, the government would crowd out competitive insurance organizations. However, the insurance industry is an oligopoly of sorts, ran by the large insurance firms.
Hispanics are more than likely to not have insurance, even over black Americans as pointed out in a recent survey. Also, women are 10 times more likely to be insured than men.
Americans, especially some elderly, don't want Medicare cuts. I know very little about Medicare and Medicaid, but apparently one is medical insurance for the elderly (Medicare) ran by the federal government. And, Medicaid, is a state run social insurance medical program for low income families, that fit a means based test.
My issue is; why can't the federal government add funding to Medicaid? It would be expensive, but you would get a smoother run to it than the negotiations you have going on now?
Cut spending in defense spending and put it to Medicaid. Revise the means test to let in a greater proportion in the scenario and then we may have something that we can work with.
America is going to end up spending allot of money on this health care revision in the first place. So, may as well fix the ones you have now and then worry about the price tag later.
Also, perhaps you should offer government bonds to insurance companies as a way to differ the price of insurance to a later date. Another way is to expand corporate bonds to cover health care as well as have that government backed.
Government backed corporate bonds to cover the cost of health care.
From what I understand, the insurance companies are getting away with murder, charging folks with high premiums and no oversight as to what they price. The insurance companies, as I understand it, feel as if the American government wants to kill the private insurance industry.
Hospitals are denying care to folks without health coverage, but are mandated to see you, if whether or not they do have health insurance, once the person is in dire need of life threatening medical assistance.
The vaunted public option, is for the government to provide a health care insurance option, for anyone who wishes to be a part. There are estimated to be anywhere from over 40 to 60 million Americans that are uninsured.
The private insurance companies don't want the competition from government in the form of a public option. For obvious reasons, the government would crowd out competitive insurance organizations. However, the insurance industry is an oligopoly of sorts, ran by the large insurance firms.
Hispanics are more than likely to not have insurance, even over black Americans as pointed out in a recent survey. Also, women are 10 times more likely to be insured than men.
Americans, especially some elderly, don't want Medicare cuts. I know very little about Medicare and Medicaid, but apparently one is medical insurance for the elderly (Medicare) ran by the federal government. And, Medicaid, is a state run social insurance medical program for low income families, that fit a means based test.
My issue is; why can't the federal government add funding to Medicaid? It would be expensive, but you would get a smoother run to it than the negotiations you have going on now?
Cut spending in defense spending and put it to Medicaid. Revise the means test to let in a greater proportion in the scenario and then we may have something that we can work with.
America is going to end up spending allot of money on this health care revision in the first place. So, may as well fix the ones you have now and then worry about the price tag later.
Also, perhaps you should offer government bonds to insurance companies as a way to differ the price of insurance to a later date. Another way is to expand corporate bonds to cover health care as well as have that government backed.
Government backed corporate bonds to cover the cost of health care.
Monday, August 31, 2009
DPJ wins...
Well, the Japanese elections are over. The opposition won. A new era for the Japanese people. Over 40 plus years of the other guys have gotten the better of them.
Congrats!
Youri
Congrats!
Youri
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The red invasion- China's Caribbean and Latin American policy!
China is on a fast march towards the Caribbean and Latin America. As China emerges as a global leader and lender, the Caribbean and Latin American region can benefit significantly from Chinese investments.
Neglecting the geo-political manoeuvring over Taiwan and gaining votes in the U.N., the main and direct issue for the Caribbean and Latin America, being within the USA's sphere of interest and with culturally engrained social and left leaning tendencies in South America, at least, is that China may be seen as a catalyst that would encourage communist revolution, to the extent to which it will make the Bolivarian dream seem as a mere afterthought. But, is this train of thought applicable and does China want, itself, to trade with more communist like countries?
For the most part, a stark issue for consideration is how in fact China reconciles outward investment from the underpinning of a national communist infrastructure. It seems paradoxical to suggest that a communist state can, in turn, make capitalist type investments in organizations and countries. But, such has China done.
Also, as China emerges as an economic power house- with growth slated over 8% currently- it most obviously understands that that economic engine is not powered by communism, as much as the political directorate in China seems to be tethered to its ideology.
In saying that, China's actions towards its partners with regard to adhering to western style rules and regulations with respect to market access and competition, has been most capitalistic and in fact, nothing seems communist about it at all aside from the issue that it's national corporations are monopolies run by the communist government.
With regard to the World Trade Organization and other Asian regional trade bloc's, like their participation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and their membership in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), China has effectively circumvented its commonly understood national economic policy, to now become integrated into the global arena, where communism, for the most part, is certainly not a normal practice with its trading partners. In fact, China's largest trading partner and one in which they seek the most value, by far, is the USA.
In any event, for the Caribbean and Latin America, the Chinese government has produced a policy paper, directed at providing the region with China's strategic plan for partnerships and investments. The plan - as with most foreign policy directives- hinges on investment and social support as well as providing additional lending.
Sebastian Castaneda, Research Fellow at the Council of Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) in a commentary released on the Caribbean Net News, made mention of an initial investment of $350 million USD made by China to the Inter-American Development Bank. Additionally in his report, he stated that China has already facilitated a currency swap with Argentina to the tune of $9 billion USD. In a separate report by the Financial Times of London, China has inked a $1 billion dollar oil deal with Ecuador.
The policy is clear, to the extent that we see an investment focus for China's domestic consumption and offering a credit option to Caribbean and Latin American partners. But, what about the social support and development through shared cultural values? The social development aspect is always the most important and the least focused on dynamic when it relates to partnerships between entities.
This brings up a critical issue as it relates to China's track record with respect to the social development of its own country, let alone its partners.
In fact, China has not only been confronted their "human rights" record within China, but also on their investment policy and strategy within resource rich Africa, to the extent to which certain established Euro-centric organizations have felt the need to address their concerns for their own respective development initiatives within the African region, to that of China's involvement and how that may impact or negatively alter the significant work conducted on behalf of Africa, especially on Sub-Saharan African development- political, economic and social.
With the former, as much as it may be painful to witness these issues play themselves out, by some who may or may not be over-reacting to the birth pangs of a rapidly growing China, to the extent that they are birth pangs and are the normal manifestations of a power struggle in the middle of a balance of power political mainframe, is something that China must and will undergo- as all countries do- under a currently changing market economic model, which does and will continually influence the decisions of the political directorate, towards more equitable and stable solutions.
With regard to the latter, the main thrust of the claim has been that China has neglected every obligation for reform within Africa and has gone at engagement from a purely cost/benefit approach towards achieving a certain result and bottom line. With the weak democratic institutions in Africa, for the most part, we can appreciate the need for a coordinated strategy from all sides as to not disrupt the progress being made by external government's, non-governmental agencies and African government's themselves.
The issues with Chinese-African-Euro relationships may or may not be a true concern to that of the Caribbean and Latin America. For the most part in South America, at least, left leaning government's or left leaning supporters, are larger in numbers than that in the Caribbean. Secondly, while this may indicate that there is fertile ground to foment a communist uprising in Latin America, to the extent to which this is a Chinese directive for it to be a catalyst for that uprising, hasn't been proven or even thoroughly analyzed to show in any way that this is an intended outcome- especially with China's stance to it's regional partners and more importantly to their forays in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Also, the progress to which Latin America has made with respect to building democratic institutions, even in Venezuela and with minor exception for Cuba- with even the latter taking small steps towards reforming the current state structures- there is little notion that there will be massive communist regimes building at the USA's back door.
On all sides, the benefits from democracy and capitalism as they relate to providing freedoms to individuals and building prosperity, is evident.
China, as far as their track record is concerned, is as much interested in spurring governmental attitude changes through exporting social values at the same time as they attempt to strengthen social safety nets through communist principles they employ at home, as we are with China's policies as it relates to anything else but lending and investment facilities for the region.
Neglecting the geo-political manoeuvring over Taiwan and gaining votes in the U.N., the main and direct issue for the Caribbean and Latin America, being within the USA's sphere of interest and with culturally engrained social and left leaning tendencies in South America, at least, is that China may be seen as a catalyst that would encourage communist revolution, to the extent to which it will make the Bolivarian dream seem as a mere afterthought. But, is this train of thought applicable and does China want, itself, to trade with more communist like countries?
For the most part, a stark issue for consideration is how in fact China reconciles outward investment from the underpinning of a national communist infrastructure. It seems paradoxical to suggest that a communist state can, in turn, make capitalist type investments in organizations and countries. But, such has China done.
Also, as China emerges as an economic power house- with growth slated over 8% currently- it most obviously understands that that economic engine is not powered by communism, as much as the political directorate in China seems to be tethered to its ideology.
In saying that, China's actions towards its partners with regard to adhering to western style rules and regulations with respect to market access and competition, has been most capitalistic and in fact, nothing seems communist about it at all aside from the issue that it's national corporations are monopolies run by the communist government.
With regard to the World Trade Organization and other Asian regional trade bloc's, like their participation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and their membership in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), China has effectively circumvented its commonly understood national economic policy, to now become integrated into the global arena, where communism, for the most part, is certainly not a normal practice with its trading partners. In fact, China's largest trading partner and one in which they seek the most value, by far, is the USA.
In any event, for the Caribbean and Latin America, the Chinese government has produced a policy paper, directed at providing the region with China's strategic plan for partnerships and investments. The plan - as with most foreign policy directives- hinges on investment and social support as well as providing additional lending.
Sebastian Castaneda, Research Fellow at the Council of Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) in a commentary released on the Caribbean Net News, made mention of an initial investment of $350 million USD made by China to the Inter-American Development Bank. Additionally in his report, he stated that China has already facilitated a currency swap with Argentina to the tune of $9 billion USD. In a separate report by the Financial Times of London, China has inked a $1 billion dollar oil deal with Ecuador.
The policy is clear, to the extent that we see an investment focus for China's domestic consumption and offering a credit option to Caribbean and Latin American partners. But, what about the social support and development through shared cultural values? The social development aspect is always the most important and the least focused on dynamic when it relates to partnerships between entities.
This brings up a critical issue as it relates to China's track record with respect to the social development of its own country, let alone its partners.
In fact, China has not only been confronted their "human rights" record within China, but also on their investment policy and strategy within resource rich Africa, to the extent to which certain established Euro-centric organizations have felt the need to address their concerns for their own respective development initiatives within the African region, to that of China's involvement and how that may impact or negatively alter the significant work conducted on behalf of Africa, especially on Sub-Saharan African development- political, economic and social.
With the former, as much as it may be painful to witness these issues play themselves out, by some who may or may not be over-reacting to the birth pangs of a rapidly growing China, to the extent that they are birth pangs and are the normal manifestations of a power struggle in the middle of a balance of power political mainframe, is something that China must and will undergo- as all countries do- under a currently changing market economic model, which does and will continually influence the decisions of the political directorate, towards more equitable and stable solutions.
With regard to the latter, the main thrust of the claim has been that China has neglected every obligation for reform within Africa and has gone at engagement from a purely cost/benefit approach towards achieving a certain result and bottom line. With the weak democratic institutions in Africa, for the most part, we can appreciate the need for a coordinated strategy from all sides as to not disrupt the progress being made by external government's, non-governmental agencies and African government's themselves.
The issues with Chinese-African-Euro relationships may or may not be a true concern to that of the Caribbean and Latin America. For the most part in South America, at least, left leaning government's or left leaning supporters, are larger in numbers than that in the Caribbean. Secondly, while this may indicate that there is fertile ground to foment a communist uprising in Latin America, to the extent to which this is a Chinese directive for it to be a catalyst for that uprising, hasn't been proven or even thoroughly analyzed to show in any way that this is an intended outcome- especially with China's stance to it's regional partners and more importantly to their forays in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Also, the progress to which Latin America has made with respect to building democratic institutions, even in Venezuela and with minor exception for Cuba- with even the latter taking small steps towards reforming the current state structures- there is little notion that there will be massive communist regimes building at the USA's back door.
On all sides, the benefits from democracy and capitalism as they relate to providing freedoms to individuals and building prosperity, is evident.
China, as far as their track record is concerned, is as much interested in spurring governmental attitude changes through exporting social values at the same time as they attempt to strengthen social safety nets through communist principles they employ at home, as we are with China's policies as it relates to anything else but lending and investment facilities for the region.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Afghanistan is not Japan!
So says David Pilling of the FT.
He says that democracy in Afghanistan, would not work the way it did in Japan after the war, because of a few issues for consideration. The most of which is that Afghanistan does not have a unifying force, while it's population is ethnically divided.
I find it funny he wrote about Japan the day after I posted my Japanese article, which stated that Japan's problems are our problems.
While these issues for consideration by Pilling are believable, the issue with regard to the war and the need for post war reconstruction is. Same problem, but we need different solutions and gleaning from the Japanese post war era, we can see how and why it worked as to why not.
Good article I may add as well by Pilling!
He says that democracy in Afghanistan, would not work the way it did in Japan after the war, because of a few issues for consideration. The most of which is that Afghanistan does not have a unifying force, while it's population is ethnically divided.
I find it funny he wrote about Japan the day after I posted my Japanese article, which stated that Japan's problems are our problems.
While these issues for consideration by Pilling are believable, the issue with regard to the war and the need for post war reconstruction is. Same problem, but we need different solutions and gleaning from the Japanese post war era, we can see how and why it worked as to why not.
Good article I may add as well by Pilling!
Bombs in Baghdad!
Bombs in Baghdad are falling. 100 people dead thus far. The bloodiest since the war was declared over by president Bush two years ago. I wonder if Al-Queada has this planned where every time a national issue pops up in the USA, like health-care, they plan a massive attack?
I feel for the victims of this blast. I could not live in a country that is in chaos the way Iraq seems to be.
The media has quieted the issue. But, if Bush was still in office, this would be blasted and over-reported for weeks.
Such is life...
I feel for the victims of this blast. I could not live in a country that is in chaos the way Iraq seems to be.
The media has quieted the issue. But, if Bush was still in office, this would be blasted and over-reported for weeks.
Such is life...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
