Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Commercial Games: How Commercialism is Overrunning the Olympics
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15164

Weissman speaks about the excessive commercialism in the modern Olympic games. He insists that the event that was once used to bring nations together in the spirit if competition is now simply an excuse for companies to overwhelm spectators and athletes alike with advertisements.

“A record 63 companies have become sponsors or partners of the Beijing Olympics, and Olympics-related advertising in China alone could reach $4 billion to $6 billion this year, according to CSM, a Beijing marketing research firm. “

Companies set new standards for acceptable investments for the advertisement of their products in the previous Olympic games; money which the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is only glad to accept.
The idea that Weissman is trying to convey is one of “Olympism”, the idea that these games are a blend of sport, culture, and education. An idea that was held in high regard when the ancient Olympic games were recreated in 1896 on a multinational level is now an idea that’s dying. Companies that have no place supporting athleticism, like McDonald’s and Anheuser-Busch, are now attempting to sell their products rather then promoting pure Olympic ideals.

“It is undermining the professed ideals of the Olympic Games, and subverting the Olympics’ veneration of sport with omnipresent commercial messaging and branding.”

In order to preserve the ideals of a competition that once stopped wars for its duration, we must stray away from the things that are ruining the event. Weissman has several ideas for this purpose, one being the elimination of sponsors who sell a product detrimental to a person’s health. This includes any alcoholic beverages and fast foods. Another such idea would be to prohibit the national team coaches from endorsing equipment because of a deal that may have been made for exclusive use of their product. The idea that companies should disclose the fashion in which their products were manufactured is one that may be the most important in preserving the ‘Olympic Standard.’
If the International Olympic Committee recognizes these problems and chooses to address them accordingly, we will be able to preserve the etiquette of an ancient event in our history.

In an article in the New York Times, China is thinking about going to electric and hybrid cars.  So i think we all saw the movie in class… what happened to the electric car?! The US totally didnt go for the idea after a couple of years that it was out in the market.  will china realize the same thing or will they do things differently?  Do you think the US will then follow China, and come out again with the electric cars and hybrid cars?  something to think about!

“Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that.”

China is already behind in technology since US and Japan already sell hybrid cars,but

“by skipping the current technology, China hopes to get a jump on the next.”

Will this mean that the USA will have now competition from China when it comes to cars.  Will they start making the lead cars that everyone wants to buy now.  How is this going to affect the Auto crisis.?

China also plans to “go green” with these cars…

“China’s intention, in addition to creating a world-leading industry that will produce jobs and exports, is to reduce urban pollution and decrease its dependence on oil, which comes from the Mideast and travels over sea routes controlled by the United States Navy.”

This is also something the USA has been working on for years now, but yet we see no results at all.  Maybe all the change China is trying to do will change other countries perspectives and they can serve as a role model.

So my topic is the auto industry and i found this article in Naked Capitalism which is interesting and somehow is going to help me with my paper… i just havent tied it in yet…

In the article Treasury Soliciting Bankruptcy Funding for GM, Chrysler, is talking about how the TARP has given Citi $45 Billion in loans, and other smaller companies have lent Citi about $250 Billion.  GM and Chrysler (this article is from February, so lets ignore what has happened with GM and Chrysler since then)  have borrowed $17.4 Billion and are looking to borrow an additional $21.6 Billion.  They were not granted the loan and the  treasury it threating them to put the two car manufacturers into bankruptcy.

Administration officials involved in the auto talks said

“they are trying to find a way to restructure the two companies without resorting to bankruptcy proceedings”.

Others in the Obama administration say

“that the option of Chapter 11 filings by the two auto makers needs to be seriously considered.”

Lenders do not want to lend GM and Chrysler the money for the following reasons:

• they wont get all their money back at the end

• GM and Chrysler believe that they do not need to file for bankrupcy, they just need about $100 Billion to get rid of all the debt they have… (whose going to lend that kind of money)

Basically, i want to understand why the TARP will go so far for Citi, but wont lend the money over to GM and Chrysler.  This is still more research i have to do!!!!

By: Armenis Perez

In an article called Idea of Consumer Financial Products Watchdog Gaining Traction, head of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the TARP, Elizabeth Warren,

“has been a vocal advocate for the need for a financial product safety commission,”

which in the past few weeks has been getting consideration by the Obama Administration.  Consumers have been over spending money, which has caused a lot of debts in the USA, which is why

“a measure like this, properly done, would represent real progress.”

So the Obama Administration, right now is all about protecting the consumers who are using financial products such as mortgages, credit cards. etc.  If this new project comes about and its approved, it will

“centralize enforcement of existing laws and create a vehicle for imposing tougher rules.”

Some people argue that if you impose these tougher rules that not many consumers will be able to benefit from these financial products.  Others say that it might trigger the Security and Exchange Commission to looser power, and personell and funding.  This means that even more people are going to laid off their jobs.

Warren’s proposal was didnt have much attention in Washington, but now Obamas Administration has shifted because of the financial crisis.

I think that if this project is passed, a lot of consumers will be denied these products because most likely they do not have the credit to take advantage of credit cards, mortgages etc.  I think if they enforce the rules they are also protecting the consumer, that way they wont go into debt, and they can actually pay off their bills and not owe money.  Maybe this program will defenitely help out the financial crisis that way.

By: Armenis Perez

In the past decade, there has been a financialization of poker. The popularity of poker has skyrocketed because of some factors:

1) The introduction of online gambling

2) Television and Film

3) Books and Magazines

But regardless of what the reason is, they all tend to advertise the life of a professional poker player. When you go on to an online poker website, such as Pokerstars.net, the motto of the site is “play like the pros.” When you watch the World Series of Poker on ESPN, they focus on the pros and their earnings. And when you read ‘How to’ books, it also talks about how the professionals play poker.

Because of these many reasons, people now want to pursue a career in poker. In recent years, people have been viewing poker no longer as a game but as a career in investment. An article from Marketstockwatch.com, discusses how poker and stock market investing is similar.

“Many factors run parallel with the game of poker and the game of stock market investing. Luck may play a part but rules, odds and money management are the largest components of the two entities.”

Whether in poker or stocks, players/investors must consider the odds of his/her stock making a gain or making a loss. In poker, if you’re dealt a hand and you know your probably not going to win, there is no need for you to throw in any more money. Same goes for stocks. If you make an initial investment, but you happened to be wrong, there is no need for you to keep your stocks. Thinking as an investor or business man, you’re better off with a small loss and waiting for another opportunity, rather than losing everything.

The article even states: “investing in the stock market and playing poker relates directly to cutting losses short (capital preservation and money management) and my odds of winning the game (in the stock market this could be called expectancy).”

This is why so many people are now viewing poker as a career in investment. They know that, just like in poker, with the proper money management and calculated expectancy, they should be able to get in situations where the odds are in his/her favor.

During late 60s and early 70s, the world economy consisted the relationship between finance and productive capital. This article is about how this relationship has been broken down because of present financial crisis.

Today’s financial crisis seemed to be a result from collapse of the subprime loan and mortgages. However, the crisis gradually got started when world economy began outsourcing. The real engine of the economy is a labour-power. This is a well -known fact that China has developed by taking the lead of cheap labors. Once outsourcing became so popular because of the benefit, global scale of outsourcing got started. On the other hand, many employees who used to get high-wages unavoidably got fired or enforced to quit. Numbers of companies has focused on an increasing of productivity, therefore Chinese mass manufacture took a global market. If those employees had arranged subprime loans during the time of employment, they would be unable to make a regular payment after they get fired. Somehow the global movement of outsourcing related to subprime loan crisis.

What I thought interesting about this article is that they argue the financial crisis got really started since the global economic relied on cheap labor power while so many people argue the cause is the housing crisis. Because obvious phenomena caused of financial crisis was numbers homeless. Like great depression finally ended, the financial crisis has to be ended in near future. “Capital might find a way out of the crisis; it will seek to maintain or increase profitability in the real economy through pressure on wages (although this will perversely have a deflationary effect) the intensification of labour (the increased exploitation of workers). Strategies to increase both relative and absolute surplus value.” 

source: http://sites.google.com/site/radicalperspectivesonthecrisis/finance-crisis/on-the-crisis-of-finance-and-financialisation/the-breakdown-of-a-relationship-reflections-on-the-crisis-by-endnotes

Geithner Plan as Poker Game is an article from the New York TimAfter reading Geithner Plan as Poker Game, I have a clearer understanding of how the plan works.Poker is a form of gambling and so is investing.

Edsall starts off by stating

“Normally, a poker player has to pay full value for every chip, $1 for a $1 chip, $100 for a $100 chip, and so forth. In the Geithner game, the rules are different. A player acquiring $84 worth of “chips” only puts up $6. Of the remaining $78 which S/he owes, the FDIC would provide — in the form of a nonrecourse loan — $72, and the US Treasury would put up $6.”

Although Edsall states that the Geithner game is a little different. It actually isn’t. You can relate this concept to the concept of a poker tournament. For example, in a poker tournament such as the world series of poker, you would buy-in for $10,000.

“The remaining $200 would then be split between our talented player and US Treasury, each getting $100, good news for one and all. There are no limits on the upside: if the player has an extraordinary night and makes $10,000, s/he will get $5,000, all from an original investment of $6.”

In the poker tournament, you can also win enormous amounts of money. For your original buy-in of $10,000, your rewards can vary from $50,000- $5,000,000.

“If, however, our player has a terrible night, and loses the initial stake of $84, the downside is just $6. S/he gets to gamble $84 with the worst possible outcome being the loss of $6 — not a bad deal.”

Playing in a poker tournament has the same outcome. If a player loses a tournament, he only loses the initial $10,000 that he/she put up. But if the player wins, they can make up to $5,000,000. Like Edsall stated, “it’s not a bad deal.”

Basically, the Geithner plan is a trillion dollar project, which the U.S. government takes the role as the world’s largest hedge fund company. Their main intentions are to invest money into funds so that they can buy up the bad and toxic assets and hold on to them until the market recovers.

But the problem is that what if the economy and the market never recovers? Then the assets are not fundamentally undervalued and so if they hold on to it, how will the government make back its money?

This post is about an article i was reading, Job-Based Health Insurance: Sick and Getting Sicker, from Dollars & Sense.  The article discusses the recent trends of job-based health insurance and the horrible effects.

In the past having a stable job meant that medical bills was something you never had to think about.  Most companies took a small percentage of their employee’s paycheck to cover the small premium.  Nowadays large portions of your paycheck will never be seen as it is shuffled away to cover huge premium cost.

A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that employee contributions for health premiums increased a remarkable 50% between 2000 to 2003

And that is only if you are lucky.  Increasingly employees do not even have job-based health insurance.  This is because of a change in the labor market.

Workers today are less likely to be in a union and more likely to work part time. In addition, more people work in the service sector, where employers often provide less generous health benefits than in manufacturing.

These workers are then force to seek out health insurance as an individual, a very expense task.  And the price is rising.  Health care cost have been inflating because of the new cost that come along with technological innovations.  These rising cost have also caused more companies to pull their job-based insurance programs entirely.  They, like many of the individuals seeking insurance, simply cannot afford it.

80% of the nation’s 44 million uninsured are in working families.

The figure is a little suprising, but with the increasing drop of employee programs with the increasing premiums and medical cost it unfortunately makes sense.  Less than half of all employed workers now get job-based insurance.

And you thought it was only Wal-Mart, who creating shifts that just barely miss the full-time requirements, that cut corners to avoid having to provide insurance.  Other companies are just as bad, but they use a different, more secretive approach.

Along with raising premiums, co-pays have also gotten more expensive.  The companies raise the co-pay because that means that it is more expensive to go to the doctor, which will lead to less people going, translating into less services for the company to pay.

The higher the front-end costs to workers, the fewer total services used, and the lower the amount companies pay out for insurance. In effect, employers are using point-of-service fees to control overall costs.

It is sick to think that a company would knowingly make their employee, someone who you might have thought they would want to be healthy so that they could perform better, choose between a doctor visit and paying the rent.

This is hinting to a larger problem within the American health care system.  Although it may seem like we are lucky to live in a country where the government does not ration our access to medical care like in other countries with  government-provided care.  We in fact are having are care rationed, but not on the basis of fairness, but rather

Americans’ access to medical care is rationed by their ability to pay.

This in a sense crystallizes the problems with financializing everything.  Things that should not necessarily be profit driven, like basic health coverage, become that way. The scariest aspect of a profit driven medical care is what medical care is destant to become.

Most people in the United States don’t think of medical care as a consumer good, but as a necessity to which everybody should have equal access. As prices rise and coverage shrinks, it might become something else altogether—a luxury item.

The financialization of war has passed under the radar of many. It is easy to see how the economy and everything or everyone dealing with money and investments have become financialized but the problem with the topic of war is that people hardly look at it from the perspective that war itself is an investment in many different ways. It is used as a risk investment with the hopes that something more can come out of it rather than just fighting for peace or humane purposes or whatever other justifying reasons that people give to go to war.

One very common belief to many people is that Bush went to war with Iraq for oil. Oil in the 21st century is considered to be black gold since there is a wide belief that the world will soon run out of it.

Randy Martin, author of “An empire of indifference,” examines the theories of other researchers and shows various links to how the world, people and wars have become sucked into the system off financialization. He examines ideals suck as race, indifference and power to explain why exactly war is becoming financialized.

According to Martin, Bush went into the war with Iraq for far more than an investment on oil. He went to war to win the hearts of the people; something that Martin points out to be “winning over domestic power.”

Since the war on Iraq seemed to be a largely preemptive war, Martin believes that “preemptive war is a domestic strategy, rooted not only in calculations of American global power, but in calculations geared to storing up the Bush’s regime’s domestic power and it’s ability to pursue it’s domestic agenda.”

Since the “War on terror” started, Bush has had the support of many politicians to pass laws like the patriot act which empowered the federal government in many ways to get into people’s private lives. I also believe that if this war was won easily, the support for Bush would have been off the charts, but, just like any other risky investment, it acted like a backlash and Bush was looked down upon by many.

As I examined the financialization of war, there were more relations to politics than I thought. But why would anyone discuss war without discussing politics? They are actually so closely related that we can look at them as one thing.

Like an investment, Americans widely believed that “it was worth it going to war.” On April 9th, 2003, 76% of Americans had that belief. One month later, that number fell to 44%.

“The idea that war is won before it is joined undermines the steady state of support needed to continue to endorse a war without end”

In the beginning, Bush had all the support he needed, but everything changed when the war went on and wasn’t won as everyone anticipated.

If we look at war as a risky investment and our country as fictitious capital, we can invest our country in a war and hope to win. Winning a war in more historical terms often meant taking over that place financially and using them much like bigger countries used their colonies for a financial return on their investment.

This is still a work in progress, but I will be back!!! Comment please!!

According to financial experts Nouriel Roubini and Kenneth Rogoff in an interview with CSNBC explained that we will not be getting out of the recession anytime soon.

“People talk about a bottom of the recession in June, but I see it more like six to nine months from now,” Roubini said. “The green shoots everyone talks about are more like yellow weeds to me.”

The recent resurgence of the stock market is just a reaction to the larger than life stimulus package the government has put into place.

“I think there will be a bounce in the second half of the year from the massive stimulus package,” Rogoff said. “But I think the longer run trend is very slow, so we’re vulnerable to dipping down again sometime in the next couple of years, like Japan.”

These men believe that inevitably our country will need to truly hit rock bottom to rise to greatness again.  The path that we are taking will most likely prolong the recession to to the constant dips in the market.  I believe that it is a very good thing that the second quarter can be a positive quarter for the market but we must keep it in the green.

“Roubini said that the financial crisis was more than a crisis of confidence. “It was a crisis of excessive leverage of housing and the corporate sector,” said Roubini. “We’re not reducing the leverage, we’re pushing the losses from the private sector on the government and increasing public debt. That’s going to be a drag for growth.”

To continue to grow our country needs guidence and leadership when it comes to spending the governments money.  As an American citizen I can say that I feel comfortable that our country under the leadership of President Barrack Obama will prevail and succeed.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/search?updated-max=2009-05-16T10%3A48%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=5