SavvySugar

Shop at Whole Foods

cine_lover — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:52:31 -0700

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare

Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

By JOHN MACKEY

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

-Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction-toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

View Full Image

Chad Crowe

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care-to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.
Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly-they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear-no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.-or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending-heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity-are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.
Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.
Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

Of course, Liberals are now boycotting a CEO with great ideas, who does not take a salary, and offers almost all his employees Health Care on top of $1000 to each employee to put towards whatever you want, it can even be applied to your deductables.

Whole Foods drama continues: Unions join in fight against CEO

Bruce WatsonAug 27th 2009 at 5:00PM
Text SizeAAA
Filed under: Company News, People, Healthcare

In the latest move in the John Mackey/Whole Foods (WFMI) health care brouhaha, two unions have joined in the chorus of voices opposing the embattled CEO. The Change to Win (CtW) investment group and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) have released statements attacking Mackey and calling for a boycott of the store.This ongoing drama traces its roots to an op-ed article that Mackey published in The Wall Street Journal. Endorsing a cocktail of tax breaks and charity-based initiatives, he came out strongly against the universal health care policy that Obama (and, not coincidentally, many of his customers) endorse. Needless to say, many of Whole Foods' patrons felt stung by what they perceived as a corporate betrayal of their core policies. In addition to a torrent of attacks across the internet, this has led to a growing call for a boycott of the company.
In some interesting ways, this issue mirrors the battle between liberals and libertarians. Whole Foods' target demographic tends to be fairly liberal and, as such, is attracted to the company's socially-aware corporate governance as much as its high-quality food. From its decision to install fuel-cell generators in some of its stores to its commitment to philanthropy, many of While Foods' policies are designed to make its customers feel good about spending money there. And then there's the way that the company treats its workers. Whole Foods' employees are paid well above the market average, have full health coverage, and are reimbursed for their gym memberships. The company offers same-sex partner benefits, allows telecommuting for many of its workers, and has a strict nondiscrimination policy. In short, it's everything that a good liberal could want in a supermarket.Of course, all these benefits and donations come at a price, and Whole Foods passes much of this on to its consumers. But customers who are willing to pay a guilt premium for free-trade radicchio are likely to be the same sort of forward-looking, society-oriented liberals who support universal health care. Mackey, on the other hand, is a self-identified libertarian, which means that his politics tend more toward self-policing and a small role for government programs. In the case of Whole Foods, this perspective generally dovetails with the beliefs of his customers, in so far as responsible corporate stewardship and pro-employee policies are the kinds of things that both groups could support. However, big government solutions -- like universal health care that is funded by increased taxes -- is where liberals and libertarians part ways.From a business perspective, as far as Whole Foods is concerned, the politics of its customers are probably more important than the politics of its CEO. As previous battles against Bolthouse Farms and Coors (TAP) demonstrate, controversy and foodstuffs don't mix, particularly when one's target audience is noted for its political awareness. Given that Whole Foods' market position is inseparable from its socially activist image, Mackey's op-ed seems like an exercise in self-defeat.

However, while it is pretty obvious that Whole Foods should quickly and decisively move to distance itself from the statements of its CEO, it seems like the current boycott rivals Mackey's original move in its shortsightedness. By withholding patronage, Whole Foods' detractors convey the message that they require strict adherence to a hard liberal line. Never mind that Whole Foods does more for the environment, the needy, and its own employees than any other supermarket chain: its CEO has dared to utter heresy and must be clipped from the herd.Beyond this, CtW and UFCW's decision to jump on the boycott bandwagon seems more than a little disingenuous. As Mackey has made very clear in the past, he is firmly anti-union; although Whole Foods reached a compromise with organized labor back in March, it is fair to say that relations between the two sides are probably strained. In this context, it seems likely that the union boycott has little to do with health care and everything to do with Mackey's anti-union policies.If Whole Foods' customers are really liberal, then they will, perhaps, remember that true liberalism endorses the free flow of information, ideas, and perspectives. While they may not agree with Mackey's statements, their eagerness to censor him has effectively transformed righteous anger into bald-faced hypocrisy and bad business into bad politics. Even if Mackey isn't better than that, his customers certainly should be.

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare: Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

hausfrau — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:05:22 -0700

The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction-toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care-to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly-they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear-no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.-or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending-heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity-are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434217007286507...

ABC News: Movement to Scrap 401(k)s Gains Traction

melizzle — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:17:58 -0700

**PUBLIC POST**

Movement to Scrap 401(k)s Gains Traction
Net Gains: Guaranteed Retirement Accounts Are Getting Attention in Washington
Column By DAVID McPHERSON
Oct. 28, 2008

When it comes to how we spend and save, borrow and lend, nothing in this nation will ever be the same.

I can't tell you how the financial crisis will be solved, when the Dow will return to 13,000 or if home prices will recover anytime soon. But the events of the past two months make it clear our national money habits are in for big changes.

Given that reality, there's one proposal you might want to keep an eye on. A recommendation to shake up the nation's 401(k) system is gaining traction as workers and retirees gape in horror at their investment account balances.

"Four weeks ago this plan didn't have a chance," conceded its author, Teresa Ghilarducci.

Suddenly, things have changed. Ghilarducci's proposal to create what she calls Guaranteed Retirement Accounts is gaining attention in Washington as the nation grapples with the issue of retirement security in the wake of a 40-percent-plus drop in the U.S. stock market this year.

"These last three weeks people are learning their 401(k) plans can go down," said Ghilarducci, an economist at the New School for Social Research in New York.

Called to testify before Congress earlier this month, Ghilarducci's ideas are gaining wide exposure nearly a year after she published a policy paper on the subject. She followed up that paper with a book published in May, "When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them."

Her proposal calls for knocking down the 401(k) plan system and replacing it with a government-run pension plan funded by employee contributions. Participants would be guaranteed an inflation-beating return and a lifetime stream of income.

"What people want from their pensions is guaranteed income for life," Ghilarducci said in an interview Monday.

Guaranteed Retirement Accounts

Here are the basics of her proposed Guaranteed Retirement Accounts:

" Employees would make mandatory contributions equal to at least 5 percent of the earnings. Workers could contribute higher amounts if they wish.

" Those contributions would be offset by a $600 federal tax credit each participant would receive.

" As with a 401(k) plan, workers would have individual accounts they could track. The balance of each account would depend on each worker's contributions and income level.

" The Social Security Administration would handle account management, and the Thrift Savings Plan -- a well-regarded retirement plan for federal employees -- would manage the money.

" Participants would be guaranteed a fixed rate of return that exceeds inflation by 3 percent. For instance, if inflation stood at 2 percent, the worker would earn 5 percent; if inflation reached 3.5 percent, the worker would earn 6.5 percent. Participants could receive an inflation-beating return above 3 percent if the government's investment returns were high enough.

" At retirement, participants' account balances would be converted into a lifetime stream of income that adjusts for inflation. There would be options to take partial lump sum payments, opt for lower payments in return for survivor benefits and, upon death, leave a portion of a financial account balance.

The intent of the plan is not to replace Social Security. Rather, Guaranteed Savings Accounts would supplement Social Security, Ghilarducci said.

She estimated a full-time worker retiring after 40 years could expect a benefit equal to about 25 percent of pre-retirement income. That would be on top of Social Security benefits.

The portion of Ghilarducci's plan that has drawn the greatest criticism is her suggestion to eliminate the tax breaks received for contributing to a 401(k) plan or an IRA.

Last week, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh pilloried her ideas, but Ghilarducci said Limbaugh got some of the facts of her proposal wrong, including that the guaranteed rate of return would be 3 percent above the inflation rate, not a flat 3 percent return.

Ghilarducci now talks about maintaining some level of tax-free contributions, maybe up to $5,000 a year, to IRAs or 401(k)s. That's more than most workers contribute to a retirement plan, she said, and would only cost the federal government $25 billion a year compared to the $80 billion a year contribution levels cost the federal Treasury now.

Ghilarducci said she's not "anti-stock market" but, rather, against 401(k) plans in their current iteration. She called the 401(k) "a tax shelter with very bad elements, namely hidden fees and very costly products."

The retirement scheme simply does not work, she said.

"If current trends continue, poverty rates among the elderly will increase and middle-class retirees will find that their retirement income will not pay for the lifestyle they achieved while working," she wrote in her original policy paper.

Ask the retirees you know if they've begun to worry about the same trends as the Dow has fallen more than 20 percent in less than a month. I think they might want to hear more about Guaranteed Retirement Accounts.

I'm not ready to embrace every aspect of Ghilarducci's plan, but it's a plan that needs to be part of the national discussion as we deal with the fallout from easy credit, risky derivatives and a stock market decline that has devastated the retirement fortunes of millions.

Why China Will Continue to Buy U.S. Treasuries

Grandpa — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:11:08 -0700

Why China Will Continue to Buy U.S. Treasuries
Rick Newman
Think American workers have it bad? It's worse in China.
You may not know that by scanning the headlines. Late last year the Chinese government passed its own stimulus package of about $600 billion, to meet its target of 8 percent GDP growth. That's right, 8 percent. That would be outlandish growth here, where the economy is now shrinking, not expanding.
But in China, that's barely enough to keep a restless workforce employed. And the government might not be able to make its 8 percent target. Unemployment is soaring, and there's even a possibility that economic woes could lead to angry public protests like those that preceded the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
Since Tiananmen, America and China have become deeply linked to each other. Americans, obviously, buy a huge amount of imported Chinese goods-about $340 billion worth in 2008. Much of the cash that flows back to China gets invested in U.S. government securities, which helps keep U.S. interest rates low. China even invests directly in American firms. In 2005, Chinese computer maker Lenovo (LNVGY.PK) bought IBM's PC division for $1.75 billion. In 2007, the Chinese government bought a $3 billion stake in the Blackstone Group, the American private equity firm. Historian Niall Ferguson, author of The Ascent of Money, even conflates the two nations as one: Chimerica.
Since the two countries are so closely linked, I asked Wei Li, a business professor at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business who also teaches at the Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business in Beijing, for an update on the Chinese economy, and how changes there are likely to affect the United States. Excerpts:
How is the global recession affecting China? The outlook for China is very grim. Much more grim than for the United States. There are two main drivers: Housing and exports.
Ten years ago there was a housing shortage in the cities. But now there's a housing glut. The market boomed, and now there's a huge bubble. Price of housing in Beijing and Shanghai is sometimes higher than Hong Kong or Tokyo. One reason is there's very little opportunity to invest elsewhere. That led to lots of speculation. It's mostly urban. In rural areas, you still build your own house.
Is the housing bust in China worse than in the United States? Housing in China is a much bigger deal than in the United States because people just started buying. For many Chinese they were first-time homeowners. Prices haven't really fallen yet, but they have to. If they don't let prices fall, something else has to adjust. Either the price falls or quantity adjusts. If the quantity goes to zero, nobody buys refrigerators or tiles, or hires electricians or architects. The bust has been going on about one year now, and accelerated since the last quarter of 2008.
What about exports. There's been a double digit decline. For every 1 percent rise or drop in U.S. consumption, Chinese exports go up or down by 10 percent. The effect is 10 to 1.
So with consumption down in the U.S. by about 2 or 3 percent, you mean that exports in China have fallen 20 or 30 percent? That's right.
The unemployment rate in the United States is 8.1 percent right now. Is it higher in China? According to Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), the unemployment rate in urban areas in the end of 2008 was 9.4 percent, significantly higher than official jobless rate of 4.0 percent. It's probably higher now, since the Chinese economy experienced a marked slowdown since the last quarter of 2008. In addition, in 2009, 6.1 million college graduates are looking for jobs. These figures all underestimate the severity of unemployment in China. The unemployment stats count only jobless rate in urban areas. When rural migrants cannot find jobs, they often return home and subsist on their land.
Those are big changes. What are the implications? In the United States, the savings rate will go up. Up till now, why save if asset prices are going up? But now, with so much wealth destroyed, people have to rethink that. So consumption will go down as a percentage of GDP. So demand for Chinese exports will be somewhat less. The export engine in China will keep running, but demand will be much less.
That means the U.S. trade deficit will be smaller, right? Yes, the U.S. trade deficit will have to be smaller. As these bubbles burst, a lot of countries will re-look at their competitive advantages. The United States will be okay because it's a much bigger market. It won't break the social fabric of the United States.
But in China, it could be different. A lot of people in China are like people who just got a job and haven't yet accumulated a lot of wealth. They won't be able to maintain their lifestyle. China has a very nice veneer in the big cities, and great infrastructure, but there's not always a lot beneath the veneer. Unemployment is going up faster in China.
Can't the Chinese government pull the old levers of a command economy, crank up spending, and keep people employed? That's what people may think, but the Chinese economy is so much bigger than the government can control. If you think U.S. consumers are scared, Chinese consumers are equally scared, if not more. Stocks in China are down 60 percent. The new middle class who owns multiple apartments is living on a lot of borrowed money. They're in very bad shape.
Some people worry about the fact that the Chinese government owns several trillion dollars worth of U.S. government securities. You know the argument: If the Chinese sold their holdings the U.S. economy would collapse. China could conduct economic warfare against America. People worry about China buying Treasuries, but for China, they don't have a choice. There's really no place else they can put their money. To say that China is somehow controlling the U.S. economy is laughable.
So with China in tough shape, will Chinese influence fade? I think Chinese influence will still grow, but it has to be different. The Chinese approach used to be, speak softly and make a lot of money. That's not working any more. The system is flawed. If China wants to continue to benefit from globalization, China needs a voice.
What's the risk of some kind of serious instability inside China? Could there be another event like Tiananmen Square in 1989? A lot of people are unemployed. Not just rural labor. We're talking about highly educated college grads. When enough of them can't find jobs, they'll look for something to do. The events in 1989, that was described in romantic terms in the press in the United States and in the west. Democracy taking root, that kind of thing. But that happened because of high inflation, a lack of jobs after students graduated. A tighter money supply made it harder for companies to hire workers.
So could that happen again? It's already developing. Many grads from 2008 still don't have jobs. More students will graduate this June without jobs. We're talking about millions of people. But I don't think another incident like Tiananmen Square is likely because everybody got smarter after that. Many students will be happy to work for free as long as they can learn some skills. Today, more families have savings.
What's the thing to watch for, to tell how serious conditions get inside China? When people are literally starving. It could happen. Social insurance is much less than in the United States.

Dollar's fall is felt around the globe: Weakening U.S. currency harms overseas markets

justingirl1989 — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 11:47:40 -0800

The sharp decline of the U.S. dollar since 2000 is affecting a broad swath of the world's population, with its drop on global markets being blamed at least in part for misfortunes as diverse as labor strikes in the Middle East, lost jobs in Europe and the end of an era of globe-trotting rich Americans.

It marks a shift for Americans in the global economy. In times of strength, a mightier dollar allowed Americans to feed their insatiable appetite for foreign goods at cheap prices while providing Yankees abroad with virtually unrivaled economic clout. But now, as the United States struggles to fend off a recession, observers say the less lofty dollar is having both a tangible and intangible diminishing effect.

"The dollar was the dominant force in world economics for 100 years -- we had no competition," said C. Fred Bergsten, an American economist and director of the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics. "There was no other economy close to the size of the United States. But all that is now changing."

The dollar is down more than 40 percent against the euro over the past seven years, taking a particularly sharp drop last month. Despite a bit of a rebound in recent weeks, the dollar is still off nearly 12 percent since Jan. 11, when it hit its peak for 2007.

For now, that drop is allowing the U.S. economy to reap rewards. American products have become exceedingly competitive, boosting exports ranging from Caterpillar tractors to Boeing jumbo jets that are now relative blue-light specials in the global marketplace. Using the same logic of chasing cheaper local production costs that has driven many U.S. factories to China, a few iconic European companies, including Airbus, are set to shift some manufacturing lines to the United States.

But for untold millions worldwide, the weak dollar has emerged as a troubling dark spot. Take Ngengi Mungai, a Nairobi coffee exporter trapped between the weaker dollar and the rapidly appreciating Kenyan shilling -- which gained as much as 12 percent against the dollar this year amid an export-driven economic surge across much of Africa. His coffee sales overseas, as with the bulk of global commodities, are priced in weaker dollars. But he must then convert them into stronger shillings to cover his local costs for local labor, materials, even the clothes on his back. It has cut sharply into his annual income.

"Basically," Mungai said, "it's bad."

Lost its bling for good?
It has left many wondering whether the dollar has lost its bling for good. Even rapper Jay-Z dissed the dollar in his recent video, "Blue Magic." In scenes celebrating the excess of wealth in Manhattan's shimmering glass canyons, the cameras cut repeatedly not to images of $100 bills -- but of crisp, 500 euro notes.

Though still the primary choice for global reserves and commodities, some countries have begun to diversify their dollar holdings, while a nascent push is afoot to re-price some commodities in currencies other than the dollar. In May, Kuwait dropped its currency peg to the dollar and other oil-rich Gulf states have threatened to follow. Perhaps most telling: In recent months, the euro surpassed the dollar as the currency with the largest global circulation.

In very real terms, it has forced Americans to rethink their lust for foreign goods. Sales of luxury, British-made Jaguars and Land Rovers, for instance, are declining in the United States because of the weak dollar, while fewer North American tourists -- a 10 percent drop in the third quarter of 2007 compared with the same period last year -- treated themselves to trips to England.

The chink in the dollar's armor has dealt a blow to American pride -- at least to the kind of pride that comes with buying power.

Nowhere is that more visible than with Americans overseas. "It's changed our lifestyle," said Lauren Amlani, 48, who moved to Paris from California with her husband and young son in March 2006. "A meal with pizza and drinks for the three of us comes to over $75. That's ridiculous!"

Amlani's husband, Aslam, a project manager at Disneyland Paris, is paid in dollars. To compensate for the plunge of the dollar against the euro, the Amlanis are buying clothes and electronics in the United States and hauling them back to Paris.

With the exception of November, when the dollar dropped sharply after bearish remarks by Chinese officials, the fall has been gradual. It is unclear what will happen in the future. The dollar has fallen because of a combination of fears over the U.S. economy, including the subprime mortgage crisis that may worsen.

Although considered unlikely, analysts say a more rapid decline could prove disastrous. A global run on the dollar would force the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates to prop up the U.S. currency just as lower interest rates may be needed to stimulate the domestic economy.

Impact grows
Already, however, the impact of the weaker dollar is growing. Rolls-Royce has proposed moving some operations from Liverpool to its factory in Mount Vernon, Ohio. Airbus has said it will shift more of its production to the United States, home turf of rival Boeing, to offset the cost of the stronger euro. As the dollar has weakened over the past seven years, Airbus has opened assembly lines and other operations in Wichita and Mobile, Ala.; as well as in Moscow and Beijing.

"Every time the euro increases by 10 cents towards the dollar we lose $1 billion in our operations," said an Airbus official at the company's headquarters in Toulouse, France. "Aircraft are sold in U.S. dollars, but most of our production costs are paid in euros."

Losses in Europe have been blunted, however, because fewer euros now buy more raw materials that continue to be priced in dollars. In addition, the British pound has depreciated recently over investor fears that England's real estate market may be vulnerable to the same factors that caused the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States.

Many nations that have pegged their currencies to the dollar have become boxed in by the Fed's moves to lower interest rates. While that may be wise for policymakers in the United States, where the fear is slipping into recession, it is exactly the wrong medicine for red-hot economies such as those in the Persian Gulf that are in far greater risk of overheating from a massive, oil-fueled economic expansion.

The dramatic surge in oil revenue along with the weakening dollar has sparked a rise in inflation in the Gulf states -- hurting most those who have the least. In recent months, it has wiped out much of the gains from years of hard labor for the thousands of South Asian workers who moved to Dubai for a piece of its multibillion-dollar construction boom. With employers slow to raise salaries as low as $109 a month, workers' savings have diminished in buying power as costs have jumped for vegetables, cooking gas and other essentials. This has triggered wage strikes and a rock-throwing protest this fall that set back construction of the 150-story Burj Dubai, planned to be the world's tallest building.

"We don't have a single penny," said Ram Chandra, a 33-year-old mason who moved to the United Arab Emirates from India five years ago to seek his fortune in a sand-blown and crowded construction camp on the fringes of the desert. Back home in India, where the dollar has fallen 14 percent against the rupee in the past 18 months, the remittances he has sent to his family have steadily lost value.

Rallying point for anti-Americanism
The declining dollar's role in fueling inflation has become a piÂ¿ata for barbs across the Muslim world, where furious residents and leaders, including Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have sought to turn the weaker greenback into a new rallying point for anti-Americanism. "They get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper," Ahmadinejad told reporters after the OPEC summit in the Saudi capital of Riyadh last month.

Some countries with strict controls over their currencies have managed to share in the U.S. windfall from the dollar's drop. Vietnam, for instance, where the tightly controlled currency has stayed relatively constant against the dollar, is enjoying an influx of investors fleeing nearby Thailand -- where the baht's sharp rise against the dollar has made doing business there far less attractive.

In China, where the currency still trades on a narrow, government-controlled band linked to the dollar, authorities have resisted global pressure to allow its currency to appreciate faster. The Chinese currency has gained about 11 percent against the dollar since 2005. But by keeping the currency relatively weak, Chinese companies have managed to ride the weak-dollar export boom -- making their products even cheaper in countries where the greenback has sharply dropped.

But now, some in China are turning their noses up at the dollar. Lin Jing, a sales manager at Shanghai Shuangyuan Import & Export Co., which exports garlic oil, said the company has begun to demand euros from its overseas customers instead of dollars. "The use of euros enables us to shy away from losses caused by the conversion between the [Chinese currency] and the weakened dollar," he said.

Correspondents Kevin Sullivan in London, Stephanie McCrummen in Nairobi, Ellen Knickmeyer in Cairo, Faiza Saleh Ambah in Jiddah, and special correspondents Corinne Gavard in Paris and Wu Meng in Shanghai contributed to this report.

source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22386732/page/2/

5) Clive Owen

scotlandrulz — Sat, 10 May 2008 05:53:02 -0700

Clive Owen is the talented English actor who recently made it big in Hollywood with the movies Closer and King Arthur.

The actor Clive Owen has been wowing British audiences since the tv series Chancer back in 1990. However, with roles in Closer and King Arthur, he has now become an international star.

Scores:
Looks: 89
Body: 83
Lifestyle: 89
Career: 88
Overall: 89

Biography

Clive Owen was born in Coventry on October 3rd 1964. He started acting at a young age performing in local theatre groups including an apparently memorable turn as the Artful Dodger in a production of Oliver!

His Sexiest Moments

1. Flirting with Natalie Portman at his wife's art exhibition in the movie Closer (2004). The strip club scene is also very sexy but it may be a little too explicit for some people

2. Wearing a tuxedo in the movie Croupier (1998) and looking like a perfect James Bond. Maybe next time.

3. As the lovable rouge Chancer in the 1990's television series of the same name.

Three Things You Never Knew

1. Clive's very first screen appearance was in the television series Boon in the episode entitled Peacemaker.

2. He met his wife, Sarah-Jane Fenton, at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art while performing the Shakespeare play Romeo and Juliet. And yes, he was playing Romeo and she was playing Juliet.

3. His career was damaged as a result of his role in the movie Close My Eyes (1991) in which he played a brother who has an incestuous relationship with his older sister.

Looks

With his smoldering dark looks, Clive has been one of the sexiest actors in Britain's since his days in tv show Chancer. However, recently with the success of movies such as Closer he has become one of Hollywood’s hottest leading men.

Body

Clive is a real man with a real man's body. He doesn't have perfectly sculpted abs and pecs, he doesn't bother about his muscle-fat ratio, and he's unlikely to spend hours in front of the mirror admiring himself. Sure, six packs and bulging biceps can be very sexy but after a while they can leave you wanting something less inflated. A big slice of natural British beef like Clive is just the ticket.

Lifestyle

Clive has been married to Sarah-Jane Fenton since March 1995 and the couple have two lovely children. He admirably likes to keep his home life out of the media spotlight and you'd be very surprised if he became involved in any kind of celebrity scandal. He's just a nice English guy who has excelled at his chosen profession.

Career

Clive is enjoying the most successful period in his career. Roles in movies such as Closer (2004) and Sin City (2005) have made Clive almost as popular in the States as he is over here. He even had the audacity to turn down the once in a lifetime chance to play James Bond. But if his stock continues to rise at its current rate it will undoubtedly prove to be the right decision.

Clive Owen Filmography

Shoot 'Em Up (2006) ... Mr. Smith
Sin City 2 (2006) ... Dwight
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2006) ... Sir Walter Raleigh
The Children of Men (2006) ... Theodore Faron
Inside Man (2006) ... Dalton Russell
Derailed (2005) ... Charles Schine
Sin City (2005) ... Dwight
Closer (2004) ... Larry
King Arthur (2004) ... Arthur
Beyond Borders (2003) ... Nick Callahan
I'll Sleep When I'm Dead (2003) ... Will
The Hire: Ticker (2002) ... The Driver
The Hire: Beat the Devil (2002) ... Driver
The Hire: Hostage (2002) ... The Driver
The Bourne Identity (2002) ... The Professor
Gosford Park (2001) ... Robert Parks
The Hire: Powder Keg (2001) ... The Driver
The Hire: Star (2001) ... The Driver
The Hire: The Follow (2001) ... The Driver
The Hire: Chosen (2001) ... The Driver
The Hire: Ambush (2001) ... The Driver
Greenfingers (2000) ... Colin Briggs
Second Sight: Hide and Seek (2000) (TV) ... DCI Ross Tanner
Second Sight: Kingdom of the Blind (2000) (TV) ... DCI Ross Tanner
Second Sight: Parasomnia (2000) (TV) ... DCI Ross Tanner
Second Sight (1999) (TV) ... DCI Ross Tanner
Split Second (1999) (TV) ... Michael Anderson
The Echo (1998) (TV) ... Michael Deacon
Croupier (1998) ... Jack Manfred
Bent (1997) ... Max
The Rich Man's Wife (1996) ... Jake Golden
Privateer 2: The Darkening (1996) ... Lev Arris
Sharman (1996) (TV) ... Nick Sharman
Bad Boy Blues (1995) (TV) ... Paul
The Return of the Native (1994) (TV) ... Damon Wildeve
Doomsday Gun (1994) (TV) ... Dov
An Evening with Gary Lineker (1994) (TV) ... Bill
Nobody's Children (1994) (TV) ... Bratu
The Turnaround (1994) ... Nick Sharman
Class of '61 (1993) (TV) ... Devin O'Neil
Century (1993) ... Paul Reisner
The Magician (1993) (TV)
Close My Eyes (1991) ... Richard
Chancer (1990) (TV) ... Stephen Crane/Derek Love
Lorna Doone (1990) (TV) ... John Ridd
Capital City (1989) (TV)
Precious Bane (1989) (TV) ... Gideon Sarn
Vroom (1988) ... Jake

Part 6 of 12 Parts - The Audacity of Socialism by Investor's Business Daily

BeachBarbie — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:21:39 -0700

Hi, I hope everyone is having a wonderful day. Today is part 6, Obama Finds An ACORN, from The Audacity of Socialism by Investor's Business Daily. As usual you can read Part 6 below, or you can choose to listen or read Part 6 from the direct link: http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302914868143810 Also, here is the link to all 12 Parts if you want to read ahead: http://www.ibdeditorial.com/series8.aspx

SOURCE:

Obama Finds An ACORN

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08: The man who includes being a community organizer on his short resume has a long association with a far-left group that would organize our communities into socialist gulags.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

In 1995, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the federal motor voter law out of concern that letting people register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud.

A young lawyer, a community organizer himself, sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) and won. The young lawyer was Barack Obama. Acorn later invited Obama to train its staff.

When Obama served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave Acorn grants to fund its agenda and voter registration activities.

Acorn has been in the lead in opposing voter ID laws and other efforts to ensure ballot integrity. Acorn has been implicated in voter fraud and bogus registration schemes in Ohio and at least 13 other states. Acorn staffers will presumably be out registering voters again this year.

Obama also opposes voter ID laws. He believes they disenfranchise voters. Last year, Obama put a hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. It seems von Spakovsky, as an official in the Justice Department, had supported a Georgia photo ID law. Acorn espouses the leftist view that voter ID laws are racist.

In addition to subverting American democracy to promote a leftist agenda, Acorn's radical agenda amounts to "undisguised authoritarian socialism." wrote Sol Stern in the 2003 City Journal article, "Acorn's Nutty Regime for Cities."

Acorn opposed welfare reform and opposes securing American borders to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Acorn was heavily involved a few years back in opposing Rudy Giuliani's efforts to privatize failing New York schools.

Acorn also has been in the lead supporting the "living wage" and opposing efforts by big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart to bring the bounty and benefits of free-market capitalism to inner cities.

Wal-Mart has faced resistance to its plans to expand into urban centers - most notably Chicago and Los Angeles - where unions and liberal orthodoxy remain strong. Opponents there charge that such big-box stores exploit workers, depress wages and drive out community businesses.

Acorn, Obama's former client, supported a big-box living-wage ordinance vetoed by Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley to require stores of at least 90,000 square feet operated by firms with $1 billion or more in annual sales nationwide to pay workers a minimum of $10 an hour plus $3 in benefits.

Critics such as Acorn, who complain that Wal-Mart employees live paycheck to paycheck, forget that many of Wal-Mart's customers also live paycheck to paycheck and seek quality merchandise at decent prices, which is why 100 million people shop there every week.

How can they oppose "low" wages for Wal-Mart employees while in effect supporting higher prices for Wal-Mart customers? They can because they believe the socialist orthodoxy that capitalism is bad, government is good and that the solution to poverty is to make everyone equally poor.

Wal-Mart gives people what they want at a price they can afford. It believes a fair wage is one agreed upon between employee and employer. It is the poster child for roll-up-your-sleeves capitalism. It is efficient, innovative, successful and nonunion - everything government is not - and is opposed for all these reasons.

Advocates of the so-called living wage see their efforts as putting money directly into workers' pockets. But it merely transfers money from one person's pocket to another person's pocket. This is classic socialist income redistribution - not economic justice, but economic extortion.

In the real world, companies that pay workers more than the value of the goods and services they produce go out of business. Workers should be paid what their labor is worth, not what their lifestyle requires.

On his Web site, Obama embraces Acorn's socialist goal, pledging to "raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation and housing."

That money would come from taxpayers and business owners or, as Marx would say, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.