Catastrophic Solar Storm Predicted For 2012

The average solar cycle lasts for eleven years. The cycle includes a minimum of solar activity and a maximum. The sun is unusually quiet right now and has been for some time but there should be an increase in solar activity at some point in the near future.

The best current scientific estimate for the next solar maximum is 2012. If this estimate is correct, there is still a few years to try and prevent the potential of a future global disaster. A disaster that would begin on the surface of the sun and could end with tragedy on earth.

The surface of the sun is a mass of plasma that contains highly charged energy particles. Once in a while, some of these particles escape the suns surface and a mass of plasma travels through space on the solar wind. This process is known in scientific terms as a coronal mass ejection but it can also be called a solar storm.

A disaster for the planet would occur if a solar storm reaches and hits the earths magnetic shield in just the right way. If it were to happen, millions of people would lose their lives and the planet would be thrown into chaos as the technology that has become crucial to every day living suddenly gets taken away. Continue reading

Protesters take to the streets of London

Ahead of the G-20 meeting of world leaders, the largely peaceful protests against unchecked capitalism, war, destruction of the environment and other ills are a sign of the populist anger in Europe. Continue reading

Twitter, the Friendly Ghost

                                                      

Following your favorite celebrity on Twitter? Maybe not! While the whole world is a ‘twitterin’…was it any wonder that a certain level of the elite twitterati would eventually find a way to game the system. The latest trend a foot is “Ghost Twittering.” The term was coined to describe when someone, usually a celebrity, politician, sport figure or a corporate brand pays another person or persons to update their Twitter account on their behalf. The use of ghostwriters has been around in the literary world since literature was first penned. Now,it appears it is prevalent in Twitterdom as well. But, while it may make sense for our busy world leaders to farm out their tweets, when celebrities engage in this practice it really seems to be defeating the purpose. Continue reading

Big Ben and Houses of Parliament to switch off the lights for Earth Hour

London landmarks join thousands of others around the world that will go dark for an hour to raise awareness about climate change

Big ben houses of parliament

 

At 8:30pm today the luminous face of Big Ben will go dark. Next door, the houses of parliament will switch off all its lights too, along with thousands of landmarks, buildings and people around the world in a global gesture of solidarity in the fight against climate change. Continue reading

Lights out in 84 countries for Earth Hour 2009

            

CHICAGO (AP) — The lights are going down from the Great Pyramids to the Acropolis, the Eiffel Tower to Sears Tower, as more than 2,800 municipalities in 84 countries plan Saturday to mark the second worldwide Earth Hour.

McDonald’s will even soften the yellow glow from some Golden Arches as part of the time zone-by-time zone plan to dim nonessential lights between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. to highlight global climate change. Continue reading

Top AIG execs agree to give back bonuses

 

Top executives at American International Group Inc. have agreed to give back their bonuses, according to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

So far, nine of the top 10 bonus recipients at AIG (NYSE: AIG) have agreed to return their bonus money, and 15 of the top 20 executives on the bonus list will repay the money. Cuomo said the money being returned represents about $50 million of the total $165 million bonus pool. Continue reading

More lawmakers using Twitter to communicate

WASHINGTON — With a 140-character limit on Twitter posts, you wouldn’t think the long-winded politicians in the nation’s capital would be that interested in this new technology.

Think again. Continue reading

AIG: Congress Passes Tax, Refuses to Demand Recall of Executive Bonuses

          

It appears that the political subterfuges in the AIG fiasco just keep pouring from the Halls of Congress and Capitol Hill now daily.

The most recent word is that Congress has overwhelming passed a bill which now will tax the bonuses recently handed over to the executives of AIG by the Executive Office’s lackey, Timothy Geithner, last Sunday. It appears maybe this is Mr. Obama’s answer to “pursuing every legal course available” in order to “get back” those bonuses. The tax measure was passed again in haste by Congress, and was reported to involve a 90% return to the U.S. Treasury of the sums afforded those executives, many of which received literally millions in claimed unpaid bonuses.

You do the math. 10% of 20 million dollars (the amount of bonuses paid, after all, were over 165 million) is still 2 million dollars. Add interest since those sums will not be due for another year at the U.S. rate of interest and you have a pretty sizeable bonus (not to mention most of those sums will go to the Caymans). In fact, I wonder if the amounts of those bonuses weren’t inflated to begin with in order to provide such a cushion to those executives for just such a maneuver.

Not to mention the fact that within the terms of that bailout, Congress actually disempowered themselves from any such actions against the Executive branch to whom they acceded all power and control over the distribution. This move now is a corporate tax attorney’s dream, and by the time it winds its way through the courts when those executives challenge such a move, their interest and profits will have quadrupled on those original illegally distributed bonuses.

And Mr. Obama is, after all, a lawyer – although appears to be so far no Constitutional lawyer, so as such well aware that these executives can use such loopholes to eventually avoid repayment fighting through the U.S. Tax Courts if U.S. citizens (then again, since AIG is a global concern and now even “corporate” foreigners have been given “rights” simply intended for the American citizens by the founders, even that little technicality I’m sure at this point would be overlooked).

The spins now are getting to the point where most Americans are not simply outraged anymore, they are nauseous.

By Betsy Ross

Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong says universities feel strain as competition gets tougher

             

SINGAPORE: As the competition for talent and resources gets tougher, some universities are also feeling the strain as they make cutbacks.

But there are exceptions, and Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, made this point on Thursday at celebrations to mark Cambridge University’s 800th anniversary.

He said: “The competition for talent and resources has become tougher. The global financial crisis has shrunk endowments and resulted in smaller and fewer donations.

“Even well-endowed universities have to tighten their belts. Some are retrenching staff and cutting back on academic programmes. Cambridge, fortunately, is not in such dire straits.”

In the current atmosphere where longstanding institutions have taken heavy tumbles, to be around for 800 years is no mean feat.

And Cambridge has been reinventing itself – reaching out to alumni as it competes for the best students, researchers and industry link-ups. This is something American Ivy League universities have been doing for some time, and which Singapore universities have also started doing.

Cambridge has a long history of links with Singapore – Mr Lee is a former student, and so is his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.

There are currently about 200 Singaporeans studying at Cambridge.

By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia

Does President Obama watch American Idol?! Jay Leno drops the ball

American Idol came up, believe it or not, as President Barack Obama went on “The Tonight Show” with Jay Leno, becoming the first sitting president to appear on a late-night talk show.

Washington, D.C. “is a bit like ‘American idol’ except everybody’s Simon Cowell. Everybody’s got an opinion,” President Obama told Jay, according to the New York Times’ The Caucus blog.

(The Times reporter must not have time to watch the show, since he doesn’t seem to know it’s “American Idol,” not “American idol.”)

Click here to see photos of President Obama on Jay Leno, and around L.A.

Is it possible that President Obama is watching American Idol?! It doesn’t seem like Jay Leno asked him that obvious question.

Back when he was running for president, President Obama did do a taped appearance for the Idol Cares charity show, along with Sen. John McCain. At the time, he said his daughters watch the show; so at the very least he’s probably watched some of it by accident.

If the president is watching the current season, I wonder who he’s rooting for… my guess would be Anoop Desai–the intellectual guy who’s actually pretty cool. Or Allison Iraheta–the young talent who’s startling people with her big voice.

Or, maybe Adam Lambert, the guy who does his own thing and has lots of people who love him, but a few who really, really don’t.

President Obama apparently made a few jokes during his appearance on Leno show, but spent a big chunk of time talking about the economy — trying to reassure Americans that it may take a while but we’ll get out of the current mess.

The entire point for President Obama to go on Leno was to try and reach millions of Americans who might not always be reading the newspapers and watching the news, but are still worried about the recession and will probably appreciate a chance to hear our president explain his policies (the show airs tonight, at 11:30 p.m. EST on NBC).

Hey, I know another show where President Obama could get his message out to lots of people… the biggest show on television, actually….

Just one piece of advice: It’s not a good idea to try and sing Whitney.

Would President Obama like watching this season’s “American Idol”? Who would he root for? Is it a good idea for him to go on shows like Jay Leno’s to reach people, or is that unpresidential? Tell us what you think in the comments, below. (Please don’t be vulgar or profane in your comments; those will be deleted).

1) Click here to see photos of President Obama on Jay Leno, and around L.A.

2) Click here to see our “President Obama, he’s just like us!” photos

3) Click here for photos of the “American Idol” finalists performing each night

4) Vote in our poll, for your favorite finalist now that we’re down to 10

5) See photos from inside the after-party for the 13 “American Idol” finalists

6) Check out the other entries, conversations and latest news on our American Idol blog

Via[newsday.com]

American Late-Night Jokes

“A very happy St. Patrick’s Day, everybody. Of course, St. Patrick’s day is a little different this year. Nobody’s got any green left.” –Jay Leno
“Hey, a little quiz for you. What is the difference between an  AIG executive and a drunken Irishman? A drunken Irishman spends his own money.” –Jay Leno

“In fact, President Obama’s so upset that he changed his slogan from, ‘Yes we can’ to ‘oh no you don’t!'” –Jay Leno

“The Republicans are on board in this, too. Iowa Senator Charles Grassley told AIG executives — this is what he actually said — he said they should either quit or commit suicide. But I think that’s plain wrong. I mean, why give them the option of quitting?” –Jay Leno

“New research out of the University of Virginia says that our mental abilities begin to decline around the age of 27. In fact, by the age of 50, many of us are thinking at a  President Bush level.” –Jay Leno

“I want to tell you, a beautiful day in New York City. Am I right about that? It was so nice today that AIG gave a bonus to Al Roker.” –David Letterman

“By the way, while you were laughing, AIG just handed out another $100 million in bonuses.” –David Letterman

“In honor of St. Patrick’s Day, the water in the fountains at the White House today was dyed green, which might be the only green a lot of Americans see this year so enjoy it.” –Jimmy Kimmel

“They had a big St. Patty’s Day party at the White House tonight with corned beef and cabbage, green beer — the whole thing. It’s an important part of Obama’s everybody get drunk and forget about the economy policy.” –Jimmy Kimmel


Generation OMG

IN 1951, Time magazine set out to paint a portrait of the nation’s youth, those born into the Great Depression. It doomed them as the Silent Generation, and a generally drab lot: cautious and resigned, uninterested in striking out in new directions or shaping the great issues of the day — the outwardly efficient types whose inner agonies the novel “Revolutionary Road” would dissect a decade later.

“Youth’s ambitions have shrunk,” the magazine declared. “Few youngsters today want to mine diamonds in South Africa, ranch in Paraguay, climb Mount Everest, find a cure for cancer, sail around the world or build an industrial empire. Some would like to own a small, independent business, but most want a good job with a big firm, and with it, a kind of suburban idyll.” The young soldier “lacks flame,” students were “docile notetakers.” And the young writer’s flair “sometimes turns out to be nothing more than a byproduct of his neuroses.” (This even before Philip Roth, born 1933, had published a novel.)

“The best thing that can be said for American youth, in or out of uniform, is that it has learned that it must try to make the best of a bad and difficult job, whether that job is life, war, or both,” Time concluded. “The generation which has been called the oldest young generation in the world has achieved a certain maturity.”

Today we are in a recession the depth and duration of which are unknown; Friday’s job loss figures were just the latest suggestion that it could well be prolonged and profound rather than shorter and shallower.

So what of the youth shaped by what some are already calling the Great Recession? Will a publication looking back from 2030 damn them with such faint praise? Will they marry younger, be satisfied with stable but less exciting jobs? Will their children mock them for reusing tea bags and counting pennies as if this paycheck were the last? At the very least, they will reckon with tremendous instability, just as their Depression forebears did.

“The ’30s challenged the whole idea of the American dream, the idea of open economic possibilities,” said Morris Dickstein, an English professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, whose cultural history of the Depression will be published in September. “The version you get of that today is the loss of confidence on the part of both parent and children that life in the next generation will inevitably be better.”

How today’s young will be affected 10, 20 or 40 years on will depend on many things — the children of the Depression were shaped as much by the war that followed. The recession generation will include those born into it, at the youngest end, and those emerging out of college and high school into a jobless marketplace, at the oldest. If history is any guide, what will matter most is where they are on the continuum.

“There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship in how economic adversity pushed a generation into any one kind of behavior,” said Neil Howe, who with his longtime co-author, William Strauss, is credited with naming today’s 20-somethings the millennials. “The impact depends on the context and the mood of the time and how children understand the spirit of the times.”

In an afterword for the 25th anniversary edition of his 1974 book, “Children of the Great Depression,” Glen H. Elder Jr., a sociologist at the University of North Carolina, noted differences even between two cohorts of children born relatively close together: one in Oakland, Calif., in the early 1920s (comparable to today’s 9-year-olds) and those in nearby Berkeley at the other end of that decade (today’s toddlers).

In long-term studies, the younger group suffered the bigger psychic scars. For them, the worst disruption of the Depression coincided with the critical years of development when they most needed their parents. With incomes dropping, parents fought more and drank more, leaving children bewildered and often alone. Years later, the group looked back on their childhood as a period of unpredictability, and their high school years as a time they lacked direction or a sense of confidence. As one small-business man put it, “my entire adolescence was a period of painful and frustrating disorientation.”

The older children were better able to understand the hardships, and to get outside the household to help the family earn. They went off to World War II and benefited from the structure of the military, then returned to the booming economy and the G. I. Bill. Ultimately, Professor Elder said in an interview, “they came out with an ability to know how to survive and make do and solve problems.”

Today, the most immediately affected may be the oldest members of Generation Recession — those in high school and college.

Research shows that the wages of those graduating into the recession of the 1980s were held back for more than a decade. And weak stock markets tend to make the young more risk averse about investing into the next decade.

Those who study these young adults predict that they are about to get closer to their parents, at least physically, as more move home to save money. And their higher-education experience may be more a patchwork as they move between two- and four-year colleges as a way to save money getting degrees.

Surveys have shown young people becoming more civic-minded in the last four years, and those who study them suggest this will increase, if only because the jobs will be in creating the public institutions and infrastructure of a new economic order.

And with the assumptions of the past decade now popped, the older among the recession youth might feel bolder striking out in more creative directions.

Typically, applications to medical and law schools go up in a downturn, as young people look for safe haven. Applications to the Peace Corps and Teach for America, meanwhile, are up, as are those to some divinity schools and public policy programs.

Professor Dickstein notes that the 1930s, too, were freeing for a particular kind of young adult. There was no art market to speak of, so artists felt less constrained by commercial expectations. The thinkers who would go on to be the public intellectuals of their day, people like Irving Howe and Alfred Kazin, did not seek the traditional path of a doctorate because they knew there were no academic jobs (though in some cases, this was as much because they were Jewish as because of the economy).

Robbie Blinkoff, an anthropologist who runs a marketing consulting firm in Baltimore, hears both the anxiety and the potential in a class he teaches at Goucher College. One senior said he was applying to be a teacher — a profession he had never considered when there were so many more lucrative lines of work. The economic contraction, he told Mr. Blinkoff, “can give people more room to be creative.”

Neil Howe, who with Mr. Strauss considered how different cohorts react to economic setbacks in their book “Generations,” said history offered two models: the Depression, and the 1970s. Children born in the ’30s were raised in a cocoon. “The whole message was, we’re going to protect you,” Mr. Howe said. “We’re going to make these sacrifices for you and create a better world for you.”

The lesson, he said, “was to trust the system, keep your nose clean, study hard, be a technocrat.” That created the conformist, risk-averse generation that Time described. In job interviews, the first thing Depression babies asked potential employers about was the pension plan. As a generation, he said, they produced more than a dozen White House chiefs of staff, but not a single president.

Children in the stagflated 1970s, meanwhile, grew up in the too-much-information age of Judy Blume. As Mr. Howe quotes one: “Our parents gave us answers to questions we never asked.” The system that produced Watergate had failed everyone, the lesson was to be a free agent, to take risks. Even today, Mr. Howe said, lottery officials report that those Gen Xers are their biggest customers.

But when it comes to raising their children, the pendulum has swung. Today’s youngest children — the recession babies — are being raised in the same kind of protective bubble as the Depression babies. (When Mr. Howe’s Web site did a contest to name this next generation a few years ago, the winner was “the homelanders,” as in security). They stroll in sidewalk versions of sport utility vehicles, learn to swim in U.V. protective full-body suits.

So while today’s high school and college students will be the ones creating the new public agencies and Internet infrastructures, Mr. Howe predicts, those who follow “will come of age wanting to participate in a system they trust and take for granted” — the next Silent Generation.

Regardless of their age, members of the recession generation will most likely be shaped by a return to Things That Matter, a re-definition of values.

The Depression saw a return to traditional values that had broken down in the go-go 20s, said Robert S. McElvaine, a professor at Millsaps College who has written several histories of the period. The difference now, Professor McElvaine said, is that the buy-it-on-credit, how-many-colors-can-I-get-it-in consumer culture runs far deeper, including in the young.

“Our definition of cutting back is not nearly what it was for people in the ’30s,” he said. “Younger people have been targeted at least since the baby-boom generation was young in the 1950s to get them into the whole consumption-oriented way of life. It may take a little longer because we’re so infinitely removed from those waste not, want not values — we’ve never really practiced them.”

But let’s not doom anyone quite yet. In the studies of the Berkeley and Oakland Depression youths, Professor Elder notes that by middle age, the groups looked more similar. Both, as stereotypes have it, did marry earlier, value family life, pick jobs for security more than potential for greater reward. The less successful among them felt a lack of personal meaning. But as a whole, they turned out remarkably resilient.

As the director of the Berkeley study wrote, looking back in the ’70s, “We have learned that no one becomes mature without living through the pains and confusions of maturing experiences.”

By KATE ZERNIKE

AIG CEO asks employees to repay some bonus money

The head of the insurance giant American International Group has used testimony before a US House of Representatives sub-committee to defend his actions since taking the job back in September. Edward Liddy, who has come under fire for the payment of more than 160 million dollars in taxpayers’ money to top executives at AIG, said he would not have approved them had he been CEO when the contracts were signed. He also said he had asked some of those who received bonus payments of 100 thousand dollars or more to partially return them. AIG has drawn intense fire from the public and politicians in recent days for paying out the bonuses after the government was forced to step in with a 180-billion-dollar bailout.

AIG Employees Asked to Return Bonuses Amid National Anger

The head of financially troubled insurance giant American International Group (AIG) on Wednesday called on top-earning employees to voluntarily return at least half of the bonuses.

Some employees have already stepped forward to give money back, said Edward Liddy, chairman and chief executive officer of AIG, while testifying under oath at a congressional hearing.

00219b3c59c50b2bdf3208

The bonuses could be defended legally as a legal obligation of the company, Liddy told a House subcommittee.

But he said that given the national uproar, he asked those who got “retention payments” over 100,000 dollars to return at least half of it.

Also on Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama said he will ask Congress to pass legislation giving the administration greater regulatory authority over financial institutions like AIG.

He and members of his economic council have started talks with leading lawmakers on such a legislation, said the president at the White House before.

Obama once again assailed AIG’s business practices and the millions of dollars in executive bonuses it paid out even as it was 170 billion dollars in debt to government bailouts.

00219b3c59c50b2bdf6009

He said he was not trying to quell public anger over AIG. “I think people have a right to be angry. I’m angry,” he said.

Charles Rangel, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, said Wednesday that the House plans to take up a bill Thursday that would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to top-earning employees at AIG and other companies receiving big government bailouts.

Under this bill, tax would hit employees who are making more than 250,000 dollars a year, the head of the tax-writing committee said.

The bill would set a 5-billion-dollar threshold for companies to be covered. It would exclude community banks and other smaller companies that have received bailout money from the government.

The AIG, which is now 80-percent owned by the U.S. government, lost 61.7 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of 2008, marking the largest corporate loss in history.

Having taken over 170 billion dollars in federal bailout money since the financial crisis erupted late last year, the ailing insurer is paying hefty awards to its executives.

It distributed 55 million dollars in December and 165 million dollars had to be paid this month.

Liddy, who took over as AIG chief at the request of the government, acknowledged to the committee Wednesday that “we are meeting today at a high point of public anger.”

While AIG has been the recipient of generous amounts of governmental financial aid, the company’s leaders “have to continue managing our business as a business — taking account of the cold realities of competition for customers, for revenues and for employees,” he said.

“Because of this, and because of certain legal obligations, AIG has recently made a set of compensation payments, some of which I find distasteful,” said Liddy, who is not getting a bonus.

According to news reports, the retention payments were not Liddy’s idea. The deals were cut early 2008, long before Liddy was asked by the administration of President George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor, to take over AIG.

“I do not like these arrangements and find it distasteful and difficult to recommend to you that we must proceed with them,” Liddy wrote to Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner over the weekend.

Geithner himself is now under intense pressure for having failed to stop the AIG bonus payments.

But Obama defended him on Wednesday, saying “he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand.”

It was up to the government and Congress to give the secretary the regulatory tools to work through the nation’s current economic crisis and to make sure it is not repeated, the president said.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, Geithner said AIG will be required to reimburse the government for hefty executive bonuses in order to get additional bailout funds.

“We will impose on AIG a contractual commitment to pay the Treasury from the operations of the company in the amount of the retention awards just paid,” said the secretary.

“In addition, we will deduct from the 30 billion dollars in assistance an amount equal to the amount of those payments,” he said.

Geithner also said that Obama had asked him “to fully review all additional measures at my disposal to recoup these bonuses and to recover funds on behalf of taxpayers.”

Meanwhile, the secretary said he would “work with” Edward Liddy” on measures to wind down the AIG in an orderly way and protect the American taxpayer.”

(Xinhua News Agency Marc h 19, 2009)

 

可口可乐公司宣布不会继续收购汇源果汁集团

                 

核心提示:可口可乐公司18日宣布,由于中国商务部公布了不批准对汇源果汁业务建议收购的决定,因此可口可乐公司将不能继续有关收购行动。

新华网北京3月18日电 记者从可口可乐中国公司获悉,可口可乐公司18日宣布,由于中国商务部公布了不批准对汇源果汁业务建议收购的决定,因此可口可乐公司将不能继续有关收购行动。

“我们很遗憾该项交易未能如计划进行,但我们尊重商务部的决定。”可口可乐公司总裁及首席执行官穆泰康说。

“在审批过程中我们尽了最大的努力提供一切有关的材料协助商务部清楚了解此项交易。”穆泰康表示,“我们一直希望可以与优秀的汇源团队一起推动汇源品牌更进一步的发展。”

“我们将专注于利用我们的资源和专业优势继续发展我们现有的品牌,并致力于研发和创新新的饮料产品,包括果汁领域。我们在上海刚刚启用的投资九千万美元的全球研发中心将在创新研发方面扮演重要的角色。我们在中国的业务2008年增长了19%,现在中国是可口可乐全球第三大市场。”穆泰康说,“我们着眼于在中国市场的长期发展,并承诺为中国消费者提供更多样化的优质饮料选择。”

最近可口可乐公司宣布,未来三年将在中国市场投资20亿美元,用于兴建工厂,强化分销系统,加强市场营销,并增强在本土的产品研发创新能力。可口可乐自1979年重返中国市场后在中国市场共计投资16亿美元。“我们还会继续加大对中国公益事业的投入,并为中国的可持续发展和繁荣尽我们的努力。” (本文来源:新华网 作者:罗宇凡、周文林)

Coke Bid for Juice Maker Turns Sour

The government rejected Coca-Cola’s plan to acquire beverage maker China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd for $2.4 billion on Wednesday, citing the country’s anti-monopoly law.

The acquisition by Coca-Cola, announced last September, would have been the largest ever buyout of a Chinese company by a foreign rival.

The planned takeover violates the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) said in a statement, adding that it would have restricted competition and harmed the domestic juice industry.

“If the acquisition went into effect, Coca-Cola was very likely to reach a dominant position in the domestic market and consumers may have had to accept a higher price fixed by the company as they would not have much choice,” the statement said.

The MOC launched an anti-trust investigation on Nov 11 to determine whether the acquisition would harm other rivals, consumer rights or technological innovation.

The bid was the first major deal to test the Anti-Monopoly Law, which took effect on Aug 1 last year. If passed, the deal would have been Coca-Cola’s largest overseas acquisition and the company would have been able to expand its dominant position in the carbonated drinks market to the juice market.

The ministry said that Coca-Cola and Huiyuan are major brands in the juice market, and therefore, the combination would have restricted competition in the industry and made it more difficult for other players to enter the sector.

The ministry said the deal would also have squeezed development space for other small- and medium-sized enterprises, and is not good for the development of the country’s juice industry.

Huiyuan said yesterday that it respects the decision made by the ministry, and production would continue as normal. The company’s share dived 19.24 percent to HK$8.30 yesterday before trading was suspended shortly after the market opened in the morning.

Muhtar Kent, president and chief executive officer of Coca-Cola, said: “We are disappointed, but we also respect the MOC decision.”

He said the company had put a tremendous effort into providing all the relevant materials to the MOC to ensure that they had all the information available and understood the transaction.

“We were looking forward to working with the excellent Huiyuan team to stimulate new growth for the Huiyuan brand.”

He said the company will now focus all of its energies and expertise on growing existing brands and continuing to innovate with new brands, including in the juice segment.

Huang Wei, beverage analyst at China Jianyin Investment Securities, said: “The ministry’s decision is not surprising. But it’s not good for Huiyuan, whose market share will probably shrink as international players such as Coca-Cola invest more in the juice market.”

Coca-Cola’s offer to buy the Hong-Kong listed company was seen as a major strategic move to tap China’s fast growing juice market.

While the world’s largest soft drink manufacturer dominates the carbonate market in China, its share in the juice market is relatively small.

On the other hand, Huiyuan is the largest juice beverage maker in China, with over 45 percent of the pure juice market in the country. It also controls more than a tenth of the Chinese fruit and vegetable juice market that grew 15 percent last year to $2 billion. Coca-Cola has a 9.7 percent market share and dominates in diluted juices.

China is Coca-Cola’s fourth-largest market and a key battleground with rival PepsiCo Inc.

Huiyuan’s founders and major shareholders had endorsed the sale as a way for the company to improve product development and marketing.

An MOC official said Coca-Cola had tried to address the negative effects on competition after it sought government approval for the deal in November, but its efforts did not meet the requirements of regulations.

“It is only an isolated case, and it does not suggest any change in China’s policy on foreign investors,” the official said.

The MOC said it has investigated 29 proposed acquisitions under the anti-monopoly law since August and approved 24.

(China Daily March 19, 2009)

Unemployment set to burst through 2 million

It is possible that the record claimant count rise of 118,000 in the depths of the early 1990s recession could even have been exceeded last month

The relentless growth in Britain’s army of the jobless will be confirmed today as unemployment is set to burst through the 2 million mark for the first time in over a decade.

 

Experts are warning that unemployment will easily break the 3 million barrier this year, with many more people facing a grim 2009 that is likely to keep consumer spending, and the whole economy, depressed.

But while attention has focused on the widest survey of joblessness known as the ILO measure, there could also be a very big rise in the claimant-count measure because February has a five-week gap between count dates, as opposed to four in January. Many people laid off in January may not have signed on at job centres until last month.

This means it is possible that the record claimant-count rise of 118,000 in the depths of the early 1990s recession could even have been exceeded last month, up from the increase of around 80,000 that has been the norm in recent months.

That total would be even worse if 16- and 17-year-olds were included in the claimant count and if unemployed City workers were poor enough to be eligible for jobseeker’s allowance.

The wider ILO measure, though, does include young workers and shows that they account for nearly 40% of the rise in joblessness over the past year. It has risen by a total of nearly 400,000 over the past year while the claimant count has jumped even further, by 440,000, to 1.23 million, or 3.8% of the workforce. The ILO rate is higher at 6.5% and set to shoot above 10% later this year.

Economic inactivity

There would also be more people out of work if various firms around the country, especially carmakers , had not come up with novel schemes to cut working hours or mothball plants. This shows up in the data on total hours and average hours worked – both of which are falling. Some economists have speculated that unemployment would be higher still if some people were not hidden by the “economic inactivity” label that encompasses nearly 8 million people of working age who are either students, long-term sick or looking after the home. But figures for “inactivity” have remained steady over the past year or two.

As is typical of recessions, male unemployment has risen nearly three times as fast as female. Much of the reason is that many more women work in the public sector, which has largely been spared the swingeing job cuts of the private sector.

At the same time, full-time jobs are declining fast while the number of part-time jobs is actually still rising, possibly as people who lose a full-time job opt to work fewer hours, or as a spouse whose husband or wife loses a full-time job takes a part-time one to make ends meet. As more women work part-time than men, it would also explain why female unemployment has risen only slowly.

Unusually, there is very little difference between manufacturing and service-sector unemployment, or between the regions. “What we have seen is a general slump in global demand which has hit the demand for labour everywhere. So there is no clear north/south or manufacturing/services split in this recession,” says John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Builders surprisingly resilient

One curiosity in the official data is that there does not seem to have been a big drop in the numbers of people employed in the construction sector, which accounts for about 6% of the economy. With the widely documented collapse in the commercial property sector and in housebuilding, this is baffling the experts, who speculate that public investment projects such as the preparations for the Olympics could be helping support the industry. Another factor could be that many builders are self-employed and are simply working fewer days in a week in response to a drop-off in demand.

There are also large numbers of immigrant workers involved in the construction sector and records of exact numbers may be poor, especially as the data is based on surveys of workers and so may simply have missed the fact that many Poles, for example, are returning home as demand for their services slumps.

When Obama’s cool isn’t cool

Everyone is aghast at the AIG bonuses. It would be nice if the president could show a little anger about the situation too

 Back in 1981, shortly after Ronald Reagan took office, America’s air-traffic controllers (the Patco union) went out on strike over their incredibly stressful working conditions and pay. Reagan, rather than negotiating with the union, just fired them. It was a legal move (there are laws prohibiting vital public employees from striking). It was tremendously controversial in the press, but since unions weren’t winning many popularity contests in those days, a solid majority of public opinion backed Reagan.

Now Barack Obama faces his Patco moment. If a fire hadn’t been lit under him before about the scandalous AIG bonuses revealed over the weekend, then it certainly was by this headline across the front page of this morning’s Washington Post: Anger over firm depletes Obama’s political capital. The first paragraph makes matters pretty clear:

President Obama’s apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda.

Lawmakers in both parties, like the public in general, are aghast at the bonuses, and at the fact that treasury secretary Tim Geithner approved them. Obama yesterday morning announced he was instructing Geithner to find a way for the government to stop the bonus payments. But why did it take a firestorm that couldn’t have been very difficult to predict for Obama to take this step?

Here’s the downside of Obama’s famous cool. Most of the time, it’s good to have a president who isn’t a captive of his emotional temperature and doesn’t say rash things. Americans got pretty tired of that over the last eight years.

But sometimes, geez, you just want the guy to let it out. Yesterday’s press conference was about as close as he came to anger, but it wasn’t close enough.

Now, the administration will have to find a way to fight these bonuses. Rest assured that someone in treasury will, later this week, miraculously locate a provision under which the government can seek to void the contract.

But here’s where this situation is different from the one Reagan faced, and it’s a very important difference and a thorny one for Obama. Reagan had the law on his side. Obama probably does not. A contract’s a contract. Depending on your mood it’s either amusing or appalling to read AIG boss Edward Liddy’s letter to Geithner from last week in which he wrote that “honoring contractual commitments is at the heart of what we do in the insurance business”.

Insurance companies screw little people all the time, but huge firms with sharp lawyers, well, that’s another matter. And so we also have today Andrew Ross Sorkin in the New York Times arguing that the government risks setting a dangerous precedent if it voids the contracts:

If government officials were to break the contracts, they would be ‘breaking a bond’, Ms Meyer says. ‘They are raising a whole new question about the trust and commitment organizations have to their employees.’ (The auto industry unions are facing a similar issue – but the big difference is that there is a negotiation; no one is unilaterally tearing up contracts.)

But what about the commitment to taxpayers? Here is the second, perhaps more sobering thought: AIG built this bomb, and it may be the only outfit that really knows how to defuse it.

AIG employees concocted complex derivatives that then wormed their way through the global financial system. If they leave – the buzz on Wall Street is that some have, and more are ready to – they might simply turn around and trade against AIG’s book. Why not? They know how bad it is. They built it.

Lovely thought.

But the administration has no political choice now. How much damage did the Obama folks do to themselves over the weekend with their passivity? A fair amount I’d say. Most of it can probably be undone with a tough posture now. Results are what matter to most people. If at the end of the day the bonuses aren’t paid, most voters (and legislators) will be satisfied.

Then again, what if the administration loses in court, which seems entirely possible? I guess if I were in the press shop, I’d spin that at least we tried. We went up against a legal system that’s rigged for big corporations. And then hope for the best. Of course, a judicial outcome could take years, and the public perception of AIG fighting in court for piggy bonuses might be such that they wouldn’t even bother if the government forced their hand.

And what Obama ought to learn from this personally is that there are times when cool isn’t cool. If people are angry, he’d better get angry too.

AIG bonuses leave Obama in a tough spot

AIG bonuses leave Obama in a tough spot

As outrage boils over the bonuses promised to executives at AIG, the ailing insurance giant that has received a massive federal bailout, President Obama finds himself in a precarious political position.

If the public, and their elected representatives in Washington, conclude that Mr. Obama and his administration did not do everything in their power to halt the bonuses, that could hinder the government’s ability to gain congressional approval for future measures aiming at righting the struggling economy. Obama’s entire agenda could be at risk, some analysts have suggested.

But the president is unlikely to deplete his political capital completely. Obama has shown, during both his campaign and the opening weeks of his presidency, a responsiveness to criticism and a willingness to change course that could, once again, keep him on track. Over the weekend, the message from various Obama administration officials was, essentially: “There’s nothing we can do about the AIG bonuses. A contract is a contract.”

Come Monday, Obama demonstrated that there was something to be done: Try to shame AIG execs into turning down their “retention payments.” Instead of allowing himself to be engulfed by populist outrage, Obama joined the chorus. He ordered his Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, to try again to find a legal way to block the $165 million in bonuses. And even though that still seemed impossible by day’s end, administration officials were saying that the Treasury Department was working on recouping the cash by retooling the terms of the latest infusion of federal cash, $30 billion, granted to AIG.

“If Obama had stuck with his original position … that would have been highly problematic,” says Darrell West, director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. “But now they seem to be shifting to a more aggressive stance … by employing the shame strategy.”

The administration is “hoping that there’s enough public pressure and late-night comedy pressure to force voluntary action from AIG,” Mr. West adds. “The longer this stays in the news, the greater the chance that effort will be successful. A company is ready to take one day of bad news, but when it gets to be two, three, four days, they capitulate.”

At this point, facts seem to be less important than public perceptions. And in fact, AIG has already stated that it is seeking ways to repay the American people for what it calls “retention payments” to employees. In a letter to Treasury secretary Geithner, AIG chairman Edward Liddy laid out ways the company is reducing compensation to employees, especially those in the Financial Products division that engaged in the risky behaviors.

But for AIG, the damage is already done. It has become the face of corporate greed, and Obama is doing all he can to convince Americans that he’s as outraged as they are. On Thursday, he will appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” to talk about the economy, and it’s a safe bet that AIG will come up. Obama gets plenty of face time in the political media, and on cable TV, but by setting a new precedent – he will be the first sitting president to appear on late-night TV – he is going beyond the usual audience of political junkies and policy wonks and reaching out to “real America.”

Obama may also get some help from New York State’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, who has launched an investigation into the bonuses and threatened a subpoena to AIG to get a list of the names of bonus recipients. If Mr. Cuomo is able to get the names and they are publicized, the shame tactic could reach a new level.

In the meantime, members of Congress and interest groups are also joining the populist wave. One House member, Rep. Gary Peters (D) of Michigan, has introduced legislation that would recover the full value of the bonuses through a surtax.

One of the nation’s largest labor unions, the Service Employees International Union, announced protests to take place Thursday at financial institutions around the country. The union and other organizers say 10,000 Americans will take part in more than 100 protests in more than 30 states. The protests will call for banking reform and universal healthcare, and also show support for a controversial measure now before Congress called the Employee Free Choice Act, aimed at making it easier to form unions at businesses.

On Tuesday, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio expressed outrage over AIG at a press conference.

“Two weeks ago, the president’s spokesman said that they were confident that they knew how every dime was being spent at AIG,” said Mr. Boehner. “Well clearly, they didn’t know what they were talking about.”

In the past, Boehner has blamed both the Obama administration and the administration of George W. Bush for not putting forth an “exit strategy” that would put an end to government bailouts of private business.

Obama himself has repeatedly made clear that he inherited the bailout of financial institutions from Bush. But with each passing day, Obama takes on political ownership of the nation’s financial crisis.

“The initial steps to take over AIG happened on Bush’s watch, and to me, that’s the finest line of all – putting some of the blame where it belongs without looking like you’re shirking responsibility,” says Jennifer Duffy, a political analyst at the Cook Political Report. “I think that’s a line they have walked on the economy from Day 1.”

商务部否决可口可乐并购汇源案

商务部18日表示,可口可乐并购汇源未通过反垄断调查。对此消息,可口可乐选择了“噤声”,汇源则在召开“闭门会”商讨对策。

商务部3月18日表示,可口可乐并购汇源未通过反垄断审查。这是反垄断法出台后,商务部第一次对跨国公司并购国内品牌企业亮出红牌。

商务部否决三大理由

商务部公开未通过审查的三个原因:第一,如果收购成功,可口可乐有能力把其在碳酸饮料行业的支配地位传导到果汁行业。第二,如果收购成功,可口可乐对果汁市场的控制力会明显增强,使其它企业没有能力再进入这个市场。第三,如果收购成功,会挤压国内中小企业的生存空间,抑制国内其它企业参与果汁市场的竞争。

与此前同样喧嚣一时但最终成功的强生大宝并购案、苏泊尔并购案等相比,这次在反垄断法出台的背景下,商务部果断亮牌的举动,还是令众多业内人士感到意外。商务部研究院跨国公司研究中心副主任何曼青对网易财经表示,他对此消息深感惊讶,之前市场一直看好此次并购,但是商务部最终没有批准,今后外资公司来中国并购会更加谨慎。

汇源“闭门会”商对策

然而,风暴眼中的双方当事人却似有人事先知道消息。可口可乐选择了“噤声”,汇源则在召开“闭门会”商讨对策。

商务部发出禁购令前夜,从17日下午开始,汇源紧急派出公关公司与京城财经媒体联系,收集联系方式,表示下一步将有消息告知大家。18日消息传出后,汇源公司多名相关人士电话处于无人接听状态,据相关人士透露,汇源正在顺义总部召开“闭门会”商讨对策。

而敏感的市场更似提前知晓消息,汇源果汁今日在香港联交所开盘跌22.3%,报8港元。但很快,10点13分汇源果汁盘中暂停交易,停牌前,汇源果汁大跌19.4%,报8.3港元。

可口可乐召开紧急会议

一向笑对媒体几乎有问必答的可口可乐中国区发言人、副总裁李小筠,其手机和办公室电话均处于无人接听状态。网易财经第一时间连线可口可乐公司媒体副总监翟梅,她对网易财经表示,可口可乐公司马上会出一份书面声明,这期间该公司不会回答媒体任何内容。据可口可乐相关人士透露,公司下午临时召开紧急会议,但不清楚具体细节。

近年来,民族品牌和同行业跨国公司之间,重复演绎了一幕幕相似的桥段:收购与被收购—同业和舆论激烈争议—搁置或成功。但是由政府出面明确叫停,汇源案还是第一起。此举对于正在酝酿中或以后可能发生的跨国并购影响深远。

或许,现在是如汇源这种渴望通过并购更深融入全球经济链的本土企业,以及如可口可乐这种希望通过并购开拓或深耕中国市场的跨国公司们,重新思索考量企业战略的时候了。 (本文来源:网易财经 作者:野火战队)