The World We'll Inherit

ASCAP calls music ringtones "performances" and wants you to pay...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:30:55 PDT

In a brief filed by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) against AT&T Wireless and Cingular Wireless, ASCAP argues that the music ringtones that you have on your cell phone should be considered "performances" and that they should be compensated each time your phone rings. See the first PDF below for the full text of the brief, courtesy of BetaNews.

So not only will these ringtones continue to annoy the hell out of those of us who have to hear them every time someone next to us on the train gets a phone call, but the fact that we are present to be annoyed in the first place might end up causing that person money because of the performance we were forced to endure against our will!!

The absurdity of the logic underlying this brief is hilarious on its face, but I cannot wait to read the ruling from the District Court judge on whether or not this is a legitimate claim. I mean, didn't a jury recently award a seven figure judgement against a single mother for downloaded a few dozens tracks years ago? I wouldn't put it past the screwed up legal system of this country to actually find in favor of ASCAP.

Fortunately, the ASCAP suit has no intention of shaking down normal folks who's only crime is their total lack of consideration for those around them. Rather, the suit seeks to force the wireless providers to pony up millions on their customer's behalf; costs which would simply be passed along to consumers in the form of higher monthly bills. That's right, even those of us who don't use obnoxious ringtones will be forced to subsidize our annoying family, friends and neighbors who do if this suit is successful.

The second brief embedded below was filed Wednesday by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in response to the ASCAP suit. It dismisses the ASCAP suit as "outlandish", but the arguments made to support this dismissal are weak at best. It claims that under the logic of the claim, ASCAP could sue people for listening to their car stereos loudly with the windows open so a passersby could hear the music. However, in that case the music being played is sanctioned by ASCAP because either the radio station broadcasting the song is paying for its distribution. It would be accurate to argue that the music in the car might have been downloaded illegally and played without proper legal rights, but the offense in that scenario would be the illegal file sharing, which would supersede any violation of fair use that may be asserted by the publishers.

After brief consideration I am far from convinced that ASCAP does not have a case, but I am interested to hear what others have to say. Clearly the debate is still fresh so please share your thoughts!

ASCAP's Opposition to AT&T's MSJ Ringtones

Us v Ascap Eff Att Brief

Exclusive Iraq oil deals go to Chinese and British...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:38:00 PDT

It was very encouraging to see Iraq award exclusive oil deals to British Petroleum (BP) and China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) for the right to work in the Rumaila Field, the country's largest known oil field in Iraq with 17 Billion barrels in reserves. I say this not because I am happy the contracts were not awarded to American firms (ideally they would have been), but rather because it speaks volumes about the current stability of the war torn country's core infrastructure and its prospects for success moving forward independently in a global economic environment.

The Chinese are typically willing to brave dangerous conditions to access valuable natural resources and CNPC is perhaps among the most successful energy companies in the world when it comes to managing production in turbulent environments, evidenced by their unwavering commitment to facilities in much less stable regions like The Sudan. Critical to the CPNC strategy is employing as many locals as possible and supplying the communities surrounding its projects with large non-energy related aid and resources, such as medical supplies and support for education programs that go above and beyond the typical multi-national corporate agenda.

I have long argued that the China model for growing economies in Africa and the Middle East is far superior to the Western models. This is primarily because it relies on social/human capital and the ability to embed its culture and expertise on the ground in large numbers of human bodies, rather than the default Western strategy of distributing vast amounts of monetary aid according to complex economic formulas developed by elite Western academics totally removed from the reality of the conditions taken into consideration.

Dambisa Moyo (@dambisamoyo) has recently made serious waves among elite Ivy thinkers with a new paradigm for Western aid to Africa which is founded on her personal experiences as a child of Africa and as a student of the finest Western institutions and as a distinguished economist at the most powerful/respected investment bank in the world - a truly unique perspective that must not be diminished. She too has recognized the value proposition of a highly engaged Chinese presence in developing nations in Africa and I suspect would extend this recognition to a similar role for the Chinese in Iraq and other struggling (but promising) Middle Eastern economies. I commend Ms. Moyo for her courage and hope she will continue to fight against the intellectual mainstream, because in the end she (and I) will be vindicated by the results of powerful ideas.

Readthebill.org: Sunlight Foundation Project Pushes for Mandatory 72-hour Period for Congress to Read Bills Before Voting

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:23:03 PDT

Readthebill.org is a Sunlight Foundation Project lobbying for a mandatory 72-hour period between the close of debate on a particular piece of legislation and the and the final vote on passage. The project was born out of the frustration felt by nearly all Americans when it became blatantly apparent that none of the members in either the House or Senate have read the legislation they have so confidently and indignantly voted up or down.

The most recent example of this came just last week when the House passed a pathetic Climate Change Bill which had a 300+ page amendment attached at 3am on the morning of the final vote, which clearly none of the members (with the exception of Minority Leader John Boehner, who stood in filibuster on the house floor before the ultimate vote and read aloud the most ridiculous additions) had actually taken the time to read.

I say READ THE DAMN BILL, its your job!!! Hopefully these idiots in Washington don't f@#$ up the system too bad before the next generation of leaders have their say, though I am not too optimistic, as our problems seem to only get worse every time our "leaders" in Washington do anything to address them.

Final draft of proposed financial regulatory reforms released today...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:49:51 PDT

Below I have embedded the final 89 page report, found at FinancialStability.gov, which outlines the scope of reforms sought by the the Obama Administration to the financial system. The highly respected appeals court judge Richard Posner just slammed the report as dripping with "Roosevelt envy" on CNBC, but having clearly not read it yet I will reserve my personal opinion for a later date. Comments welcome and encouraged.

Financial Regulatory Reform

Obama speech endorsing indefinite detentions for "preventive" purposes...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:51:29 PDT

Rachel Maddow is a very liberal political commentator on MSNBC who typically gives Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt on everything he says/does. However, in her reporting of President Obama's speech at the National Archives in late May regarding President Bush's "ad hoc legal framework" for indefinite detentions of POWs at Guantanamo Bay she does her fellow liberals, and all Americans for that matter, a great service by reading through Obama's B.S.

In his speech, after artfully chastising the Bush Administration's alledgedly unconstitutional policies, the president argues for establishing what amounts to an ad hoc legal framework for PREVENTIVE INDEFINITE DETENTIONS!! The only real distinction between Bush's policy and Obama's would be that Bush detained indefinitely for crimes committed, while Obama would indefinitely detain for crimes to be committed one day. Watch this video and hear it from straight from Maddow herself...

Draft of Obama's Regulatory Revamp

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:01:56 PDT

Today was a truly historic day for the financial industry as President Obama released his long anticipated plan for overhauling the financial regulatory system. Embedded below is a draft of this plan. I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Obama's Financial Sector Reform Proposal

Kennedy-Dodd Health Reform Bill: Mandates and Subsidies

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:00:19 PDT

Below I have shared a terrific outline of the Democratic health care reform package, which has been dubbed the Kennedy-Dodd Health Care Reform Bill, as it currently reads. The outline was written by Keith Hennessey and makes several very excellent points about the truly disruptive nature of this legislation, which is supported by the president, were it to pass in its current form. I have also embedded the full text of the bill as it exists today for those of you who are interested.

KeithHennessey.com » Understanding the Kennedy health care bill

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring
you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the
government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given
month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and
structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries
of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is
“to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the
goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so
defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could
exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you
would have to report your health insurance information for each month
of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other
information as the Secretary may prescribe.”

The bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would
have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to
pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a
certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new
tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the
discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers
(TBD) would be exempt.

In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
1. All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and
  renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing
  conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family
  policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
2. A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of
  standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and
  bronze.” Details TBD.
3. Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.
4. A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC),
  appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would
  determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC
  would have to include items and services in at least the following
  categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services,
  hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical,
  mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services,
  preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the
  MAC thought appropriate.
5. The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage”
  is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if
  they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect
  unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process)
  to turn them off.
Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky
behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors,
… or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers,
drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all
have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.

Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community
rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming
majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New
Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In
the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to
cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.

The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of
poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no
State share). This means adding childless adults with income below
150% of the poverty line.

People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health
insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in
2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small
subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance
these subsidies.

People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South
Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than
those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country,
especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a
percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the
cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area

There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered
by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the
federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates +
10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative
support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they
think that differential would last.

Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.

States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges)
to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the
Feds will set up a gateway for them.

Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have
to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated
system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of
rules when you change jobs.

The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes
will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably
for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.

The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national
of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States
for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United
States.”

The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay
“navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute
information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators
receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”

This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:

The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”

Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.

A government-appointed board would determine what items and
services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.

You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs,
because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and
would therefore be significantly more expensive.

Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.

Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.

The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion
to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with
the new mandates.

The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.”

Kennedy-Dodd Health Care Reform Bill (First Draft)

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law kennedydodd health c christopher dodd

Powered by ScribeFire.

Health Care Information Technology Must Come First

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:06:38 PDT

President Obama has made no secret of his desire to forge ahead with ambitious health care reform legislation despite the economic crisis and soaring current account deficits with no end in sight. Obama wear's his philosophy on his sleeve: health care reform will be a central and unavoidable precursor to tightening federal spending over the long-term. I believe the president is absolutely correct, but I think he is putting the cart before the horse if he tries to overhaul the marketplace for health care providers before fully investing in and committing to the development of a nationwide health information technology foundation.

Information technology has transformed the fabric of civilization and industry in the US and around the world in ways unimaginable even 10 years ago. For the first time in history information is truly ubiquitous and free flowing. However, the largest US industry, Health Care, has largely failed to adopt IT in any meaningful way to enhance the quality of care received by patients. Despite this fundamental fallacy amongst health care providers, little more than token recognition has been paid to the matter by federal policymakers until very recently.

The recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was the first major federal injection of long-term capital ($48B+ over five years) into developing health IT infrastructure that is likely to have a real impact on patient outcomes. Physicians are offered real (though inadequate) incentives to adopt electronic health records and states are provided a true capital foundation upon which the technologies needed to expand coverage and value penetration. The stimulus funds are to be administered primarily by the newly formed Office of the National Coordinator (ONC) for Health Information Technology in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, it seems unlikely that this communications technology will be quickly adopted by providers and physicians, both of whom still lack any meaningful incentive to change.

I believe strongly that the marketplace for health insurance cannot experience fundamental reform until the broader health care industry has adopted the most basic value-added information technologies into the care delivery cycle and the true impact of this information flow on the quality of care can be quantified. To attempt radical health reform before this has been accomplished would be like prescribing treatment for a disease before assessing the patient's symptoms and issuing a diagnosis.

President Obama has a mandate to make sweeping changes to the way America is governed, this cannot be denied, and he appears to be intently focused on doing just that during the first two year of his presidency. It would be unfortunate if his party's legislative supramajority and his own impatience for gradual reform lead him to lose touch with realities of his capabilities as a mere mortal. Don't forget Mr President, "All glory is fleeting".

Weekly Address: President Obama Calls for Real Health Care Reform

The Coming Collapse of America: Understanding the scope of US entitlements

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:10:42 PDT

For those of you that love reading about the impending collapse of our great country, here is an article from Forbes about two weeks back that summarizes the findings of two Federally conducted audits of the outstanding liabilities for both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, each released in the past few weeks. The first report was prepared by the Social Security Administration, and the second by the Dept of Health and Human Services. I just want to make sure everyone is clear and fully informed about the reality of the situation before we proceed with these conversations.

I hate to tell everyone, but the conclusion of these non-partisan reports make it clear that nothing is impossible when it comes to the Federal government making promises it can keep. The only clever way to fix problems as big as these is to either cut liabilities (LOL) or radically increase taxes. To fully off-set the liablities acknowledged in these reports, every American's welfare contributions would have to be increased 81% every year forever.

To quote the Forbes piece:

To put it another way, the total unfunded indebtedness of Social Security and Medicare comes to $106.4 trillion. That is how much larger the nation's capital stock would have to be today, all of it owned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to generate enough income to pay all the benefits that have been promised over and above future payroll taxes. But the nation's total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. In effect, we have promised the elderly benefits equal to more than twice the nation's total wealth on top of the payroll tax.

Of course, theoretically, benefits could be cut to prevent the necessity of a massive tax increase. But how likely is that? The percentage of the population that benefits from Social Security and Medicare is growing daily as the baby boom generation ages and longevity increases. And the elderly vote in the highest percentage of any age group, so their political influence is even greater than their numbers.

It is easy to dismiss Wikipedia, but these numbers are all too real and there is not a damn thing Obama has/will do about it because he doesn't really care about young Americans, he cares about getting elected and he knows damn well every stupid 20-30 year-old voter, even those with college educations, will probably vote for him no matter what he does for us because (a) its "cool", (b) none of my peers have any concept of BULL SHIT, or (c) everyone under 30 really doesn't care if their future is taken into consideration by policymakers.

Unless Obama does something to start correcting these shortfalls, yes you guessed it, we will continue to get f***ed by our parents even after they are long when the government they left us collapses under it's obligations. By that time, we can point fingers at nobody but ourselves because it seems unlikely we will do anything to help our own cause.

How long will FDIC be able to guarantee deposits?

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:25:04 PDT

The FDIC deposit insurance fund, which was featured on 60 minutes this weekend, has never allowed a depositor to lose even one penny of guaranteed deposits. Currently deposits are guaranteed up to $250,000 in all FDIC insured institutions. This insurance has to this point been funded entirely by the banking industry, as opposed to the Federal printing press, this may be on the verge of a tipping point. Imagine the panic in the streets if the FDIC is even perceived to be slightly vulnerable to the shocks in the small to mid cap domestic banking market, which has already experienced 30 seizures this year, over a dozen more than last year and we are exactly halfway through the Hell of 2009 today.

Chart and comment below from Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, my favorite finance blog, and probably favorite financial news source period.

The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund has plunged to an all time low of just $13 billion as of March 31, or 0.27% of $4.8 trillion in insured deposits. It is worth nothing that since March 31, 15 new banks have failed which includes the biggest one so far this year, BankUnited (which Marla has a special fondness for in her heart and will be providing some ongoing entertainment on). It is thus safe to say that the $13 billion has been spent in the past 2 months, especially since banks no longer issue debt under the TLGP (of which, nonetheless, there was $336 billion outstanding at March 31 - somehow when banks are talking about repaying TARP, their FDIC-guaranteed debt, by far the biggest crutch to the banking system, is conveniently never mentioned) and therefore no longer pay FDIC guaranteed debt issuance associated fees. For many more thoughts on this phenomenon, go here.

Also, DIF-Insured deposits have hit an all time record high of $4.8 trillion, an increase of $90 billion from December 31 as depositors have been seeking a safe haven from the market in Q1. It is unknown if they would have done so, had they known their "insured" deposits will cover only the first 0.27% of depositors if there is another bank failure tsunami. As there is only one more month left in Q2 it will be curious to see it there will be a rotation out of deposits into investments at June 30, concurrent with the time we will know what the current level on the DIF is. Of course, as this data will be available some time in September, by then it may be completely worthless as one would imagine at some point the mystical futures buying force, end of month convenient fund deleveraging, or whatever else you want to call it, will have finally exhausted its market pulling strength.

Blog Rally: Raising Awareness for Public Participation in Healthcare X PRIZE Development

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:18:14 PDT

Blog Rally (b’lôg răl’ē) adj.

A coordinated, simultaneous presentation of identical or similar material on numerous blogs for the purpose of engaging large numbers of readers and/or persuading them to adopt a certain position or take a certain action.
The simultaneous nature of a blog rally can create the result of joining the efforts of otherwise independent bloggers for an agreed-upon purpose.

We are entering an unprecedented season of change for the United States health care system. Americans are united by their desire to fundamentally reform our current system into one that delivers on the promise of freedom, equity, and best outcomes for best value. In this season of reform, we will see all kinds of ideas presented from all across the political spectrum. Many of these ideas will be prescriptive, and don’t harness the power of innovation to create the dramatic breakthroughs required to create a next generation health system.
We believe there is a better way.
This belief is founded in the idea that aligned incentives can be a powerful way to spur innovation and seek breakthrough ideas from the most unlikely sources. Many of the reform ideas being put forward may not include some of the best thinking, the collective experience, and the most meaningful ways to truly implement change. To address this issue, the X PRIZE Foundation, along with WellPoint Inc and WellPoint Foundation as sponsor, has introduced a $10MM prize for health care innovators to implement a new model of health. The focus of the prize is to increase health care value by 50% in a 10,000 person community over a three year period.
The Healthcare X PRIZE team has released an Initial Prize Design and is actively seeking public comment. We are hoping, and encouraging everyone at every opportunity, to engage in this effort to help design a system of care that can produce dramatic breakthroughs at both an individual vitality and community health level.
Here is your opportunity to contribute:

Download the Initial Prize Design
Share you comments regarding the prize concept, the measurement framework, and the likelihood of this prize to impact health and health care reform.
Share the Initial Prize Design document with as many of your health, innovation, design, technology, academic, business, political, and patient friends as you can to provide an opportunity for their participation

We hope this blog rally amplifies our efforts to solicit feedback from every source possible as we understand that innovation does not always have a corporate address. We hope your engagement starts a viral movement of interest driven by individual people who realize their voice can and must be included. Let’s ensure that all of us – and the people we love – can have a health system that aligns health finance, care delivery, and individual incentives in a way that optimizes individual vitality and community health. Together, we can ensure the best ideas are able to come forward in a transparent competition designed to accelerate health innovation. We look forward to your participation.

Special thanks to Paul Levy for both demonstrating the value of collaborative effort and suggesting we utilize a blog rally for this crowdsourcing effort. Participating bloggers and media include include:

Bob Coffield, Health Law Blog
Richard Elmore, Avance Healthcare
Vijay Goel, MD - Consumer Focused Healthcare
Vince Kuraitis, eManagement Blog
Paul Levy, Running a Hospital
Bertalan Mesko, Science Roll
Modern Healthcare
Bill Pomerantz, The Launch Pad
Amy Tenderich, Diabetes Mine
Fred Trotter, Open Source Hacktavist
Matthew Holt, The Healthcare Blog

HXP - Initial Prize Design_v1

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Health & Medicine Research health healthcare xp

Restoring Perspective: Damn You Baby Boomers

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:22:04 PDT

The root of the 'too big to fail' argument extends back to the Bear Stearns fire sale to Chase and the subsequent liquidity injections for Freddie and Fannie. This should have been evident to everyone when Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers, clearly expected to receive a bailout or forced acquisition from his former rival and fellow investment banker Hank Paulson, only to be shown the door by a devilishly righteous Treasury Secretary when zero hour struck.

The grin was wiped off Henry's face seemingly overnight, and all of a sudden we had TARP and 'toxic' aka 'distressed' aka 'legacy' assests that the Federal government desperately needed $700B overnight to purchase all of these rotten investments from the banks before the world was going to end. You can, and should, read documents recently made public in a Freedom of Information Act challenge by Judicial Watch to get a full appreciation for the both the tremendously historic nature of the TARP program, as well as the cavalier attitudes taken by those charged with its design.

Here we find our selves in retrospect with the terms 'too big to fail' or 'systemically critical' becoming matters of daily business in DC, I think everyone needs to watch this FRONTLINE episodes "Inside the Meltdown" and "Ten Trillion and Counting" to get a refresher on exactly the extent of our obligations and the blatant disregard for long-term sustainability demonstrated by policymakers. As it turns out failure during tough times is every bit as critical to survival of our capitalist system as success and prosperity during boom times.

I blame it all on the irresponsible and self-absorbed baby boomers. I look forward to the day when our parent's generation can no longer find a job because their skills are useless, which should be around the same time our government finally acknowledges that Social Security is gone and never coming back just like their 401k and eTrade account.

As long as the members of the UAW don't suffer hard times today, the rest of us won't be too pissed off at the government when that inevitable day does arrive, right?? Screw the unions, screw the banks, screw the newspapers; let them fail and hope they drag their irresponsible middle-aged managers right out of the workforce with them because their salvation is coming at the expense of our civilization's slow and painful demise.

Behind the Financial Bailout: Treasury documents and internal e-mails in the days before TARP

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:22:04 PDT

There are few weeks in American history as epic and significant as those leading up to TARP. See the embedded document below, courtesy of Zero Hedge, for a glimpse into the Treasury Department managed by an Investment Banker and judge for yourself the historical implications.
Treasury CEO Talking Points v1

Publish at Scribd or explore others: School Work Non-fiction england symbols

Moral Hazard: Wall Street to Detroit to California??

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:22:04 PDT

The following is an excerpt from the March 16, 2008, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

WALLACE: But there's an overarching philosophical and policy question here that I want to try to get at with you about the government's role.
Why should the government, and thereby U.S. taxpayers, bail out lenders and borrowers who made bad decisions? And if they know they're going to be bailed out, what does that do to the moral hazard argument that they don't end up paying a price?

HANK PAULSON: Well, first of all, I really understand the moral hazard argument. So on the one hand, you've got a moral hazard. On the other, you've got what's right for the markets, what's right for the stability of the financial system, the U.S. economy.
All of these situations are situation-specific, depending on what's going on in the markets at the time. You're jumping to a conclusion about what the cost is going to be to U.S. taxpayer. So I just want to point that out.
And this situation hasn't played out yet. And wait and see how that plays out.
But to get to your general question, this is something that — you need to balance these two considerations. And I would say at this time, given where we are, and given how important it is to minimize disruptions in our capital markets, and how important it is to protect the economy which you were talking about earlier, this was the right decision.

The reason we are bailing out GM and Chrysler is that the government has deemed them both "too big to fail". I think this is ridiculous and nothing more than a convenient explanation for a very inconvenient reality which allows politicians to claim they are acting in the good of all taxpayers by bailing out the car companies. Below is a post by Robert Reich from October 2008 in which he directly addresses this concept:

According to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, the biggest Wall Street banks now getting money from the government are just "too big to fail.” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a different euphemism – he calls them “systemically critical.” The point is that if any of them goes down, it could take the whole financial system with it. So we taxpayers have to keep them up.

We’re hearing the same argument elsewhere in Washington for saving General Motors. It’s just “too big to fail.” So Congress is considering a bailout that would keep GM afloat and sweeten a merger between GM and Chrysler.

Pardon me for asking, but if a company is too big to fail, maybe – just maybe – it’s too big, period.

Reich makes an excellent point, but hardly addresses how to overcome this misconception that anything can be too big to fail. Very few policymakers are willing to acknowledge that there should be no such thing as "too big to fail" because the consequences of failure may cost them their jobs and influence, which is unfortunate because I thought the whole point was to eliminate all of the systemic risk in the system, not keep the same idiots who got us here in their jobs.

This doesn't even get into the reality that the car market in the US has hit a saturation point and people don't need to buy cars as bad as GM would like us to believe. Even if this Chapter 11 plan works and GM restructures into a more efficient entity, is the government gonna subsidize American households to buy a new GM car to maximize the value of their equity stake? Will they pass laws that create disincentive to buy foreign cars? I just don't see an end-game in the whole auto bailout, but if anyone has any ideas I would be happy to hear what they have to say.

I consider the Obama team to be essentially a bunch of well intended control freaks who consider it there duty to do something, anything, to avert failure. I am eager to see what happens when California fails, which is no longer just a possibility, it is absolutely inevitable. Bailing out California as a state somehow "too big to fail" would be disasterous because no matter what terms the Fed's impose on California, there is no way we can trust them to fix the underlying problems that caused the state to go into this irrecoverable nose-dive in the first place (problems we can certainly get into if anyone is interested).

Where does the Moral Hazard end?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains his Black Swan theory...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:00:18 PDT

PandemicFlu.gov: Public Health in the Connected Age...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:46:22 PDT

(Originally posted on the Connect Health Care Blog)

The Federal government has launched an intensive web-driven campaign through a new platform at PandemicFlu.gov to disseminate information on potential pandemic-level flu outbreaks. Each state has its own sub-site linked into the broader federal platform, with an impressive coordination of relevant information across a large network of local interests.

Several other Federal, State and NGO information outlets have also done a great job of distributing tools to connected citizens that can be used to quickly share and discover information across web-based communities. Some examples include:

CDC Index of Public Health Social Media Tools
CDC YouTube Channel
CDC Swine Flu Portal
WHO Influenza A(H1N1)
CDC-TV (see below)

Red Cross Pandemic Influenza Portal

Social media tools are readily available to bloggers through both the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which both have over a dozen unique embeddable widgets which automatically update with the latest public health information.

The State Department and DoD have information geared to American's living abroad or with global connections which may leave an individual particularly vulnerable.

State Department Pandemic Influenza Fact Sheet

DoD Pandemic Influenza Watchboard

Obama on Swine Flu

Shia Family Law: Why you read things before you sign them into law...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:47:32 PDT

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai admitted over the weekend that he had not read the Shia Family Law he signed last month, which clearly seems to reintroduce many of the oppressive policies of the previous Taleban government overthrown in the 2001 American-led invasion. President Karzai said, "The law is under review and amendments will take place. I assure you that the laws of Afghanistan will be in complete harmony with the constitution of Afghanistan, and the human rights that we have adhered to in international treaties.”

While it is arguable whether or not the furtherance of women's rights in Afghanistan was a valid reason to invade the country in the first place, it is in my opinion morally abhorrent to allow laws so clearly backwards to ever be reimposed on a population once they have been overthrown.

Apparently this is how Obama feels in retrospect, after hearing about how the new "Shia Family Law" allowed for marital rape and barred married women from leaving their homes without their husbands permission. Hamid Karzai has pledged to "review and amend the law" and admitted he did not read the 250+ pages before he signed it, but since the country's constitution allows for separate legal codes for Shia and Sunni Muslims it is unclear how this will be accomplished.

Too bad his "moral compass" led him so far down the wrong path before his "nuanced reflection" inspired him to change his mind...

I suppose Obama isn't entirely to blame as much as the system is because he even admits he didn't know until after it was passed. Not even Hamid Karzai read the bill, so I think to place the blame on the new guy would be harsh. It was clearly squeezed through by Karzai as a domestic political play before upcoming elections (for which he filed as a candidate today) during the information vacuum in the diplomatic relations during the transition and purging of senior diplomats. I am confident Obama would have applied serious pressure on Karzai to kill the law had he known of it.

Considering the investment of political, human and economic capital Obama has committed to Afghanistan, I think he will likely do all he can to squeeze Karzai, but not at the expense of winning on the ground with the Taliban. Winning is peace, and Obama is not unwilling to make a deal to win the peace. This is a radical deviation from US policy under Bush. I don't think it is unreasonable to make deals with people, so I hope he can maintain the leverage long term because the real battle is bringing investment and prosperity once the fighting ceases.

There is a lot that I believe Obama can do both militarily and economically to aid in the Karzai government's fight to win the peace. For example, Afghanistan is known for being the world's largest producer of opium, the vast majority of which is sold onto the black market and used in street drugs. There is a multi-billion dollar global market for opium-based painkillers which multinational companies would likely dump billions of clean dollars into if long term peace is a viable reality. This would have an immediate impact on both the well-being of Afghanistan's many rural farmers, as well as increase the greater national prosperity and re-establish the country as a viable place to do business, both desirable outcomes of any US policy in the country.

Unfortunately, I think the investment will come to the farmers regardless of the laws on how men can treat their wives; we all know the US is a major investor in oppressive governments all over the world. It is such a shame that a society can live in peace with such despicably institutionalized social injustice.

"Just when we thought it was over, it had only just begun..."

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:57:20 PDT

Swine Flu Pandemic

If you can believe it, the global economic and financial crisis is rapidly slipping into a global health crisis as well. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has officially declared a public health crisis following the confirmed Swine Flu (H1N1) in Kansas, California, Texas, Ohio and New York.

The virus, for which there IS NOT a vaccine, has led to the cancellation of all public events in Mexico City after dozens were killed and thousands hospitalized after the virus unexpectedly broke out late last week.

It is starting to feel awfully apocalyptic these days....

Is the United States Second Amendment to blame for the destabilization of Mexico?

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:15:04 PDT

Fox News Sunday featured Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) this past Sunday to discuss the recent outbreak of chaos between the Mexican government of President Filipe Calderon and the country's many large drug cartels. Rep. Lowry stated clearly when asked what she thought to be the cause of the turbulence that, "Mexican laws are too strict, so cartels come to the US to buy their guns", citing specifically "200 small gun dealers along the border".

Representative Lowey prescribed as the solution a renewal of the ban on assault weapons put in place under the Clinton Administration but allowed to expire by President Bush and the GOP Congress in power at the time the law's sunset provision came due.

This is not the first time a politician has chosen to fault the easy access of guns, particularly assault rifles and other automatic weapons, for the flaws of men who use those guns to perpetrate a violent crime. Domestic drug dealers and gangs have long been held up by advocates of stricter gun laws as evidence of how the right to bear arms has been grossly abused and misinterpreted in modern American society. However, is it reasonable to say that the problems of our neighbor could have somehow been avoided, or would be in anyway curtailed if the US were to ban the legal sale of heavy firearms? I think not.

Representative Lowry gives far too much credit to the Mexican authorities. The laws of Mexico should not be applauded, for they are deeply misguided on many fronts. Calderon has been a proactive president, but he is a lame duck nonetheless, as is any Mexican government. Calderon is hand-cuffed by the single six-year term limit (called a sexenio) placed on the presidency by the Mexican constitution, which combined with largely nationalized industry and national resources, stifle real economic growth and prevent policymakers from having any serious effect on the Mexican black market. This failure of institutions in Mexico leads Mexicans to flee to the US for a lot more than just guns -- they come for jobs, health care and a new life.

The cartels are going to get guns from Venezuela, Russia, or whomever else they can, and no ban on assault weapons will change that reality. I think that Rep. Lowey is taking advantage of the serious problems being experienced by the Mexican government to serve her own anti-gun political agenda, and to suggest that somehow the effect of the Second Amendment on the lives of Mexicans should be considered relevant to the domestic debate over the just nature of protecting gun-rights is misguided.

Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) and the end of the Dollar's dominance...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:01:13 PDT

Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the Central Bank of China (seen to the right with Hank Paulson), has called for an internationally endorsed shift away from the Dollar as the world's reserve currency "as soon as possible" in advance of the G20 Summit. Zhou urged the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to expand use of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) and move toward a "super-sovereign reserve currency".

Special Drawing Rights are defined on the IMF website as "The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries. SDRs are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas. The SDR also serves as the unit of account of the IMF and some other international organizations. Its value is based on a basket of key international currencies."

This is a very radical idea and cannot be dismissed because (a) Zhou truly does hold the fate of the Dollar and the US economy in his back pocket; (b) the IMF Board of Governors has advocated expansion of the SDR allocations since 1997, with 131 members (77.7%) officially endorsing the proposal. 85% is needed to implement recommendations from the internal SDR review committee, which convenes every 5 years (next 2010). The US controls 16.75% of the total IMF vote, which granting the Obama administration de facto veto of all IMF resolutions. Zhou's plan called for additional currencies to be added to the basket used to value SDRs; encouraged SDRs to be accepted in international trade and investment so they can become established reserve; SDR denominated securities to be introduced. Obama has indicated he opposes any and all such measures.

It is hard to imagine the Dollar, the underlying grease that makes the world work smoothly for American businesses and politicians, is actually on the verge of becoming merely "part of the basket" as opposed to the peg to which each currency is valued. China is the largest holder of US debt and has tremendous leverage in the debate over the realignment of international currency regimes.

What is to prevent Beijing from coordinating a massive pooling of US debt holders in a Chinese managed international and developing market counter-part to the Federal Reserve? The collective Treasury holdings of the central banks in the 131 dissenting IMF member-states, Ivy League university endowments and personal fortunes of Billionaire philanthropists like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates alone would be enough to leverage a new mint for global reserve notes. It would be like stock-piling gold in Fort Knox to guarantee US debt to its creditors during the Depression (or at least I think it would be).

At what could have been a watershed in American history, Obama and his half-staffed Treasury Department have gone nearly 100 days in the opposite direction of the hopeful, Reagan-esque vision that candidate Obama was so widely praised for forging during his two-year campaign. The president has been either uncertain or unsatisfied with the qualifications of applicants for many critical bureaucratic appoints under his chief deputies. These posts are critical for managing relations with foreign central banks and finance ministers.

Beijing ordered Zhou to make his aggressive proposal at a crucial moment for Tim Geithner, who had only begun to unveil their plans to combat the morgaged backed securities ailing the financial markets and clearly failed to fully ascertain the significance of Zhou's comments. Geithner was initially receptive and open to suggestions from Zhou, but his comments spurred a 4.2% decline in the Dollar across all currencies in less than 10 minutes. 15 minutes later he backtracked, and in his second press conference Obama reaffirmed the strength and long-term viability of the Dollar as the global reserve currency. Perhaps Geithner has yet to be briefed by his Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the concerns of Chinese policy-makers.

**I searched for photos of Secretary Geithner with the Zhou, and found none - though I did find dozens of candid snapshots of Geithner's predecessor Hank Paulson enjoying face-time with China's top banker. Perhaps Geithner should call on Paulson to fill the void while he continues to recruit his underlings...

Is the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger anti-competitive?

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:48:33 PDT

“Vertical integration on steroids” is how Jerry Mickelson, chairman of Chicago-based Jam Productions, characterized the plan to merge the nation’s largest concert promoter and ticketing agency. “This merger is much larger than just the ticketing business,” he warned. It could “monopolize the entire music industry,” because the two entities manage or have business agreements covering all music-related revenue streams with hundreds of major artists. (Chicago Tribune)

The new company will form a firewall to separate ticketing and promotion, Live Nation Chief Executive Officer Michael Rapino, who would be CEO of the combined organization, told lawmakers last week. “We would absolutely make sure that both divisions are separately run,” Rapino told a Senate subcommittee on Feb. 24. (Bloomberg) Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made no secret of his opposition to the deal, dismissing it as "monopolistic behavior plain and simple".

Ticketmaster investors will receive 1.384 shares of Live Nation for each held. The value of the deal, $216 million at yesterday’s close, has dropped 48 percent since the deal was announced February 10th. Live concert promoter Anschultz Entertainment Group (AEG) has resigned to terminate their agreement with Ticketmaster if the deal is approved by regulators, according to a letter AEG sent to the SEC on February 6th, four days before the deal was announced.

I first read of the proposed merger between Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the world's largest concert promoter and top ticket seller respectively, in a cover story on Ticketmaster CEO Irving Azoff in an edition of the Weekend Wall Street Journal from early February. I had heard of the man but knew little about his story, which I admit to be very impressive. The piece was biased, and understandably so considering it was a feature on Azoff's career and life, so there was no critical analysis of the merger or details of the terms. I finished reading with no opinion of how the deal would affect the music industry.

In Monday's Financial Times, the editorial board concludes that the deal "...would work against the fans in the longer term, no matter what innovations were on offer initially". After reading the FT's compelling argument against the deal I began to think about the implications for the music business of the merger's success. After reading Jerry Mickelson's full statement before Congress (see below) it became clear what the larger implications of the merger would be for the independent live music business- eradication.

Hopefully Chuckie Schumer has the last word...

Technorati Tags: Live Nation, Ticketmaster, Music Business, Jerry Mickelson, JAM Productions, Charles Schumer, Senate Judiciary Committee, Michael Rapino, Irving Azoff

Jerry_Mickelson_Senate_Testimony_02-24-09

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Government Business & Legal live nationticketmas jam productions

Rejecting Burris: Democrats do battle over Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama's Senate seat

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:58:21 PST

Image via Wikipedia

FoxNews.com: Not So Fast? Campaign to Contain Blagojevich Hits Roadblocks

The question everyone in Washington and Chicago has on their minds this New Years Eve is whether or not the Senate Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have the authority under the Constitution to reject the appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's vacated seat by Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich?

I am of the opinion that Senator Reid and his fellow Democratic Senators would be well within their rights under Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution, which states each chamber "shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members", to reject Mr. Burris when Congress reconvenes after the first of the year.

There are several constitutional provisions which the Majority Leader can use to prevent Burris from being seated, but it is unclear which makes the most sense considering the extenuating circumstances of the federal investigation into the integrity of the appointment process and the pay-to-play politics practiced by the Blagojevich administration. In his defense, the Illinois Governor and Burris can cite recent precedent of the courts rejecting such measures by Congressional leaders to assert such authority.

Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (See photo on right) was refused his seat in the chamber in 1967 over corruption allegations, but the Supreme Court overruled the House of Representatives, finding the lower house was in violation of its constitutional authority when refusing to seat a member elected and qualified to serve. Reid rightly argues the Powell case does not apply under the current circumstances because the candidate is himself not questioned, but rather the integrity of the process itself that was in question. It seems clear that Blago chose a man well qualified and fit to serve as Illinois' junior senator, but Burris was not elected by the voters of Illinois. Ultimately, the question will be the conduct of the governor, making this appointment now under a cloud of suspicion stemming from the highly publicized federal investigation into his corrupt way of conducting business.

It is unclear how the president-elect feels about the situation as Obama takes a much deserved vacation in Honolulu, but I would bet he will probably want to put this whole ordeal behind him and his administration as quickly as possible. He and Burris are close political allies and Burris does not carry a lot of political bagage himself, so if the former-Illinois Comptroller and Attorney General can charm the brass on Capitol Hill, Barack may be able to give him the political leverage he needs to secure his place in the upper chamber of the legislative branch.

Meanwhile the Federal prosecutor has filed for a rare 90-day extension of the Blagojevich grand jury, so maybe the drama won't be so easily put behind the president-elect as he seeks to implement his agenda in the first 100 days of his administration. That said, he does already have a near filibuster-proof majority with or without Burris, so the newly inaugurated President Obama better take care of it fast if he hopes to keep it from becoming a convenient distraction as the Governor continues to drag Chicago politics to even lower lows.

Auto Industry Bailout: Fact Sheet and Reactions...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:22:40 PST

Below are the facts of the deal made by the Bush Administration with GM and Chrysler to lend them $17.4B to meet their obligations for the next three months, at which time the two companies must show they have restructured into "viable companies".

Fact Sheet: Financing Assistance to Facilitate the

Restructuring of Automobile Manufacturers to Attain Financial Viability

Purpose: The terms and conditions of the financing provided by the Treasury Department will facilitate restructuring of our domestic auto industry,prevent disorderly bankruptcies during a time of economic difficulty,and protect the taxpayer by ensuring that only financially viable firms receive financing.

Amount: Auto manufacturers will be provided with $13.4B in short-term financing from the TARP, with an additional $4B available in February, contingent upon drawing down the second tranche of TARP funds.

Viability Requirement: The firms must use these funds to become financially viable. Taxpayers will not be asked to provide financing for firms that do not become viable. If the firms have not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.

Definition of Viability: A firm will only be deemed viable if it has a positive net present value, taking into account all current and future costs, and can fully repay the government loan.

Binding Terms and Conditions: The binding terms and conditions established by the Treasury will mirror those that were voted favorably by a majority of both Houses of Congress, including:

Firms must provide warrants for non-voting stock.
Firms must accept limits on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets.
Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts, to the extent permitted by law.
Firms must allow the government to examine their books and records.
Firms must report and the government has the power to block any large transactions (> $100 M).
Firms must comply with applicable Federal fuel efficiency and emissions requirements.
Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt.

Targets: The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additional targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did not come to a vote, including:

Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for equity exchange.
Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock.
Eliminate the jobs bank.
Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.
Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.

These terms and conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and makes the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations.

In addition, the firm will be required to conclude new agreements with its other major stakeholders, including dealers and suppliers, by March 31, 2009.

My Thoughts

I have not supported the bailout from the day it was proposed. The airlines have almost all gone out of business in the past and for the most part were able to achieve viability at a certain level after emerging from structured bankruptcy (competitiveness in an entirely different question). There are some circumstances that make the auto makers a unique situation, such as their highly interdependent network of suppliers, but that only makes me think that most of these unique circumstances are exacerbating the issue and cannot be allowed to exist independently or considered to be unaccountable for the situation we find ourselves in today. However,after seeing the final terms it has become more clear where Bush is coming from and why this is probably more out of respect for Obama and likely only even a consideration because of requests made by his transition team.

Essentially I read these terms to be a decision by Bush that if he has to do do something now to keep unemployment from rising above 10% on the last Friday in January (days after Obama's inauguration), he will be giving Obama and the Democrats a tremendous burden to bear when the auto companies fail to live up to the obligations under this agreement and people start to literally panic and confidence in the marketplace deteriorates even further. This may happen regardless, but it almost certainly would if GM and Chrysler are forced into Chapter 11 now, and that would seriously undermine the new president's ability to implement the stimulus he has boldly and correctly pledged.

There are several reasons why the auto companies are unlikely to achieve viability as it is defined; (1) the UAW is highly unlikely in my opinion to significantly renegotiate the terms of their labor agreements; (2) car sales have hit a saturation point in the US, with17m cars sold in 2001 down to about 10m in 2007; (3) emerging markets,which have been the sole bright spot for GM recently, are doomed to suffer badly as the recession in the US and Europe continues to worsen;(4) credit markets aren't going to begin recovering until confidence can be restored and an end-game can be seen on the horizon and as Obama keeps reminding us, it is only going to get worse before it gets better; (5) people are not going to start buying cars again anytime soon, and sales figures are likely to go down before they go up no matter what the Big Three do about it.

People are losing their jobs and companies are freezing wages because they really are unable to secure financing under current conditions, so unless GM and Chrysler have a secret plan up their sleeves there is little reason to believe that anything they do will change their destiny.

I admit I have no idea what the plan is exactly, but the "targets"listed in the attached document are ambitious considering the perfect storm of market failures and anomalies we are currently experiencing with such regularity. Most of the testimony given by Big 3 executives covered the urgency of the circumstances and the potential reverberations of the alternatives, but details on plans for restructuring and potential deals with competitors or the UAW were put off as only relevant if money was extended- which happens to be very true. If all the executives really need is three months and $17Billion to close deals with each other or a foreign competitor with an already "viable" business model.

Love to hear everyone's thoughts.

McCain on SNL in campaign's final hour...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 18:45:03 PST

Lightening strike during Obama speech...

briantedwards@gmail.com (Brian T. Edwards) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 01:14:46 PDT

The World We'll Inherit

ASCAP calls music ringtones "performances" and wants you to pay...

Exclusive Iraq oil deals go to Chinese and British...

Readthebill.org: Sunlight Foundation Project Pushes for Mandatory 72-hour Period for Congress to Read Bills Before Voting

Final draft of proposed financial regulatory reforms released today...

Obama speech endorsing indefinite detentions for "preventive" purposes...

Draft of Obama's Regulatory Revamp

Kennedy-Dodd Health Reform Bill: Mandates and Subsidies

Related articles by Zemanta

Health Care Information Technology Must Come First

Related articles by Zemanta

The Coming Collapse of America: Understanding the scope of US entitlements

How long will FDIC be able to guarantee deposits?

Blog Rally: Raising Awareness for Public Participation in Healthcare X PRIZE Development

Restoring Perspective: Damn You Baby Boomers

Behind the Financial Bailout: Treasury documents and internal e-mails in the days before TARP

Moral Hazard: Wall Street to Detroit to California??

Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains his Black Swan theory...

PandemicFlu.gov: Public Health in the Connected Age...

Shia Family Law: Why you read things before you sign them into law...

"Just when we thought it was over, it had only just begun..."

Is the United States Second Amendment to blame for the destabilization of Mexico?

Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) and the end of the Dollar's dominance...

Is the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger anti-competitive?

Rejecting Burris: Democrats do battle over Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama's Senate seat

FoxNews.com: Not So Fast? Campaign to Contain Blagojevich Hits Roadblocks

Auto Industry Bailout: Fact Sheet and Reactions...

McCain on SNL in campaign's final hour...

Lightening strike during Obama speech...