oh, larissa

The best countries for business, 2009

“Denmark, for a second straight year, takes the No. 1 spot. The U.S. is up two spots to No. 2, Canada is up four spots to No. 3, Singapore is up four to No. 4 and New Zealand is up seven to No. 5.

This is not a tally of economies with high gross domestic product growth, or low unemployment. The goal is to quantify for entrepreneurs and investors the often-qualified information about dynamic economies and what they would consider desirable conditions for business.

Personal freedoms play a big part - it’s hard to start a company or find talented employees under totalitarian regimes and military juntas. So we include measures of the right to participate in free and fair elections, freedom of expression and organization.

Taking care of investors, with laws assuring recourse for minority shareholders in cases of corporate misdeeds, is also important. As a barometer for corruption, Transparency International examines the number and frequency of incidents where corporate assets are misused for personal gain.”

E.U. rejects U.S. stimulus stance in favor of welfare spending

“Global efforts to limit the depth of the recession have been hampered by differences of emphasis between the United States and most European countries. While Washington wants greater stress on immediate measures to stimulate the economy, nations such as France seek a new regulatory architecture for financial institutions.

On Thursday, José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, argued that talk of more stimulus spending from Europe was counterproductive. “Let’s not start discussing about a new plan,” he said, “before implementing the plan we have agreed.” He added: “The message we would send to our public is our plan is not enough. That’s not going to create confidence.”“

A Bold Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas | NYT

“The Obama budget — a bold, even radical departure from recent history, wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables — would sharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Mr. Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.

More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years. They do so first by rewriting the tax code and, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of the middle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowing educational gains.”

(via ninakix)

Governments across Europe tremble as effects of global recession prompt angry people to take to the streets | The Guardian

A snapshot of Jan. 30 in Athens, Riga, Paris, Budapest, Kiev and Reykjavik.

US states replaced by countries with a similar level of GDP by Christian Broda (via lookman)

brocatus:

bebelestrange:

(via The Big Picture-Barry Ritholtz)

“Whenever I discussed the current bailout situation with people, I find they have a hard time comprehending the actual numbers involved. That became a problem while doing the research for the Bailout Nation book. I needed some way to put this into proper historical perspective.

If we add in the Citi bailout, the total cost now exceeds $4.6165 trillion dollars. People have a hard time conceptualizing very large numbers, so let’s give this some context. The current Credit Crisis bailout is now the largest outlay In American history.”

Jim Bianco of Bianco Research crunched the inflation adjusted numbers. The bailout has cost more than all of these big budget government expenditures – combined:

• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

TOTAL: $3.92 trillion

______________________________________________________________________

data courtesy of Bianco Research

>

November 25, 2008, 10:36pm

Something I learned today:

The Northwest Territories has a per capita GDP of $97,923.  (source)

brocatus:

whileyouwereout:

ericlodwick:

kevintwohy:

noahkai:

atomische:

matiasjajaja: The Economist Sums Up Financial Crisis: “Oh Fuck!”

Is this for real? Brilliant! And the only sensible choice, actually.

dihard:

The big blame game is really getting to be too much. 77% of Americans blame the government for high gas prices, 75% blame oil companies, and 70% blame foreign oil producers, per a recent Consumer Reports survey. But all of those culprits pin the blame on another party. So, really, who is to blame for high oil prices?

Oil companies? Many like to blame big oil companies with their “windfall” profits. But they only get 4% of the cost of gasoline at the pump. Big oil often passes the blame onto speculators, the government, or a dearth of supplies.

Speculators? They’re not to blame either, according to recent news. First of all, the percent of futures contracts held by speculators has declined over the past year, so they can’t be to blame. Secondly, in order for speculators to actually change the price of oil, they’d have to take the physical oil off the market. Which they don’t - traders buy a futures contract, or an agreement for the seller to deliver a certain amount of oil on a certain future date for a certain price. But they resell the contract just before the date of delivery, and it typically rolls over into the next month’s contract.Thus, speculators don’t affect the actual spot-price of oil.

In fact, futures trading actually encourages oil companies to make costly investments in new production, which keeps the gas prices down. And they may actually discourages hoarding and makes prices less volatile.

Oil producers? The US Energy Secretary blames insufficient oil production, which has not kept up with demand. But they, namely OPEC, have been blaming speculators and the decline in the dollar, indicating that we are gouging ourselves. OPEC Secretary General stated today there is “no shortage” in the oil market.

The news? Economist Martin Feldstein concludes in today’s WSJ that “news stories, rumors and industry reports can cause substantial fluctuations in current prices – all without anything happening to current demand or supply.”

Congress? While only 4% of the cost of gasoline goes to oil companies, 15% of the cost of gasoline goes for taxes. Plus, Congress prohibits the production of domestic oil and natural gas, so they’re certainly to blame, right? This op-ed argues that if Congress were even to announce it has opened the way for domestic production, prices would drop. There’s that “news stories, rumors, and industry reports” component again. Congress likes to also blame the speculators. But a recent Fortune article invites Congress to “demonstrate a basic understanding of the mechanics of futures trading… Even better, they should be required to explain in detail how it is that investors who never take delivery of a single barrel of crude - and thus never remove a drop of oil from the open market - are causing record high oil prices.”

July 29, 2008, 10:48pm