Incarceration Nation: Invest in US Private Prisons?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 6/15/2015 12:24:00 PM
Their "customers" are all outfitted in Guantanamo orange. Care to invest?
With interest rates set to rise in the United States, it is difficult for folks to figure out where to invest. Bonds tend to go down in price as interest rates rise. While stocks may be less averse to interest rate rises, making the cost of money dearer results in greater difficulty funding their purchase, and stocks also face headwinds as a result. Consider, then, a somewhat different investment that falls somewhere between bonds and stocks in real estate investment trusts (REITs). REITs provide their holders with income from real estate-related activities, especially renting out properties. Among the different REITs, the most adventurous of them all are prison REITs. That is, those which derive their income from running private prisons in the United States. With an astronomically high, world-leading incarceration rate, the United States certainly doesn't lack for, er, a huge captive market.

There are of course different arguments about the virtues and vices of corporations running prisons. From the right, some would say that for-profit businesses are more efficient in running jails Stateside. On the other hand, those from the left caution that private prisons encourage unnecessarily tough sentencing since these businesses profit from more people being thrown in jail for longer regardless of whether sentences meted out are just. Because of the political controversy surrounding prison REITs, they provide higher dividends than other kinds of REITs. But, there are caveats for would-be investors like Democrats running for the 2016 presidential elections seeking to reduce tough sentencing and hence the number of prisoner-customers for these REITs:
The small and controversial sector of for-profit prison companies, which operate as real estate investment trusts (REITs), have been under pressure this year, underperforming the broader REIT sector, which has itself lagged behind the general market. The two main prison operators have been dogged by the prospect of new government regulations, with presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Senator Rand Paul among those calling for criminal justice reform, an issue seen as a threat to the group. While supporters argue that private prisons save taxpayer money, critics charge that the companies' for-profit model has led to excessive sentencing and poor conditions for inmates.
Take, for instance, some major prison REITs:
Corrections Corporation of America, which has a market capitalization of about $4.1 billion, is down 5.3 percent in 2015 while Geo Group is down 9.4 percent. The Vanguard REIT ETF, a popular way for investors to play the broader space, is down 4.9 percent. Analysts say the year-to-date declines in prison stocks mean potential headwinds have been priced in, positioning them for gains even as the appeal of the overall REIT sector wanes. In an indication the selloff has been overdone, Corrections trades almost 16 percent under StarMine's measurement of intrinsic value, which looks at anticipated growth over the next decade.

"There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding reforms, causing prison REITs to trade at a discount to the REITs that aren't tied to government spending, but you've already seen them pull back, meaning that from here there's more upside than downside potential," said Eric Marshall, portfolio manager at the Hodges Funds in Dallas.
Marshall, who has a stake in Geo, also praised the high dividend yields of prison REITs, which surpass those for the sector at large. Corrections' yield is 6.25 percent while Geo's is 6.74 percent. Three of the biggest REITs by market cap - Simon Property Group, Public Storage and Equity Residential - have yields below 4 percent. The S&P's yield is 2.38 percent.
Are you tough enough to invest in CXW and GEO? Like in life's other pursuits, it may be a case of fortune favoring the bold--especially if the ethical aspects do not elicit unease.
Read More

Can You Spare a Quadrillion? Zimbabwean $'s End

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 6/12/2015 11:03:00 AM
Legal tender not acceptable anywhere; this reality is simply being formalized.
It's the end of an era as Comrade Bob Mugabe's pipe dream of a currency, the Zimbabwean dollar, goes to the Great Printing Press in the Sky. For quite some time after its bout with hyperinflation, Zimbabwe has effectively been a [US] dollarized and [South African] rand-ized economy. With no faith left in the Zimbabwean dollar, most "real" transactions have been conducted with foreign exchange. To no one's real surprise, Zimbabwe's finance officials--surely a fun job, if there ever was one--have declared that they will soon discontinue the laughingstock local currency soon.

To be honest, it's no longer being used except as a party piece to show the foreigners what a mess Mugabe's made of the economy:
Zimbabwe is phasing out its local currency, the central bank says, formalising a multi-currency system introduced during hyper-inflation. Foreign currencies like the US dollar and South African rand have been used for most transactions since 2009.

Local dollars are not used except high-denomination notes sold as souvenirs. But from Monday, Zimbabweans can exchange bank accounts of up to 175 quadrillion (175,000,000,000,000,000) Zimbabwean dollars for five US dollars. Higher balances will be exchanged at a rate of Z$35 quadrillion to US$1.

The move has been "pending and long outstanding," central bank Governor John Mangudya said, quoted by Bloomberg. "We cannot have two legal currency systems. We need therefore to safeguard the integrity of the multiple-currency system or dollarization in Zimbabwe." Zimbabweans have until the end of September to exchange their local dollars.
And so ends the madness of inflation computation and folks using wheelbarrows to purchase everyday necessities:
Hyper-inflation saw prices in shops change several times a day, severe shortages of basic goods and Zimbabweans taking their money to market in wheelbarrows. Ahead of the abandonment of the Zimbabwean dollar in January 2009, officials gave up on reporting official inflation statistics. Towards the end of 2008, annual inflation had reached 231m%, pensions, wages and investments were worthless, most schools and hospitals were closed and at least eight in 10 people were out of work.

The highest denomination was a $100 trillion Zimbabwean dollar note. Zimbabwe's economy has struggled since a government programme seized mostly white-owned farms in 2000, causing exports to tumble. A four-year unity government, that ended in 2013 with President Robert Mugabe's re-election, helped stabilise the economy but it still faces huge challenges.
Isn't socialism grand when people have no faith in your money and have to use those of vile capitalists? Unless changes are made, Zimbabwe is Venezuela's future. 
Read More

Why Greece Can't "Wawrinka" Its Creditors

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 6/11/2015 01:30:00 AM
Greece has no equivalent to Wawrinka's "Shorts of Doom."
Over the weekend, I watched the 2015 men's final at the French Open pitting world #1 Novak Djokovic [Serbia] against world #8 Stan "The Man" Wawrinka [Suisse]. Like everyone else, I expected the Serbian great to trounce Wawrinka, but the latter had other things in mind. Looking ever-so-ridiculous in pink boxer shorts pictured above, Wawrinka's incredible serve and pinpoint backhand nevertheless gave the world's best player a lesson in grand slam tennis he will not soon forget. The prospect of losing a French Open for the third time--this time to some dork wearing pyjamas--seems to have had driven Djokovic beyond the edge of sanity. First he smashed his racket to smithereens. Next he cried like a baby during the awarding ceremony.

I am not sure whether the crazy shorts were intended, but they seem to have thrown Djokovic off his game. Since being elected, the Syriza faux-socialists have tried to "Wawrinka" their creditors not only by dressing funny but also acting funny. What kind of self-respecting commie pinko appears in a lifestyle spread in the tabloid Paris Match? More seriously, how can you expect to please your creditors by making no changes whatsoever to the patronage-heavy Greek institutional infrastructure? Increasingly, I am with those calling for Greece to finally enjoy the fruits of their seemingly desired bankruptcy. Grant them their death wish. From Francesco Giavazzi at Bocconi:
Europeans, too, have made mistakes. Since Athens joined the monetary union, we have lent Greece €400bn, 1.7 times the country’s gross domestic product in 2013. It is time for a reality check: they will never be repaid. And it is an illusion to imagine, as the Finns sometimes do, that we could receive compensation in kind by acquiring a few Greek islands. The age when the British empire would do that is, luckily, over. Bygones are bygones. The sooner we accept this and forget those loans the better.

If the Greeks do not want to modernise, we should accept it. By a large majority, they have voted for a government that, six months after the election, remains vastly popular. Its popularity with the electorate signals a wish to remain a nation with a per-capita income half that of Ireland, less than that of Slovenia. In a few years it will be overtaken by Chile. I only hope that no one in Athens dreams that debt forgiveness and Grexit offer an alternative path to growth.

Without economic and social reforms, Greece will remain a relatively poor country. But it is not for the rest of Europe to impose reforms on Greece. It should merely make crystal clear that without serious reforms, new official loans are over. The only way for Athens to borrow will be to convince the markets that it will pay its own bills. No more EU guarantees, explicit or otherwise.
The difference is that while Wawrinka was crazy like a fox--feigning lunacy to disguise a well-thought game plan to put one over a formidable opponent--Greece's leaders are plain crazy. Sure, Greece does the "crazy" bit real good with talk of German WWII reparations and other ideas from cloud cuckoo land. However, it certainly isn't "like a fox" with no plan other than to bite the hand that feeds. And therein lies the rub: to implement the "Wawrinka" strategy, you have got to have game. Greece's Syriza leaders have one trick, which is to keep saying how the EU will implode if Greece isn't accommodated, all the while backtracking on all sorts of commitments to reform a backward, dilapidated and uncompetitive country.  Greece cannot put one over the troika; it has no game, nor any semblance of an overarching strategy. Unlike Wawrinka and his sartorial commentary, Greece's Stupid European Tricks increasingly throw no one off.

It's time to put Greece out of its misery already. Let it default and go back to the the drachma. The world has wasted enough time on these fools.

PS: You too can try to "Wawrinka" others by purchasing his Yonex shorts. Attention Greek leaders: isn't capitalism grand this way?
Read More

Hopeless America: Firms Spend On Buybacks, Not Capex

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 6/09/2015 01:30:00 AM
American firms don't dare invest in America...so why should you?
There is no clearer sign that Americans don't believe in America than US corporations electing to give earnings back to shareholders or buy back stock than to invest those earnings. However, this pattern has been evident Stateside ever since the global financial crisis. Firms simply refuse to make outlays that may have once promised to increase output in the future. Why would firms decide to return money to shareholders or buy back stock instead of making productive investments? The only logical explanation is that the US economy has prospects poor enough to discourage any sort of investment. In other words, the future of America is shot, and its firms use their money accordingly:
Data show a broad array of companies have been plowing more cash into dividends and stock buybacks, while spending less on investments such as new factories and research and development...

Laurence Fink, chief executive of BlackRock Inc., the world’s largest money manager, argued as much in a March 31 letter to S&P 500 CEOs. “More and more corporate leaders have responded with actions that can deliver immediate returns to shareholders, such as buybacks or dividend increases, while underinvesting in innovation, skilled workforces or essential capital expenditures necessary to sustain long-term growth...” 
 An analysis conducted for The Wall Street Journal by Standard & Poors Capital IQ shows that companies in the S&P 500 index sharply increased their spending on dividends and buybacks to a median 36% of operating cash flow in 2013, from 18% in 2003. Over that same decade, those companies cut spending on plants and equipment to 29% of operating cash flow, from 33% in 2003.
So firms are using cash like it's game over for America. How will this play out in the future?
It is it too early to know how—or whether—the shift will affect the overall economy. Some economists predict an investment reduction will mean less growth and fewer jobs. “If investment falls, then you’re losing demand in the economy, you’re losing expenditures, you’re losing economic stimulus,” says Steven Fazzari, an economist at Washington University. “That’s hurting jobs.”
People in America used to dream about the future. I guess not anymore.
Read More

Space Geopolitics: Why ISS is Off-Limits to Chinese

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 6/08/2015 01:30:00 AM
Chinese, keep out! Aboard the (reds-free) "International" Space Station.
In an age of specialization, there's an academic journal for everything. Did you know there's one entitled Space Policy? I've written something for Transport Policy, but I haven't reached the final frontier (yet). At any rate, I may be inspired to do so after reading this fascinating article in TIME concerning why the International Space Station (ISS) remains off-limits to Chinese astronauts (or taikonauts to use the Chinese term for these folks). Is it because of the perceived "rivalry" between the US and China?
[T]he International Space Station (ISS) [is] the biggest, coolest, most excellent tree house there ever was. Principally built and operated by the U.S., the ISS has welcomed aboard astronauts from 15 different countries, including such space newbies as South Africa, Brazil, The Netherlands and Malaysia. But China? Nuh-uh. Never has happened, never gonna’ happen.

China has been barred from the ISS since 2011, when Congress passed a law prohibiting official American contact with the Chinese space program due to concerns about national security. “National security,” of course, is the lingua franca excuse for any country to do anything it jolly well wants to do even if it has nothing to do with, you know, the security of the nation. But never mind.

Few people in the U.S. paid much attention to the no-Chinese law, but it’s at last taking deserved heat, thanks to a CNN interview with the three Chinese astronauts—or taikonauts—who flew China’s Shenzhou 10 mission in 2013. The network’s visit to China’s usually closed Space City, which will air on May 30, is a reporting coup, especially because of the entirely familiar, entirely un-scary world it reveals: serious taikonauts doing serious work with serious mission planners—every bit what you see behind the scenes at NASA or Russia’s Roscosmos
Ah yes, "national security"--that all-purpose cover for anti-foreign acts. This position is supposedly bolstered by "findings" from studies by US agencies and academic institutions:
The 2011 law draws a sort of ex post facto justification from a study that was released in 2012 by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, warning that China’s policymakers “view space power as one aspect of a broad international competition in comprehensive national strength and science and technology.” More darkly, there is the 2015 report prepared by the University of California, San Diego’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, ominously titled “China Dream, Space Dream“, which concludes: “China’s efforts to use its space program to transform itself into a military, economic, and technological power may come at the expense of U.S. leadership and has serious implications for U.S. interests.”
Why is it that Chinese taikonauts represent a "national security" threat to the United States while Russian cosmonauts do not? Does it have something to do with not being able to get to the ISS without Russian help ever since the Space Shuttle program was discontinued? Don't ask me. Space politics are weird, and probably provide endless fodder for writers contributing to Space Policy.
Read More

How Much Can the US Gain from Going Metric?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 6/05/2015 01:30:00 AM
Soak the rich? Eliminate ISIS? Hope? Change? Heck no...let's go metric!
As a lover of fringe candidates, I gleefully note that former Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island) is running for the Democratic nomination. So it's not quite Dick Cheney running for the Communist Party of the USA nomination, but hey, it'll have to do in 2015. Most international readers are probably asking themselves, "Who is Lincoln Chafee?" Which, of course, is a fair observation insofar as he was not exactly the most international public official during his days in office. But, that may changing. Can you imagine a more quixotic platform to run on than fully converting the United States to the metric system? Well, that's what he's running on for what it's worth:
Lincoln Chafee launched his presidential bid Wednesday on a platform of what he called "bold" ideas, but few are as bold as his proposal to switch to the metric system... "This is just one piece, as I said, of becoming internationalist as a country and getting away from that unilateralist approach, that muscular approach to the world, that I don't think is working in our best interests," he said. Chafee added that it would be "good for our economy, bottom line."
Take that, Dubya. And he keeps harping on the economic benefits of the metric system:
"Let's be bold -- let's join the rest of the world and go metric," he said during his launch. He clarified during a question-and-answer session after that it would be a "symbolic integration" meant to show goodwill to the world. He acknowledged that shifting to the metric system could cost the U.S., but that "the economic benefits that would come in would surpass those costs of putting up new signs and the like."
While the US has adapted some metric conventions, incredible peculiarities remain such as measuring distance in miles. But, do not doubt that there are real gains to be had by making this change:
Politics and economics have been the real incentives to go metric. The world’s most anti-metric nation—Great Britain—grudgingly began to ditch its Imperial system in the 1970s because it was the only way to gain access to the markets of continental Europe. Most of the rest of the world adopted the measures in order not to fall behind in the global economy.

There is no question that a uniform global system of measurement helps cross-border trade and investment. For this reason, labor unions were among the strongest opponents of 1970s-era metrication, fearing that the switch would make it easier to ship jobs off-shore. (Which it did.)

Is global uniformity a good thing? Not when it comes to cultural issues, and customary measures are certainly a part of our national culture. But to have brains trained in the thirds, quarters, sixths, eighths, and twelfths of our inches and ounces, as well as the relentless decimals of the metric system can only be beneficial, in the same way that learning a second language is better than knowing only one. That ours is a dual-measurement country is part of our great diversity.
Given how so few areas of academic research remain, I am surprised that pointy-headed American economist types haven't investigated how much the US stands to gain in economic term$ if this transition to international-standard measurements was made. The same gains from standardization should obtain.
Read More

Era's End: Japanese Stop Making 'Galapagos Phones'

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 6/04/2015 01:30:00 AM
Actually, the flip phone won't die in Japan, just the proprietary OS.
The "Galapagos Syndrome" is the term coined to describe standards and technologies that have emerged only in Japan, not to spread to the rest of the world. This, of course, draws from the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador that have hosted wildlife not found in the rest of the world. The "Galapagos Syndrome" is a negative term denoting how Japan has, in recent years, become quite insular in developing consumer products. Whereas Japan was once an exporting powerhouse, some believe that it has become increasingly inward-looking. It's a downscaling of expectations: Japan Inc. aimed to sell to the world before but now it mostly looks to sell at home.

I would doubt that statement, of course, since Japan has always had some peculiarly Japanese product categories like kei cars with a maximum displacement of 660cc sold nowhere else in the world. Still, homegrown Galapagos phones are supposedly endangered even in Japan itself: does anyone else still use flip phones? Apparently these remain popular among older Japanese, of whom there are many. But all things must come to an end, and so must these phones:
Japanese manufacturers from 2017 will end production of conventional mobile phones with custom operating systems, bringing an end to once-pioneering technology that led to the world's first Internet-able cellphones. The operating systems and other core technologies of conventional devices, used primarily for phone calls and texting, are developed jointly by handset makers and wireless carriers. With the rise of smartphones, development of those operating systems have become a drag on their earnings.

Manufacturers will continue producing handsets that look and function much like conventional phones, due to the enduring popularity of flip phones with keypads among older consumers, but these will be loaded with Google's Android operating system. NEC currently supplies conventional phones to Docomo. It will stop developing new models in March 2016 and end production in March 2017. This will mark a complete withdrawal from the mobile phone market, as it bowed out of the smartphone business in 2013. For now, the company will continue to service products it has already sold.
There remain any number of cell phone makers only for the domestic Japanese market, but they will be thinning over the next few years:
The spread of smartphones has left older-style devices almost entirely confined to Japan, where they have been dubbed "Galapagos phones," evoking an isolated environment housing unique species. Japanese electronics makers and mobile carriers have ramped up joint handset development since the late 1990s. In 1999, Docomo rolled out i-mode, the world's first service allowing mobile phones to connect to the Internet. Japanese telecommunications and electronics companies were pioneers in the field.

But the situation changed after Apple released the iPhone in 2007 and Google worked with phone manufacturers worldwide to launch Android devices from 2008 onward. Smartphones exploded in popularity. Conventional-phone specialist Nokia sold its handset business, while Japanese companies were forced to restructure. Japan's shift toward smartphone technology will mark another step in the field's division into Apple and Google camps.
It makes me kind of sad, but it's another episode of the iOS versus Android juggernaut steamrolling the previously more diverse Japanese telecoms ecosystem. The aging customer base aside which is not fond of apps and assorted frippery, Galapagos phones have other advantages, such as battery life and durability:
There are several ways to explain this rise. One could be the demographic changes Japan is undergoing. As is well-known, Japan has a low birth rate coupled with an aging society. And obviously old folks here would have more trouble navigating the touch screens and the various apps of a smart phone. Most only need to use two basic functions in a cell phone: calling and texting. Another reason explaining the comeback of flip phones is that it’s simply cheaper than a smart phone.

The other reason is durability. The phones are notoriously difficult to break and Delphia Putinsky, a bilingual tour guide in Japan, says she keeps her flip-phone precisely for that reason. “Drop you iPhone without a cover, and you get the spiderweb of death—the screen gets cracks which spread and spread. You can throw your garakei across the room, hit the wall, and it still functions like new.” Finally, there’s also undeniably one thing that flip phones surpasses the smart phone in: holding a charge for more than one day.
Read More

American Hegemony in Sports: Blatter's a Goner

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 6/02/2015 07:16:00 PM
Making too many enemies in high places, Blatter was brought down.
After a lot of huffing and puffing, it's finally come down to this: After Sepp Blatter's trusted lieutenant Jerome Valcke was reportedly embroiled in a $10M slush fund scandal, it was probably only a matter of time before prosecutors pinned Blatter down. As slippery as he's been. Blatter likely recognizes that the game was up. With so many powerful enemies--the US, UK, and the rest of Europe for starters--he would be implicated sooner or later. Rather than try to put out fires raging all across FIFA as this and that official is charged in addition to running its day-to-day affairs, Blatter has decided to quit while he's ahead. If nothing else, he's a canny operator, and he perceives that deserting FIFA will do him better than staying on at this point in the game. So he's called for new elections right away while promising to step down once someone new is selected.

This done, there are three big questions going forward:
  • Who will be the next FIFA president? UEFA's Michel Platini is the supposedly the front-runner, but keep in mind that many Blatter allies will remain in place for now, complicating the selection process;
  • Will the 2018 Russian World Cup in Sochi still push through? With the (Western) Europeans seemingly ascendant, that won't be a particularly popular venue given Vladimir Putin's penchant for military adventurism at their expense;
  • Will the 2022 Qatar World Cup in Doha still push through? This literally murderous event has been mired in controversy for years after hundreds and hundreds of migrant workers constructing stadiums have died--and still it's seven years away.
The latter two events may be scotched if it is proven that bribery was behind their selection (which I honestly don't think will be all that difficult to uncover if you look hard enough). So is it three cheers for American imperialism in the US Department of Justice laying the seemingly untouchable Sepp Blatter low? The long arm of the American lawman reached out and swatted Blatter down more easily than I'd thought possible. Still, my belief is that Sepp Blatter was not so much the ringmaster as he was the enabler of massive corruption at FIFA. With so many dirty old men fronting football associations the world over, Blatter simply fit right in.

As a parting shot, "Reformer Sepp" is stepping up:
The Executive Committee includes representatives of confederations over whom we have no control, but for whose actions FIFA is held responsible. We need deep-rooted structural change. The size of the Executive Committee must be reduced and its members should be elected through the FIFA Congress. The integrity checks for all Executive Committee me mbers must be organised centrally through FIFA and not through the confederations . We need term limits not only for the president but for all members of the Executive Committee. I have fought for these changes before and, as everyone knows, my efforts hav e been blocked. This time, I will succeed.
Yeah, whatever. Cleaning up the murk that is FIFA will be a Herculean task, to say the least. As long as there is football and scumbags with a fetish for the sport, I suspect corruption there will not go away so easily.
Read More

How China's Anti-NGO Jihad Hits MNCs

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 6/02/2015 01:30:00 AM
These running dogs of imperialist capitalism don't know what's hit 'em.
It may be a further sign of Chinese hubris, but for what it's worth, persecution of foreign concerns continues apace. New laws are on the drawing board for further controlling and monitoring the activities of non-government organizations. So what, you may say, the Chinese have always maintained tight reins on these potential foreign subversives. Go ask the Catholic Church. Actually, foreign business associations usually stick out of politics, but this time is somewhat different: trade associations may be subject to the same sort of official harassment other organizations operating in China have long experienced such as aid agencies, environmental groups, etc:
Foreign organizations in China, whether or not they are for-profit, tend to not want to stick their necks out on political issues even if their interests are at stake out of fear of official retaliation. Nonprofits in general, especially those working in areas deemed sensitive by the government such as law and education, are hesitant to take a collective position out of fear it would alarm Beijing, according to Anthony Spires, a scholar on civil society at Chinese University of Hong Kong who has met with foreign nonprofits to discuss the draft law.
However, the vagueness of new blanket laws is alarming business groups:
The EU Chamber, in a statement, said that its member companies rely on foreign industry groups, universities and environmental and other nongovernmental groups for information, research, and corporate social responsibility activities. The draft law will reduce the ability and likely willingness of these groups to work in China and that would “subsequently limit both Chinese and foreign businesses from benefiting from the value they add,” chamber President Joerg Wuttke said.

Currently, foreign nonprofit groups have few ways to register legally, causing some to register as businesses or not registering at all. Foreign chambers of commerce have been an exception, with special regulations in place to allow them to register. It’s unclear whether that would change under the new law, given its vague language, legal experts said. Under the current proposal, all foreign nonprofits are required to apply for registration in China or for temporary permits to conduct activities, including issuing grants in the country. Groups would only be permitted to operate one office in China unless granted permission by the State Council, the cabinet.

Chief among the business groups’ concerns is the authority the law gives China’s police, who are generally unfamiliar with the work the business groups do, from trade promotion to lobbying for market access for foreign companies involved in semiconductors, soybeans and software. The draft law also requires that nonprofit groups submit regular work plans and reports to authorities and restricts the numbers of foreign staff, potentially adding to costs for trade and industry NGOs as well as foreign companies that work with foreign NGOs in China, business groups say.
Dumb gweilo (foreign devil) capitalists. A China more confident in its abilities was always going to pull the welcome mat sooner or later after gaining knowledge necessary from foreigners to make a buck. Or so they think. If collateral damage from increasing jingoism and paranoia about foreigners hits foreign chambers of commerce, do you really think China gives a #$%^ ?
Read More

FIFA-Foe-Fum: European (UEFA) World Cup Boycott?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 6/01/2015 01:30:00 AM
If they only knew Adidas' history, they'd know it isn't easily cowed.
Imagine going to a Three Stooges show without Larry, Moe, and Curly. It would be pretty pointless and misleadingly titled besides, right? Well, consider this: how about a World Cup without European footballing powers like France, Italy, Spain, and Germany? It would not be much of a "world" competition just as the American World Series is just two US-based teams competing for that sport's top prize. However, the European football association UEFA is considering just that in light of Sepp Blatter's re-election as FIFA president. OK, so it's a bunch of folks from European football's present-day hinterlands calling for a boycott, but hey, England did invent the sport.

Former English Football Association (FA) Chairman David Bernstein is floating this idea. Whether the rest of the continent would listen to Ye Olde England is another ballgame entirely
Fifa is driven by power and money, and both of these emanate from the World Cup. Thanks to its actions, there are currently two ongoing inquiries into World Cup bids. I distinguish a little between the two – at least the Russian bid is from a real footballing country and a major power in every sense. But the Quatar bid is another kettle of fish entirely. Even at the time, many people around it felt it was a disgrace it won the tournament. Frankly, a country with a tiny population, a climate that is absolutely inappropriate for such play, and a bid that was initially based on summer and has now been switched to winter is laughable. On top of that you have all its alleged human rights abuses. It taints the good name of the tournament.

So the moment of truth has come, and if we in Europe feel as strongly as we say we do, now is the time for action and not more words. In short, Uefa has a duty to walk the walk and seriously consider pulling out of the World Cup. The competition would be fatally weakened without the participation of Uefa and create the pressure for the change we all want.
Pulling out would be a brave decision, indeed. A big decision. But a World Cup without Italy, Spain, France, Germany, England and many others would be a second-class tournament, which nobody would want, and be significantly devalued in the eyes of sponsors.
The current FA head, Greg Dyke, is thinking about the same thing while highlighting the need for other European nations to support the boycott. He, however, suggests that a Latin American boycott may also be in the cards. An event without Europe would be bad enough, but one without Latin powers would be well nigh unthinkable:
Greg Dyke has ruled out a unilateral boycott of future World Cups by the English FA but says he would enthusiastically support any such action taken by Uefa. The FA chairman also understands that most South American countries voted against Sepp Blatter in last Friday’s election and warned concerted action from the two major football continents could effectively scupper a World Cup.

“I am told that most of Europe voted against Blatter and all of Latin America,” Dyke said at Wembley before the FA Cup final. “If that is the case then the two biggest football continents said: ‘We don’t want you, Mr Blatter.’ And those are the two continents that are the World Cup. We won’t be pulling out of anything on our own, because we’re jolly good chaps, because if the FA did that Fifa will just carry on, won’t they? But if Uefa wanted to pull out of the World Cup, we could certainly do it with them.”
I am old enough to remember the 1980 US boycott of the Moscow Summer Olympics and the 1984 Soviet boycott of the Los Angeles Summer Olympics in return. The interesting thing is that present-day sporting quarrels resemble current geopolitics in being not ideologically but commercially driven. Already, the English press is fantasizing about hosting the 2018 event as a replacement for Russia after its original bid was laughed off [1, 2]. Despite no less than Prince William spearheading that campaign, the England bid received 2 out of 22 votes. Money talks, and Blatter has spread the wealth to his African/Asian cronies to ensure the desired results in the past. However, he has gained many powerful enemies in the process.

I smell the blood of an Englishman, indeed.
Read More