Water: Public or Private

Shayda Edwards Naficy writesLast month, 1,500 organizers in Thessaloniki, Greece risked arrest, placing unofficial ballot boxes by nightfall on street corners throughout the city. Their bravery paid off, as the next day more than 200,000 residents cast a vote on the pending privatization of their water system. Hundreds of volunteers worked around the clock to tally votes under the watchful eye of international observers. As morning dawned, a crowd gathered to hear the results. Before long, a huge cry of victory rose up: the “no” vote won by a resounding 98 percent. Once again, the people’s choice was clear: keep our water in public hands!

You see, in the face of Greece’s flailing economy, global lenders have put enormous pressure on Thessaloniki to privatize its water supply, arguing that doing so would save the city money through promises of cost-cutting and efficiency measures. And Thessaloniki isn’t alone — communities around the world are feeling the heavy hand of lenders (primarily the World Bank) pushing private water as the answer to their water woes. But the residents of Thessaloniki — like those in Jakarta, Indonesia and Nagpur, India — know that with privatization come rate hikes, empty taps, mass worker layoffs and dangerous health and safety violations.

Indeed, though Thessaloniki’s local government continues to doggedly pursue the private water contract, its efforts were recently dealt a critical blow. Just a few weeks ago, Greece’s highest court made a landmark ruling that private water violates the government’s constitutional obligations to protect peoples’ health and well-being. Campaigners in Thessaloniki are expected to launch a new legal action immediately, seizing this precedent to save their water from a corporate takeover.

Such successes are part of the growing wave of grassroots resistance to the threat posed by global water corporations and the institutions – namely, the World Bank — that support them. And Corporate Accountability International is in the thick of it: helping pull back the shiny veneer of the World Bank’s “success” stories to expose the truth. We are providing tools, platforms and resources to help communities protect their most basic precious resource from corporate control.

Successes in Greece and Indonesia demonstrate that civil society wants to keep water in public hands. And yet the World Bank continues its dogmatic promotion of privatization as the solution to our global water crisis — even when evidence clearly shows otherwise.  For instance, it is heavily promoting its project in Nagpur, India as a “success” to be replicated in communities elsewhere in India and throughout the world. This is astounding, given the dire reality on the ground. From extraordinary fees charged to those who can least afford them — and the threat of water cut-offs when they can’t pay the price — to pumping in dirty water from a reservoir filled with waste, and lengthy delays and sky-high cost overruns, the project has been a failure any way you look at it.

Fortunately, there are many groups and people in India who are exposing the truth behind the World Bank’s PR spin. We are working with our allies in India to debunk the World Bank’s claims of success. For example, we’ve partnered with Jammu Anand at the Nagpur Municipal Corporation Employees Union to shine a light on the true cost of the World Bank’s Nagpur project. Together, we launched a joint media release reaching more than 2 million people in over a dozen major press outlets in India and beyond. This media attention ensures that communities targeted by the World Bank for privatization have the information they need to resist the World Bank’s efforts. It also ensures that those who can influence the World Bank to change course on water are gaining a deeper understanding of the full scope of harm caused by poster-child projects like Nagpur.

Should people – or global corporations – control our water?

Water

Germany Fines UBS $300 Million

Our correspondent Andreas Frank writes:  UBS AG booked a near $300 million charge in the second quarter mainly to settle claims it helped wealthy Germans to dodge taxes, the latest in a string of lawsuits that have targeted its private banking business.

Back in late 2012, German state prosecutors in the city of Bochum begun an investigation into UBS clients on suspicion of personal tax evasion. UBS were just one of several Swiss banks that formed part of the probe and it took the opportunity in its latest quarter to finally settle with the German authorities and resolve the issue.
The Zurich-based lender’s offices in Germany were searched last year as part of a probe sparked by a CD with details of UBS clients that was purchased by the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW).

UBS, which faces a separate probe in Germany and similar probes in Belgium and France, took a 254 million Swiss franc charge and said it aimed to have all its German clients come clean by year-end, from more than 95 percent.

Yet the charge is only one of a slew of legal issues with which the bank is contending. It hiked its provisions against future litigation to nearly 2 billion francs but warned this might still not be enough to cover possible fines and charges.

The bank has taken a strategic decision to scale back its risky investment banking operations in favour of private banking and asset management, but remains under threat from possible past market transgressions.

The settlement in the German tax case comes less than a week after a 15-month French inquiry into UBS escalated, with the bank put under formal investigation on allegations it laundered the proceeds of tax evasion.

UBS was ordered to stump up a 1.1 billion euro ($1.5 billion) guarantee payment, which it called “unprecedented and unwarranted” and will appeal.

Switzerland effectively ended its long-cherished banking secrecy in May by agreeing to join other countries in sharing tax information, once a standard method of sharing is agreed.

Meanwhile, Swiss banks have spent years attempting to clear their accounts of undeclared accounts under massive international crackdowns on tax evaders.
The legal problems have overshadowed a near two-year overhaul to shrink UBS’ investment bank, abandoning riskier activities in its bond trading arm.  The ultimate goal of its restructuring drive is bigger dividends. UBS aims to return at least half of its profits to shareholders if it can maintain capital – which stands at 13.5 percent under new global rules – at or above current levels through to the end of 2014 and achieve a ratio of 10 percent when applying its own stress tests.

Profit at its private bank plunged 43 percent on the cost of the German settlement. The unit, which is measured by its ability to win fresh funds from new and existing clients, took in 10.7 billion francs in net new money.

Swiss bank UBS saw 15.4 percent growth in its wealth management business for 2013, firmly securing its position as world leader in the sector, with close to $2 trillion of assets under management.

If growth continues at its current rate, the bank – which currently runs $1.96 trillion – will become the first wealth manager to hit the $2 trillion “milestone”. This would mark a transition in the scale of global wealth management.
Database UBS Fined

Infrastructure Update One Pay Phone at a Time

 

Susan Crawford writes: The homely pay phones of New York City are ghostly, graffiti-scarred reminders of an earlier era. But they could play a role in the city’s digital environment if New York gets its priorities straight. The crucial step is for the city to treat these pay phones as it does its bridges or trees: like basic infrastructure, not just opportunities for short-term revenue.

Last week, New York received bids from companies interested in replacing the nearly 10,000 payphones throughout the five boroughs with upgraded, attractive structures. The city is calling for free public Wi-Fi, among other amenities, to be provided by the winning bidder.  The city already has free Wi-Fi hot spots in many of its parks, run by AT&T Inc. or Cablevision Systems Corp. The problem is that those hot spots don’t offer very good service: They are connected to low-capacity lines, making anything other than slowly downloading e-mail a frustrating experience.

The city has an opportunity to use its pay phones to change this picture. The pay-phone franchise deal should be part of a larger commitment by the city to connect every snazzy new pay-phone structure to reasonably priced open fiber lines regulated by the city. The successful bidder’s obligation to provide truly public (and free) Wi-Fi hot spots in exchange for the opportunity to advertise its brand would be a winning combination for citizens and visitors alike.

Only with fiber will the new structures be able to handle data-heavy uploads and downloads as well as low-bandwidth e-mail checking. Result: the ability for people standing near the new pay phones to be part of the 21st-century Internet. Cities around the globe have free Wi-Fi; it is a standard utility, like public toilets and a functioning public transport system. If we do this right, tourists and residents won’t need to subscribe to Comcast in order to watch or upload video — whether for entertainment or emergency purposes. (Another entry on the wish list: charging stations for handheld devices.)

New York will need to make a trade-off. Right now, the city is hoping this project will be a moneymaker right off the bat, and it is planning no investments or contributions of its own. That may not be feasible.

These new kiosks will be basic infrastructure for the city. They should be beacons of information for tourists and neighborhoods, stations of light and power for all of us (powered by solar energy, if possible, in preparation for the next Hurricane Sandy), and homes of ample, free connectivity. That will take the city’s collaboration. The city’s priority should be its long-term health and sustainability rather than its short-term profits.

WiFi for Every LIving Creature

 

How Financial Advisors Approach Women Clients

 

M. P.Dunleavey writre:  Imagine that you work for a financial company. You’ve plowed through stacks of research showing that women — who are increasingly educated and affluent — could be a big source of revenue for you. Now what?  Do you paint the reception area a nice shade of coral? Put handbag hooks on the bathroom doors? Provide sensitivity training to your staff?

If you’re thinking that it can’t be that hard to bring female customers in the door, let me bring you up to speed: Women control trillions of dollars of wealth in the United States, yet as clients, they pose a challenge to Wall Street’s traditional way of doing business.

Every year at its national conference, for example, TD Ameritrade offers a seminar for advisers on working with women as clients, and it’s always jam-packed.  This session is attended mostly by men, and they’re struggling.  Some are thrown by women’s high question-asking quotient, she said; many male advisers wonder whether they should just stay out of the way and have women deal with women.

Research shows that women as clients don’t necessarily prefer to work with female advisers — any more than they want pink-themed websites.  Women don’t need different products or services.  Mutual funds and that work for men ought to be fine for women, too. But women need to be approached differently than men do.

Companies know this, yet there’s a frustrating lack of agreement about how to go about it. Companies like Merrill Lynch and Vanguard lean toward what I’ll call a more gender-agnostic approach, focusing more on a client’s individual situation. TD Ameritrade, Ameriprise, Barclays and Pax World Investments are among those that seem to be trying to embrace a financial style that is more overtly friendly to women, like companies that focus on women as leaders.

Vanguard learned through a two-year study, many women prefer advisers to focus on life goals, and not just on mutual funds and other investments.  Likewise at Merrill Lynch, there’s a conviction that gender “can be a distraction in financial planning,” said Michael Liersch, head of behavioral finance at Merrill Lynch Wealth Management. To that end, the company is training advisers to use a proprietary tool called the Investor Personality Assessment to give advisers a more objective way to evaluate each client’s goals..

A survey of 6,000 people in the United States, Britain China, India, Singapore and Hong Kong, suggests that women don’t necessarily lack moxie, skill or interest in money. But they’re often turned off by how money is handled in a mostly male world of finance.

Many women today prefer companies and advisers with gender smarts. That means being able to field questions on virtually all aspects of a woman’s life, understanding how time-constrained most women feel, and not taking a one-size-fits-all-women approach to planning.

So what approach is best for women — and how can Wall Street accelerate its efforts to adjust to their needs? Finance has a long and hidebound history, and it may well be necessary to take a traditional approach to get the ball rolling faster.

How about giving advisers a bonus when they bring in more women as clients?  If coral-colored reception areas do the trick, great. But for the sake of creating financial parity at long last, I’m inclined to think there’s nothing like a carrot to get people moving.

Women and Money

 

Diversity in Tech?

Evan Charles writes:  Our technology and innovation economy isn’t doing a great job of recruiting, hiring or promoting women. And by ‘not doing a great a job,’ I mean it’s failing.

By most estimates, fewer than 30 percent of all tech and computer jobs are held by women as of 2014. The further up the management and leadership ladder you look, the more it resembles an old boys’ club. That’s an especially troubling reality for an industry, which believes that decisions such as hiring should be analytically driven, and merit-based.

The business world is chock full of studies and data which show that diversity in hiring and management is profitable. Diverse teams are more creative, more energetic and productive.  Not only is diversity better for business, it’s morally correct.

But for various reasons, diversity hasn’t yet fully taken real root in tech companies. Sewing diversity into small technology startups is especially important because small startups become large global players more quickly than ever. And corporate cultures endure.

Companies that start with a real commitment to diversity are likely to stay that way. Companies that grow without those principles, by contrast, are far less likely to be course-corrected – even by savvy management.

And let’s be clear. Since most – and some economists would say all – new jobs in the United States are created by new startups, it’s simply not good enough to have a strongly worded diversity statement, or to simply blog about it.

Startups – and especially those which see themselves as future business and economic leaders – have to model best behavior. They must recruit, pay to train, reach in hiring and promote qualified women.  Because such commitment may cost extra hours and dollars, the venture capital investors who fund tech startups have an obligation too. If early funders insist on diversity in coding teams and boardrooms, entrepreneurs will have to do it. Investors are often too lax on technology wunderkinds because they want to ‘win the deal’ and the results, in diversity at least, are evident.

Once entrepreneurial leaders and early investors insist on gender and other diverse backgrounds, demand for talent will increase supply. More women will take computer science classes and enroll in coding camps when they know businesses want, need and value what they offer. Confidence will follow.  So what can a tech startup do to increase gender equity in their own offices and industry-wide? Here are four suggestions:

1. Establish a scholarship for a promising woman at a coding camp or sponsor a student directly.  Amanda Cheung was a designer at Dockyard, an agency that builds mobile and Web applications. The company sponsored her tuition-in-full to attend Launch Academy, the coding school which I co-founded. Following graduation, Amanda was able to transition into a developer role, where she still works.  Tuition at coding camps varies but investing in diversity at the building-block level speaks directly to commitment and will have tangible results – fostering more trained women developers in the talent pool.

2. Set company hiring goals and attach accountability.  Making it a company mandate to hire, retain and promote a workforce that is just 5 percent higher than the industry average of 30 percent would be great progress. Linking those goals to leadership and Board reviews – and bonuses, for example – would be even more impressive.

3. If your investors don’t have a diversity policy for their investments, ask them why.  Showing investors that diversity and equality are important to your company is a great idea. More diverse companies tend to make more money.  Just as investors can influence the companies they back, the reverse is likewise true.

4. Get involved  Don’t just lament that local colleges’ computer science programs or coding camps aren’t graduating enough women. Go ask these programs what your startup can do to get more women in the classrooms. Then ask for resumes of female graduates – interview them, get their perspective.

If tech-savvy entrepreneurs are smart and resourceful enough to disrupt entire industries, they are smart enough to fix the gender equity problems in their offices. The fact that they haven’t yet may say more about their motivation than their ability.

Women in High Tech

Using a State as an Economic Laboratory in the US

 

Steven Hansen writes: Economic theory is interesting. There never has been “scientific” proof documenting how any theory performs against the wide range of economic dynamics because there is no experimental control sample for comparison. Like most of us, I have opinions (based on theory) but I do not confuse opinions with data or facts.

This past week, everyone’s “love him or hate him” economist Paul Krugman wrote:

Two years ago Kansas embarked on a remarkable fiscal experiment: It sharply slashed income taxes without any clear idea of what would replace the lost revenue. Sam Brownback, the governor, proposed the legislation — in percentage terms, the largest tax cut in one year any state has ever enacted — in close consultation with the economist Arthur Laffer. And Mr. Brownback predicted that the cuts would jump-start an economic boom — “Look out, Texas,” he proclaimed.

But Kansas isn’t booming — in fact, its economy is lagging both neighboring states and America as a whole. Meanwhile, the state’s budget has plunged deep into deficit, provoking a Moody’s downgrade of its debt.

Yah, Kansas is not booming but consider the following and let’s see where these items might take us:

  • the debt in Kansas is not much worse than any other states.
  • more than two states bordered Kansas;
  • how fast does any economic theory work? Should it be judged in the short, medium or long term?
  • raising income taxes removes money from consumers.

There is no question that based on employment, Kansas is doing worse than its neighbors (about the same as Missouri) and the average for Kansas and all its neighbors looks to be slightly below the national average. Remember that employment is a lagging indicator of economic growth.

GDP growth for Kansas appears also be very near the national average – but GDP growth is less than 3 of its 4 neighbors.

If raising taxes were an answer – the USA economy should be flying. You cannot condemn a single element of an economy without examining all elements. I am not for or against raising taxes per se on a state level. My opinion would be conditional when judged against all the other economic dynamics.

Consider also that the Federal Government has different monetary dynamics than the states (being a sovereign monetary issuer) – and the examples given in Professor Krugman’s oped were based on Federal Government experience.

The individual states in America, like countries in the EU,  are potential economic laboratories. States should be encouraged to leave the trodden trail and experiment. Most experiments end in failure, but without failures – our understanding of economic dynamics is not enriched. Professor Krugman is the mouthpiece for liberal partisan politics, and partisan politics have no place in “factual” economic discussions.

 

Piketty’s Statistics Can Be Questioned, But…

his conclusions can not be, write Dan Lieberman.  Capitalism is doomed if the spread between the very, very wealthy and the rest of us is too great.

Questioning the statistics in Thomas Piketty’s best selling book with intent to undermine his thesis, is futile. Even if Piketty’s alert to the economics community that returns on investment have exceeded the real growth of wages and output, which means that the stock of capital is rising faster than overall output, may not be exact, the criticism has neglected to upset the conclusion – severe income inequality and inequitable wealth distribution doom the capitalist system to an eventual collapse, and a more narrow distribution keeps it going.    Piketty’s Statistics

Income Inequality

 

Viv White: Australian Entrepreneur

 

Viv White has an impressive thirty-year history of international work in educational reform, research, policy and practice, and is the co-founder and co-managing director of Big Picture Education.

Before Big Picture came into the picture, Viv was the CEO of the Australian National Schools Network and the Victorian Schools Innovation Commission. Through this work with schools, Viv could see that there was something fundamental in the way that schools were organised that was getting in the way of student engagement and deeper learning, despite the best efforts of teachers and school leaders and particularly in disadvantaged and regional areas.

With this in mind, she co-founded Big Picture Education Australia in 2006, with the goal of setting up one “Greenfield” public school by 2011; designed from the ground up, with the key philosophy of working with “one student at a time, in a community of learners”.

Now, in 2014, there are four Greenfield Big Picture schools across Australia and 40 Big Picture Academies and programs, as well as partnerships in New Zealand, the USA and the UK.

The Big Picture schools are constantly reviewing, researching and evaluating their practice with the aim of serving as demonstration sites for other schools around the country looking to redesign the way they function for 21st century learning.

With the help of key funding bodies and Australia’s top educational academics, Big Picture Education is disseminating the achievements of these groundbreaking schools to influence the broader debate about how we can make our public schools great.

One of the major successes of Viv’s work has been negotiating with, and working within, public education systems. She has worked to deliver millions of dollars in additional state education funding for innovative schools and programs re-engaging Australian students, from Launceston in Tasmania to Kalumbaru in far north Western Australia.

Viv has also been successful in forging models to link philanthropy with public schools, leveraging seed funding from philanthropy into significant and long-term educational investment.

As well as managing the organisation, Viv still spends a large portion of her time coaching and working with schools and students on-site. She continues to pursue her passion for energising and engaging students and teachers across Australia and the world.

One key piece of learning Viv has encountered over the span of her career is that real change comes from below, not above.

“If you engage, listen and give ownership to local communities and stakeholders you can achieve real change that is stronger than the vagaries of political mood.”

Viv White’s Strategies for Success

  1. Go wherever the interest is.
  2. Maintain and tend to your networks.
  3. Always think about who (else) should be at the table.
  4. In any situation you need to address the people, the content and the process to move forward effectively.
  5. Research, advocate and disseminate the ideas, practice and innovation.

 

Bank Regulation: Why?

With the Assange dcoument about bank regulations being released, it is good to go back to Elizabeth Warren.  Here she is discussing her role on COP, the Congressional Oversight Panel to which Harry Reid, Speaker of the Senate,  appointed he when she was teaching at Harvard.

We forget what the difference between banks and insurance companies and other public companies is.   Banks handle other peoples’ money. Not theirs.

Oversight of banks is in the interest of the public good.  Because bankers act like they do not have the public responsibility, they reset oversight.

Here is Warren on the nerve this comimittee was sriking when they asked members of th ebaning community to tesify. (COP did not have subpoena power, so people could come or not as theywished.)

Hank Greenberg, by then the fromer CEO of AIG, called Warren and demanded to see her in her offices at Harvard. He did not dispute the conclusions of the COP: the wild risk-taking at AIG and its risk to the entire economy. Instead he wanted to talk about why he was under-appreciated as a great CEO.

When he was unable to persuade Warren that AIG had been a messy risk tangle under his leadership, he turned his anger on Eliot Spitzer, the former Atotrney General of New York State. When that didn’t get him anywhere where gave up.

Warren’s conclusion: executives of large financial institutions have very different world views than other people.  If these companies did not have in trust so much money that was not theirs, this egocentrism might not be so consequential.   But we have given banks an advantage. They get, manage and profit from other peoples’ money and they are considered so indispensable to the economy that we will not let them fail when they deserve to. At least if we don’t let them fail, we should put some fo their leaders in jail.

Bankers Behind Bars?