Charles Kennedy writes:  The relationship between the U.S. and Venezuela – which has been an icy one for years – took a hit after the Obama administration passed sanctions on individuals high up in the government. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro spun the move to his advantage.

Washington’s move was not the most adroit display of statecraft as it provided a boost to Maduro at a time when his popularity is crumbling under the weight of a decaying economy.

Still, while Maduro steps up his revolutionary rhetoric in public, behind the scenes the core institution of Venezuela’s economy appears to be tamping down its focus on revolution. The new management team at state-owned oil firm PDVSA is trying to professionalize its workforce and its operations. In the past, PDVSA employees were sent to pro-government rallies to support the late President Hugo Chavez. The workers wore red in support of Chavez’s revolution.

PDVSA, headed up by Eulogio del Pino since September 2014, is swapping out the red revolutionary dress in exchange for normal business attire. More importantly, PDVSA is reforming its business practices in an effort to revive flagging oil output.

PDVSA has decided to allow minority partners greater flexibility in using their own rigs and equipment – potentially saving millions of dollars. Company leadership is seeking more private investment by allowing greater outside ownership. Also, thousands of political operatives have been laid off, a sea change for a government that used PDVSA as a political arm for more than a decade.

It is too early to tell if the newfound professional mantra deployed by del Pino will allow PDVSA to resuscitate its oil sector, but the government thinks it is on the right track. Oil production from the Orinoco belt, which holds the vast majority of Venezuela’s 298 billion barrels in reserves, is expected to tick upwards from 1.25 million barrels per day in 2014 to 1.37 million barrels per day by the end of this year.

But it is not as if PDVSA will suddenly transform into a normal oil company. After all, there is still plenty of political meddling from above – the new CFO is a relative of President Maduro’s wife, for example. Eulogio del Pino is making strides at transforming the company, but ultimately he reports to the President. That means he will only be able to go as far as Maduro is willing to let him.

designed by Claudio Munoz

Paul Ausick writes:  In 2014 Tesla Motors sent 4,800 Model S sedans to China. Of those, 2,499 were sold and 2,301 were not. Reports from China dated Monday indicate that the company has fired 30% of its Chinese staff.

Layoffs reportedly began before the Chinese New Year holidays, and they are affecting more than just the sales staff, which apparently has been reduced by half. A report at Chinese website CarNewsChina.com indicates layoffs have occurred in the tech support and procurement departments, as well as marketing, public relations, legal, administrative and marketing systems. Before the firings, Tesla reportedly had 600 employees in China.

In January of this year, Tesla China sold just 120 cars, according to a report at CarNewsChina.com. Reuters reported in February that Tesla CEO Elon Musk “threatened to fire or demote country managers” unless sales picked up. Musk had already noted weak sales in China in a letter to shareholders when the company reported fourth-quarter 2014 results.

The issue is not so much that there are no buyers, but that Tesla has managed to step on its own toes, as well as those of its potential customers. When the company introduced the P85D version of the Model S sedan last October, previous orders for the Model S were cancelled and new orders placed for the new version.

To combat the order cancellations, Tesla raised its order deposit fee of 15,000 yuan (about $2,400) to 50,000 yuan. A second deposit of 250,000 yuan was required when the car was ready to be shipped to China. The Model S costs 648,000 yuan in China (about $103,400).

Chinese buyers balked at the higher fees, as the company’s China office had predicted they would, and orders appear to have dried up. Other reasons for the lack of sales include overly optimistic sales forecasts and shipments of cars from the United States for stores that never opened.

Chinese management suggested selling the cars at 20% discount and using third-party sellers to unload the inventory. Tesla headquarters apparently rejected both suggestions out of hand.

Alexandria Icenhower writes: New research suggests that a single woman’s income can be a factor in whether or not she has an unintended birth. In fact, poor, single women ages 15 to 44 in the U.S. have over five times more unintended births than affluent women.

A comprehensive review of single women’s sexual activity, contraception use, and abortion rates show major trends by income level that directly affect unintended childbearing rates. Since an unintended birth can shape a family for generations, it is important to examine the implications of this income gap and then work to narrow it.

Preventing an unintended birth could allow single mothers “to get more education [and] earn more,” Isabel Sawhill and Joanna Venator concluded in a recent paper.  But too often, low-income women are not provided education about and access to the most effective birth control, which would help prevent these pregnancies.

Furthermore, there are serious financial barriers involved. Abortions for low-income women must be paid for out of pocket, since Medicaid and many private insurers are prohibited from covering them. IAn unintended birth not only has an impact on the single mother, but also on her children. “[T]here are significant and important improvements in the lives of children who would have otherwise been ‘born too soon,’” Sawhill and Venator’s research found. Improvements include “cognitive scores in childhood, high school graduation rates, rates of teen pregnancy, college graduation rates, and lifetime income.”

Sexual activity rates do not vary along class lines. Around two-thirds of women were having sex at each income level. “Policies for abstinence are fighting against the tide,” they argue. Chastity is not the reason more affluent women have fewer unintended pregnancies.

Women with incomes below the federal poverty line were “twice as likely to have had sex without protection” compared to women with incomes four times the poverty line, Reeves and Venator found. The fact that poor women are not using birth control as frequently (or effectively) results in more unplanned pregnancies and contributes to the class gap. They suspect that lack of education about and access to contraception contributes to less effective use.

Poor women are less like to have abortios.

Contraception could reduce unintended birth more than abortion.

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to solve this problem. Education and access are key in every scenario to reducing unintended births. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has made strides in increasing access to contraception, as it covers birth control across all insurance plans. However, women and the medical community need to be better educated about IUDs and implants.

Abortion is more problematic. Besides the moral, political, and personal issues surrounding abortion, there is a wider gap in access to abortion than there is contraception. This problem will not be solved unless women have access to abortion clinics and education about their options.