text:
Archbishop's lecture on the future of banking standards
Wednesday 25th June 2014Archbishop Justin Welby delivered a lecture on 'The future of banking standards and ethics' at New City Agenda, House of Lords, Westminster, Tuesday 17 June.
First of all, I am very grateful for the invitation from John McFall to speak today and to have the chance to share what I hope will not be too random (they may be slightly random) thoughts about where we have got to and where we are.
I want to go back first of all to just remind ourselves of essentially what the Banking Standards Commission did. It was set up for six months and lasted two years, which was increasingly problematic for those of us who were serving on it all kinds of other things came onto it. It had two crossbench members, one genuine crossbencher and myself, and consisted of five Peers and five Commons.
Very quickly after it began, it was asked to do the pre-legislative scrutiny for the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, and it was described in much less complimentary terms but the politest way of saying it was that it was one of the most complex pieces of legislation that had ever come across the floor of the House of Lords. Those of us who were there remember slogging through that. Most of it was cross references to other Bills. We did the pre-legislative scrutiny for that and that was our first report, which made recommendations to strengthen the proposed legislation as well as suggesting further necessary measures to enhance the stability of the banking system, themes to which I am going to come back.
The second report, 'Banking reform: towards the right structure', considered the Government's response to our first report and somewhat unusually it proposed amendments further to improve the Bill in a number of key areas, many of which have now been accepted. The vast majority of those amendments ended up in the Bill.
Our third and fourth reports focused on specific examples of the banking system that were especially concerning, and, again, I will refer back to those later. One of them was a report called 'Proprietary trading', and we looked at one particular banking activity and its impact on the culture and standards in banks. Proprietary trading is that process of the banks trading entirely for their own book and not for anyone else, not for a client. It was the key thing that Volcker in the States under the Volcker Rule said should not happen in banks that were legislated for and regulated by the central banking authority and in some sense protected by the central banking authority.
We welcomed the breadth of the review into proprietary trading that the Government amendments announced, but I am not sure how much further it has gone, and when I have a look at where we are, that is one of the subjects that is on my mind.
The next report, 'An accident waiting to happen: the failure of HBOS', was a real page-turner. It was in fact a real page-turner and I do recommend it as reading, and not just late at night to help you sleep, which I have to say some other bits of the reports could be very useful for. It looked at why HBOS failed and the key thing in that for me was HBOS did not fail because of casino banking but because of bad banking. It did two things that were generally reckoned as errors. It borrowed short and lent long. In other words, it took a very significant amount of its money, over 50% of its deposits came from highly volatile wholesale funds in the money markets, and it lent to commercial property and, secondly, it lent a very large sum of money to people who could not pay it back. If you do that in banking, on the whole you run into a certain amount of trouble. It was a very, very good bit of work, led exclusively by Lord Turnbull, and it got more and more complex as time went on. He started off with a folder under his arm and ended up towing a suitcase everywhere he went with him, and that was an indication of the amounts of paper it generated.
It did not make specific recommendations, but it looked at the impact and the culture of poor banking decisions and the lack of consequences that there were in the banking industry prior to 2008.
The final report - the thick one - 'Changing banking for good' - outlined the radical reform required to improve standards across the banking industry and presented government, the regulators and industry with a package of recommendations which, taken together, were intended to raise standards and drive positive cultural change, ultimately changing banking for good.
There have been some good developments since then. The vast majority of the legislative recommendations were taken up in one way or another, sometimes after a little bit of debate. Payday lending, which was one of the areas that came out at the time and was referred to in some of the regulatory side, has declined significantly. As you will all know, a very high proportion of payday lenders have not applied for a licence to carry on working and on the other side we see the beginning of movement in credit unions. Of course I am concerned, and this has a lot to do with the future of the City, the future of the financial services industry in this country, that if you knock payday lenders on the head before there is a viable alternative, in many parts of the country, the only place people can go is loan sharks. Those are the criminal lenders as opposed to the payday lenders about whom we may argue amongst ourselves, but I would argue are charging usurious rates of interest but are perfectly legal and overseen. They do not send people round with baseball bats. One of the worries at the moment is if payday lending declines very rapidly and credit unions do not take up the slack, where will people turn? There is a danger of a gap in the market. It is going to take ten years for credit unions to become an effective provider of low-cost funds. They have grown enormously in the last 12 to 18 months but that remains an issue to be faced.
A second development since the report has been a growing focus on shadow banking, which was alluded to in Banking Standards Commission reports but has really become much more something that people are looking at since then. The Governor of the Bank of England yesterday in an article in the Financial Times - which bears reading as it is certainly a very striking article, and that he writes so clearly on it - talks about a number of things to do with the shadow banking which, incidentally, were picked up very informatively and well on BBC Radio Four this morning. He talks about the need for fire breaks between shadow banking and the main commercial banking industry; that shadow banking, by its nature, is an area of significant potential risk, and that those firebreaks need to be in place.
That awakens echoes of one of the problems that we were looking at on the Banking Standards Commission, which is the cross-contamination of cultures. The culture of banking became contaminated in commercial banks, which were the ones that ran into the most serious trouble and caused the most fear and most disruption in the markets through the impact of the culture of the investment banks. We do need to pay attention to that. When Volcker himself gave evidence to the Commission, I think John would agree, it was one of the most memorable moments of the entire thing. It was a magisterial look at 60 years of the banking industry. He was the one who spoke of cultural contamination as one of the biggest risks around. Cultural contamination is not something you deal with particularly by regulation, but the whole idea of the ring-fence, of separating investment and commercial banking, of the plain vanilla banking being protected from other influences, arose out of that evidence on cross-contamination.
Mark Carney yesterday raised this issue again implicitly in his excellent article in the Financial Times. He wrote secondly about the need for resilience in shadow banking. Banking, as we know, is all about confidence. No bank can pay its depositors back, that is an old fact; it relies on sufficiently few asking for their money at any one moment that nobody knows there is a problem. If confidence breaks - and a break in confidence in shadow banking would certainly be infectious across the entire financial services industry - you get back into the situation we faced in 2008 with perfectly safe organisations like money market funds seeing runs because of the general fear in the markets. Mark Carney raises this very effectively. He talks about the old demons rising from the deep - that is my phrase, not his - but of incentives, liquidity and margins that admit the need for a framework that is sufficiently flexible to monitor new forms of banking. This picks up something that was key to the Banking Standards Commission report, which is the markets will always move faster than the regulators; always, and therefore regulation has to be immensely flexible and quick on its feet. You cannot put a structure in place and say that is that; we have buttoned that down, we have sorted it out. It will not work. This new interest in shadow banking amongst regulators illustrates exactly that point and calls for a framework that can monitor emerging alternative sources of finance as much as existing established ones.
In the Financial Services Act, which set up the present regulatory system a year earlier, there were amendments brought forward particularly to deal with the regulation of direct person-to-person lending intermediated through the Web and that was a very good example of something that has grown immensely rapidly but still lacks effective oversight and regulation.
There have been a number of what I am going to rather rudely describe as - am I? I always get into trouble when I do this - challenges, I am not going to be so rude, challenges in the regulatory system and across the process. I want to pick up on three or four particularly. First of all, leverage and capital adequacy. Leverage is the very quick and dirty calculation of the amount of equity there is to the amount of debt there is in a bank. At one point in one of the major banks, RBS in early 2008, it had 2% of capital to 98% of debt. That means you make a very small mistake and you are bust; if you make a big mistake, you are very, very, very bust.
Lehman was geared at 1% to 99% when it failed. The Banking Standards Commission recommended 4%. The banking industry pushed very hard and the Government settled on 3%.
Many of us on the Banking Standards Commission felt that was too low and continue to feel it is too low. Pressure from the banking industry in the European system within the Eurozone has overturned the recommendations in the Liikanen Report and again there has been a push back on the level of leverage. Banks in the UK at the moment are running at around 3.5%-4%. In the States they are talking about aiming for 5%-6%. The economic impact of that is obviously to restrict the banks' appetite for lending. They have to have more capital. They can either do it by raising more capital, which is quite difficult, or by reducing their loan book. Those are the only two ways in which you do it. Reducing your loan book, if you have a fixed amount of capital that you have to have, you may as well make the most you can from it so necessarily you lend to the high-risk/high-return clients and particularly mortgages get squeezed. It is a conundrum.
The alternative under Basel III is weighted capital adequacy ratios in which different categories of asset are ascribed different levels of capital so the very high risk get very high levels of capital and the low risk get much lower ones. Mortgage would get very little. There are two problems with that. First of all, categories do not work very well. In 2010 loans to Greece were ascribed the same risk category as loans to the UK Government or the US Government, which clearly the markets would not have entirely agreed with.
Secondly, our investigations in the Banking Standards Commission showed that there was a total mismatch between different banks weighting of how they defined into which category of capital weighting banks put their assets. The banks did it on an internal black box system. The regulators accepted the black box. There were not nearly enough regulators to audit the entire system. You would basically have had to have loan monitoring groups in each bank as big as the banks' own loan monitoring group to keep up with what was going on. The result was the weighted capital adequacy was completely inadequate as an effective objective measure of the safety of banks.
Thus you had these two. You have the more sophisticated one which is difficult to trust because you are not quite sure what is going on and you have the less sophisticated one that drives people to make riskier loans in order to make more money. We did not square that circle, but I want to signal it and that it has not been dealt with. Underlying that as well is pressure on the ring-fence. One of the things we forecast at the time is that there would be pressure on the ring-fence with banks saying we want more activities within the ring-fence and fewer activities outside the ring-fence, not always for the good of the client necessarily.
Funnily enough, when I was Group Treasurer of an oil company I never remember it being particularly difficult to call two separate banks to get different services but maybe life has got more complicated. That pressure on the ring-fence is showing itself particularly in the United States and in Europe. I am less aware of evidence here. There is evidence of it in the United States with pressure through the lobbyists in the Congress and in Europe, to which I have already referred, with pressure on the Commission.
All that links in to the elephant in the room which we have not dealt with and show no signs of dealing with which is "too big to fail". The trouble with too big to fail is that it is also too big to regulate. For me, along with Volcker, the other most memorable moment - and I do not know if John remembers it as well as I do - was a former chairman of UBS, a clearly broken man, with a deep sense of personal failure over what he had done as UBS ran into trouble, someone you could not accuse of not taking responsibility; if anything he had taken far too much. We very deliberately did not push him hard. I felt a deep sense of regret at seeing someone so talented who clearly was so shattered by the events, but I asked at one point that as we all do, and I expect everyone in this room does from time to time, when you have had a failure - and I have had many - you wake up in the night and you think, "If only I had done this; if only I had done that", what did he think, and he said, "To keep it simple". His memorable answer was you can have a big simple bank and run it well or a small complex bank and run it well. You cannot have a big, complex bank. For me it was one of the great openings that changed my mind about how the report should go.
Too big to fail is about that. If it is too big to manage, it is too big to regulate. If it is too big to fail, it will be too big to manage. The figures we have - and I am going back probably six months here so I have not seen anything more recent - is the estimated subsidy to the banking system in terms of the implicit guarantee by the British Government on the major banks is, by the banks' own calculations, worth about £25 to £30 billion a year. Imagine what that would do in any other industry in this country. It has to be there because we cannot afford a bank to go under because it would take everything else with it. Failure is ultimately contagious. I think that we have still really not dealt with too big to fail. I think it is going to take a lot longer, but my hope would be that it is a problem that remains front and centre in people's minds. You will never stop banks failing. Disasters will happen. We saw that with the Co-op.
The issue is not how you stop it, because in the end you will not, it may take 20 or 30 years but when it happens, it happens, and the impact of financial failure, as we see today is a much longer time before economies return to proper progress. Confidence is much more affected than raw economic production and output. A failure of confidence subverts everything else you do and is intangible. I think that is the big issue. I am not sure we have cracked how we should do it. There are different political views on breaking up banks, all kinds of things. I am not commenting on that. We can discuss it in the Q&A. In the struggles, so not failures, not successes, but the struggles as to where I see we are now in terms of building a healthy City in the future, the culture and wealth culture continues to be a major challenge.
I was talking to the head of a major bank, not a British bank, a foreign bank 11 months ago last summer and he very kindly had given me a drink and it was in the evening and in vino veritas sort of stuff and he said, "Well, you know the culture has changed completely. Do you know we have scarcely got anyone in this bank paid more than £3 million a year"! I can tell you at the Church of England we have almost no vicars in ordinary parishes paid more than £22,000 a year. I do not know what he would say to that. It would be a rounding error! Few people paid over £3 million a year. That says something about the wealth culture because these are not entrepreneurs who have invented their own companies; these are managers, and it is a very different game. To build up something yourself, the Googles of this world, the Microsofts, the JCBs, that kind of thing, I think that is worth a huge amount; you have changed the world. A manager is a very important job, a manager of a bank is an incredibly responsible job, but it is not quite the same thing. All the big banks are still struggling with this, as we know, from the news over the last few months, particularly around bonuses. I want to say very deliberately they are struggling with it despite the courageous and determined efforts of their chief executives. I have spent a lot of time with some of the chief executives over the last few months and I am quite genuinely convinced of their determination to change the culture of their banks, but it is a very long-term and very, very difficult process indeed. If you have 30% of your profits coming from investment banking, it is difficult simply to say we are going to change our salary structure so it does not reward investment banking. It is very difficult to do that and it has considerable dangers for the future of your organisation.
But, as time goes by, and we are now in 2014, it is six years since the crisis, and in many dealing rooms, fewer than half of the dealers will have been in post the last time there was a major run on the bank, and that has a massive effect on culture. As time goes by the impetus for cultural change diminishes. Over the last couple of years an enormous amount of parliamentary time has been spent deliberating the legislative response to the financial crisis, the worst in living memory and one we are still living with, our economy has recovered to where it was in 2007 and thank heavens is going well and that is a wonderful bit of news, in terms of total GDP, but it has taken far longer to get back there than it did after 1929. The reason for that is that 1929 was an economic crisis and this is a financial crisis.
I come back to my point about confidence, and confidence comes back to culture, and although we have made significant progress on the structural and regulatory aspects of banking reform, with the exceptions of the ones I have referred to, at the time of the report, one of the things that a number of us were saying was that if we think that by changing the law we have solved the problems we are profoundly mistaken. Moses tried it and it did not work then and it has not worked well since. Indeed, more often than not, and I am aware I am saying this to a bunch of legislators, the most difficult things to legislate for are the most important, if we want to see radical transformation. It is for that reason that I want to conclude by going back to the process of values-based vision.
I am sure that hearing a clergyman suggesting that business decisions should be led by values is not a huge surprise - at least I hope it is not - but I want to suggest that the values we are talking about are not those of the Vicar of Dibley or Postman Pat's vicar, Reverend Green I think it was. The "wouldn't it be nice if we were nicer" kind of approach. I am not talking about values in that sense. I am talking about the kind of values that have to be intrinsic in the way a society and an economy works, based on substantial and substantive research and on philosophical - and you would expect me to say this - and theological interrogation about the kind of social system we want, which for me comes back to what I would call Christian social teaching.
Having seen first-hand what happens when a country develops a monocrop economy during my many visits to the oil regions in Nigeria and very strong knowledge of Nigeria, I know and we all know that one industry, even financial services, cannot carry an economy on its own, but we remain in an economy where the veins and arteries are somewhat clogged. The money is not flowing as it should, savings have not risen as they could and particularly the most productive area of many European economies, particularly in Germany, the small and middle-sized companies is still struggling to raise long-term and secure capital. That is a failure of our financial markets, and what is more important is it has a deep impact on the way in which our society works because it makes us far too reliant on far too narrow a base.
For that reason I am very supportive, as has been said before, of the work being done by Sir Richard Lambert on trying to create a new culture. I am going to finish in one minute with a final suggestion just to make myself look suitably stupid: what is needed? A third approach other than raw markets or the utopianism into which we often decline.
A quote from a book written by a friend of mine called Paul Dembinski and another Italian economist, both of them Catholic, called Simona Beretta, says this: "Between the idealistic ideas of 'spontaneous markets' and the 'spontaneous strive for the Common Good' [ie raw markets and utopianism], a third, intermediary position appears as a realistic avenue. The crisis has shown that mitigation of systemic risk requires both elements: the external discipline of markets and law, and a high moral stance and self-restraint of actors. In the years preceding the financial crisis, both elements were largely missing."
Writing in 1948, François Perroux, an overtly Christian French economist, identified that capitalism in the sense of the free market economy is not self-sufficient and needs to be supported by a moral framework which it will, paradoxically, tend to destroy. That is the key point. Perroux warned about this paradox which he saw as a congenital weakness of capitalism.
All parts of the City still accept a values-based agenda on the idea of the general interest rather than the common good. General interest is the aggregation of all individual self-centred interest, but of those who are participants in the economy, and it is part of classic economic theory, that means it excludes the 50% who are not part of what is crudely called the contributing part of the economy. Acceptance that there is enough, acceptance of an economy that there is such a thing as enough, a high enough profit, and above that is the duty of gratuity is one of the things argued for both by the previous Pope and the present one. It is the basis for trust and trust is the basis for safe contract and effective reciprocity in the markets.
I was hearing this morning from someone who quoted at me Rockefeller. When asked how he had become the richest man (allowing for inflation) in human history and what he saw as "enough" he said "always a little bit more". I countered that with NM Rothschild who was asked how he had made all his money and why he was so successful and he said "I always left something on the table". Which is most likely to lead to a moral society, a society in which you can trust contract?
St John Chrysostom said this in Constantinople in the Fourth Century: "Not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs."
And finally Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 58: "A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule!"
Thank you.


text:
Coffee Service
Music & Games
Bulk Vending
ATMs & Kiosks
Meetings & Events
Names in the News
Vend Product News
Bulk Vending and Crane Products
Small Business News
Video Content
Press Releases
Classified Ads
Buy a Classified Ad
e-Newsletter Signup
Bookstore Sales
About Vending Times
Media Kits
Editorial Calendars
Circulation Data
Contact Us
WEST CHESTER, PA -- MEI said it is building an online community open to all users of MEI Easitrax vending management software. The Easitrax support center's primary goal is to connect operators, so they can share their experiences with using vending management software to improve route efficiency and profitability. The site also provides operators with an additional line of communication to MEI.
The secure Web portal allows users to create their own profiles and communicate through direct mail messages and an interactive forum. The forum features discussions on key topics of concern to operators using vending management software, including inventory management, forecasting, pre-kitting, reporting and cash accountability.
Additionally, MEI will provide users ongoing access to resources and tools intended to maximize their investment in vending management software. Operators can also use the portal to exchange information in order to enhance their use of Easitrax features and review resources, including articles, manuals and release notes developed and updated by MEI. They can also upload files too large to email directly to MEI, subscribe to product alerts and download full software, individual files and DEX plug- ins.
Current Easitrax customers can access the new portal by logging onto easitrax.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The debate between Bruce Berkowitz and David Einhorn over St. Joe is well known. However another company, which has two gurus on both sides of the trade has garnered much less attention:
InterOil. George Soros is long (it's his largest position), and Whitney Tilson is short the company. Soros runs a very diversified portfolio, so at 3.24% of his portfolio, it is quite a large holding.
Below is a brief description of the company:
InterOil Corporation primarily engages in the exploration, appraisal, and development of crude oil and natural gas properties in Papua New Guinea. It also involves in the refining and liquefaction of jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline, as well as naphtha and low sulfur waxy residue. In addition, the company engages in the wholesale and retail distribution of diesel, jet fuel, gasoline, kerosene, and fuel oil, as well as branded commercial and industrial lubricants, such as engine and hydraulic oils. As of December 31, 2010, it provided petroleum products to 52 retail service stations, including 42 operating under the InterOil brand name and 10 operating under its own independent brand. The company also operates approximately 11 aviation refueling facilities in Papua New Guinea. InterOil Corporation was founded in 1990 and is based in Cairns, Australia.
Below are some recent comments which Whitney Tilson's friend made about IOC to him (usually when Tilson quotes anonymous friends, it is high profile hedge fund managers).
Tilson: The end game for InterOil, which we've long maintained is one of the world's biggest promotions, could be near as the Papua New Guinea government is forcing IOC to find a "world class LNG operator", which we think will be impossible for IOC (at least on any reasonable terms). This is yet more evidence that IOC doesn't have what it says it has. If it really had one of the largest natural gas fields on earth, why would it switch to a project that is different than the one than the government approved? Trying to delay and evade is exactly how we expect this company to act.
Here's the analysis of a friend, who is a well-known short seller:
Although IOC has not put out any official statement today, it appears that they are now falling in line with the PNG government and have told the PM that they will to bring in a proven LNG operator to their project. So all of yesterday's nonsense that the PM would shortly be backtracking was total hot air. Bizarrely, IOC chose to make this admission in a press release issued at lunchtime by IOC's Norwegian would-be partner FLEX LNG (FLNG).
Just to go back a stage, Monday's statement from the PNG government had included the following quote from the minister:
· While the "Gulf" Project includes a number of high quality companies, none are internationally recognized LNG operators with experience operating the world scale LNG Plant that LNGL/InterOil has contracted to deliver. Hence they do not fit the description or intent of a world class operator as contained in the Project Agreement.
Finansavisen, a Norwegian paper, claimed this morning that PNG government had "torpedoed" the project by insisting on a world class operator, which FLNG certainly is not. The full article is not online. FLNG replied with a short press release this morning and a longer one at lunchtime. The long release starts by saying that Finansavisen being is misleading. It says that IOC has confirmed to FLNG that they are still involved. But it also says:
· In order to strengthen the Gulf LNG project a world-class operator will be brought into the project. InterOil and FLEX LNG are jointly working to attract such an operator to the project.
And there is a quote from Mulacek:
· "LNG development in the Gulf Province has significant support in Papua New Guinea, as well as by the Gulf Ministers and local landowners where we have our vast gas and condensate development, as stated by the Minister of Petroleum late last night, and re-confirmed by the Prime Minister today in our meetings. A clarification which we agreed to today with the Prime Minister, is that the Petroleum Minister would like a proven LNG operator to join the project to strengthen LNG operations. InterOil has committed to ensure this occurs and will be working with all parties for a solid and successful outcome."
So buried at the bottom of a press release from a Norwegian operating partner is the admission by the CEO of IOC that they will have to respond to this move by the PNG government and will be required to bring in an additional LNG operator. Such a move will clearly not be done on IOC's terms, since the alternative for IOC is to say goodbye to their entire upstream plans on which the project valuation depends.
This is consistent with the precise wording of yesterday's "non denial denials" from IOC, but it is very far from the spin that RJ was giving me yesterday.
It is the first time that I have heard IOC or its partners suggest that a further operator will need to be brought in, with the implication being that this is a necessary condition of FID. Per the IOC spin until this point, FID was well on track and was due to take place by December 31. If they are waiting around to find another partner, that means delays once more and a further shredding of credibility.
I did a scan of the PNG press today. The main article about the controversy is a piece about the previous Petroleum and Energy Minister congratulating his successor on their decision to go after IOC. It makes these claims against IOC:
· The agreement was that InterOil would buy crude oil from Kutubu, refine it and supply petroleum products to the domestic market. Instead, it was buying refined petroleum products from overseas.
· It was also discovered that InterOil had deviated from an agreement to build an InterOil LNG project alongside the NapaNapa oil refinery. It instead opted for a different production method, a mini land-based trains and a fixed floating LNG plant.
The papers may have missed it, but as far as I can see the Prime Minister has yet to backtrack and fire his Energy Minister.
Also below is Macquarie's note, which is pretty useless. It suggests that the PM may shake up the Energy Ministry – ignoring that yesterday's statement was on behalf of the PM's entire cabinet. It says "We find it difficult to judge the critical path and make a valuation call until we have further detail on how serious to take the Energy Ministry's statements."
No position
The debate between Bruce Berkowitz and David Einhorn over St. Joe is well known. However another company, which has two gurus on both sides of the trade has garnered much less attention:


text:
RECAP: Twins Fall To Mariners Friday
The Twins were shut out by the Seattle Mariners on Friday night at Target Field. Kendrys Morales hit a two-run home run off of Twins starter Mike Pelfrey in the sixth to account for the bulk of the Seattle runs.
Seattle starter Hisashi Iwakuma allowed seven hits and two walks in 7.2 innings before yielding to the bullpen.
The loss snapped a four game Twins winning streak. Minnesota hosts Seattle Saturday for a matinee.


text:
Differential-difference equations in economics: On the numerical solution of vintage capital growth models
In this papel, we examine techniques for the analytical and numerical solution of statedependent differential-difference equations. Such equations occur in the continuous time modelling of vintage capital growth models, which form a particularly important class of models in modern economic growth theory. The theoretical treatment of non-statedependent differential-difference equations in economics has already been discussed by Benhabib and Rustichini (1991). In general, though, the state-dependence of a model prevents its analytical solution in all but the simplest of cases. We review a numerical method for solving state-dependent models, using sorne simple examples to illustrate our discussion. In addition, we analyse the Solow vintage capital growth model. We conclude by mentioning a crucial unresolved issue related to this topic.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 21 (1997)
Issue (Month): 2-3 ()
Pages: 347-362
|Contact details of provider:
| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jedc
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Malcomson, James M., 1975. "Replacement and the rental value of capital equipment subject to obsolescence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 24-41, February.
- Boucekkine, Raouf & Germain, Marc & Licandro, Omar, 1997.
"Replacement Echoes in the Vintage Capital Growth Model,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 333-348, June.
- Boucekkine, R. & Germain, M. & Licandro, O., "undated". "Replacement echoes in the vintage capital growth model," CORE Discussion Papers RP 1275, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Raouf Boucekkine & Marc Germain & Omar Licandro, "undated". "Replacement echoes in the vintage capital growth model," Working Papers 96-16, FEDEA.
- Licandro, Omar & Germain, Marc & Boucekkine, Raouf, 1996. "Replacement echoes in the vintage capital growth model," UC3M Working papers. Economics 4096, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
- Christiano, Lawrence J & Eichenbaum, Martin, 1992. "Current Real-Business-Cycle Theories and Aggregate Labor-Market Fluctuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 430-450, June.
- Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum, 1990. "Current real business cycle theories and aggregate labor market fluctuations," Working Paper Series, Macroeconomic Issues 90, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Lawrence J. Christiano & Martin Eichenbaum, 1990. "Current real business cycle theories and aggregate labor market fluctuations," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 24, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Cooley, Thomas F. & Greenwood, Jeremy & Yorukoglu, Mehmet, 1997. "The replacement problem," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 457-499, December.
- Thomas F. Cooley & Jeremy Greenwood & Mehmet Yorukoglu, 1994. "The replacement problem," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 95, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Cooley, T.F. & Greenwood, J. & Yorukoglu, M., 1995. "The Replacement Problem," UWO Department of Economics Working Papers 9508, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
- Thomas F. Cooley & Jeremy Greenwood & Mehmet Yorukoglu, 1994. "The Replacement Problem," Working Papers 9408, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
- Cooley, T.F. & Greenwood, J. & Yorukoglu, M., 1997. "The Replacement Problem," RCER Working Papers 444, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Licandro, Omar & Germain, Marc & Boucekkine, Raouf, 1995. "Creative destruction and business cycles," UC3M Working papers. Economics 3907, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
- R. M. Solow & J. Tobin & C. C. von Weizsäcker & M. Yaari, 1966. "Neoclassical Growth with Fixed Factor Proportions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 79-115.
- Benhabib, Jess & Rustichini, Aldo, 1991. "Vintage capital, investment, and growth," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 323-339, December.
- Jess Benhabib & Aldo Rustichini, 1990. "Vintage Capital, Investment and Growth," Discussion Papers 886, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Benhabib, Jess & Rustichini, Aldo, 1990. "Vintage Capital, Investment And Growth," Working Papers 90-22, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Caballero, Ricardo J & Hammour, Mohamad L, 1994. "The Cleansing Effect of Recessions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1350-1368, December.
- Ricardo J. Caballero & Mohamad L. Hammour, 1991. "The Cleansing Effect of Recessions," NBER Working Papers 3922, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- van Hilten, Onno, 1991. "The optimal lifetime of capital equipment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 449-454, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:dyncon:v:21:y:1997:i:2-3:p:347-362. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.


text:
NATFA is the free trade agreement between US, Canada & Mexico. How many job have we lost to Mexico? I believe very few. We have lost job mostly China & India. Why all the talk about repealling NAFTA?
On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.
re: NAFTA
As of 2001, 3/4 million jobs were lost to Mexido....with declining incomes in both countries.
Subsidized U.S. agriculture has devasted the small Mexican farmer...driving millions of newly unemployed small-farm owners into the cities...driving already low wages downward...
The only ones benefiting have been Big Ag and Big Business.
Some firms have been relocated from Mexico to China.......cheaper wages.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".
re: NAFTA
We need to protect our markets and manufacturing, from Asia but not from Mexico. Mexico has emough problems as it is.
re: NAFTA
So? Maybe one day Mexicans will kick out their oligarchy...the 38 families who control over half the nations wealth...and begin investing in their own country rather than being bled dry to feed foreign financial markets and multi-billionaire bank accounts.
Mexico is a potentially rich country...run for the benefit of a few. at the expense of the many. NAFTA has driven the incomes of most Mexicans downward...to the delight of their top 38.
The U.S. subsidizes corn...meaning U.S. corn can be sold in. Mexico profitably at less than what it costs to produce it. NAFTA prohibits Mexico from addressing the issue. It drove millions of Mexicans off of farms and into the cities. The huge labor pool drove already low wages downward.
It's the same thing we did to Haiti. At least Clinton apoligized to Haiti for it. after the earthquake.
Big Ag, of course, loves its subsidized "free market". that drove millions more into poverty.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"


text:
Can Direct Democracy Really Work for Atlanta?
Jon Jones' populous message of building a city government controlled entirely by the people is indeed inspiring...but can Direct Democracy really work for Atlanta?
February 13, 2013 (Newswire.com) - And so it starts. Atlanta's election for City Council has officially entered announcing season - the period of the year in which incumbents announce whether they are running for re-election, and challengers announce their intentions to dethrone the current seat holders. So far we've seen Matt Rinker - the openly gay challenger from District 5; Robert Welsh - the city native from District 1; and we've heard Carla Smith announce that she plans to run to retain Atlanta's first District seat. But there's one newcomer who seems to be generating a growing buzz in certain circles. 26-year-old Jon Jones has announced a run for Atlanta City Council's District 2 seat; and along with it, he announced his plan to introduce a new style of governing to Atlanta government. He terms it "Direct Democracy"; what Merriam-Webster defines as "a democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives." Sounds good, right? It conjures up images of flag-waving revolutionists rising up, and working together to claim power over their colony. Can you feel the red, white, and blue coursing through your veins yet? Not so fast. Sure the description of direct democracy sounds great. But what's the catch? What exactly does direct democracy entail, and why should we want it? Jon Jones' populous message of building a city government controlled entirely by the people is indeed inspiring...but can Direct Democracy really work for Atlanta?
Any good reporter knows that the first thing they teach you in Journalism 101 is finding out the "Who, What, When, Where, and Why" of a story. So I'll start there. WHO Jon Jones is still remains much of a mystery. His campaign website says that he is a financial professional with a Business degree from Rutgers University and a Public Policy education from UCLA . His personal website touts the many accolades, awards, and professional certificates he has gained. But aside from that, most people in Atlanta's political scene have never heard of him. He's lived in Atlanta since 2010, his site says, but most of his messaging strays away from defining who he is as a candidate. And that is an intentional pivot. Jones writes that the downfall of our current political system is focusing too much on finding the "savior in a suit" who will answer all of the city's problems. His campaign website bio downplays who he is as a way to portray him as a commoner - no more important than anyone else. And I get it. He can't run on a message of populism and championing the hard work of everyday people if he spends an entire webpage bragging about himself. I totally get it. And I have to admit, part of his "I'm one of you guys" shtick is what adds to the allure that is making Jon Jones so popular among younger constituents.
Which will come in handy when we get to the WHAT that he is offering voters. Jones plans to institute direct democracy by building a system of websites, text message servers, telephone hotlines, and apps that enable residents of his district to participate in legislative decision-making like never before. Imagine that City Council is set to vote on a bill to ban skateboarding at Inman Park. Jones wants to set up a website that will allow residents to vote Yes or No on that bill, and then he will count the total of resident votes, and then himself vote Yes or No according to the final tally. It's like American Idol meets Parks and Recreation. Jones is popular among young voters because he speaks their language: constant reliance on technology in order to communicate. And if that's not high tech enough for you, Jones plans to have push notifications sent out to emails and cell phones so that residents can vote Yes or No on important with their cell phones. (Not to mention setting up a telephone hotline so that people without internet access can participate as well.) Jones writes, "We live in an age of instant communication. We bank online. We shop for food, clothes, and cars online. We even meet new people, and share pieces of our lives with them online... Why has our government not kept pace?" A valid argument made by a man whose generation has seen advances in technology move at break-neck speeds.
But as good as the idea sounds in theory, one can't help but wonder if it would work in reality. I've been waiting for my flying car ever since the Jetsons made me consider it a possibility. But there's no doubt in my mind that if the first batch of flying cars were put on sale today, I'd be reading about 50 airborne collisions tomorrow. The idea of a government that includes everyone has undeniable futuristic appeal. Yet thinking about all of the ways that it could backfire lend to immediate skepticism. Generally speaking, citizens aren't well-informed enough to make policy decisions. Any legislation that that goes before the public would have to be "dumbed down" to a point where the solution is either a Yes or No vote. When asked how he would combat voter apathy and widespread lack of knowledge on the issues Jones responds by asking why we underestimate the intelligence of our city's residents. Using the past T-SPLOST referendum for reference, he asserts that it's very easy to get information to voters; and that with a transparent government, it's even easier for them to seek out information. Some might chalk it up to naivete, but Jon Jones genuinely believes that the people of his district are capable of making informed decisions.
As an example, Jones uses the country of Switzerland - where direct democracy has worked well for years. Large Swiss towns, with hundreds of thousands of people, have indeed demonstrated their ability to decide on complex issues, ranging from taxation to transportation ordinances. The complexity of many of the issues that have gone up for vote has compelled the people of the towns to become more educated if they are not. And this, Jones argues, is cause for Atlantans to want to build a direct democracy of their own. "As it stands today, a politician's job is to try to determine what's in the best interests of all the citizens. Well, who better to determine what's in the citizens' best interest than the citizens themselves?" Jones contends. And he's absolutely correct. Studies show that direct democracy encourages citizens to inform themselves on the issues surrounding them, thus creating a strong incentive for citizens to learn more about their community and play a role in its development.
With this sentiment, almost everyone can agree. People should have a right to control the laws that control their environment. And conversely, people should have the right to oppose a policy in their neighborhood that would worsen their quality of life. How often do we see politicians vote in favor of new nuclear power plants that they themselves would be unwilling to live near? Jones' idea of direct democracy could bring a level of justice to Atlanta by eradicating instances where bad decisions are being made by people who wouldn't have to carry the burden of living areas affected by that decision.
The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Public Integrity recently ranked the state of Georgia as the worst state for government accountability and openness - and the most at risk for political corruption. Loophole-ridden laws, ineffective enforcement, backroom deal-making, and weak rules for disclosing conflicts of interest earned Georgia an F grade. A major point in Jones' case for direct democracy is that it could drastically curtail a political climate that is awash with special interest cash and lobbyist influence. Rich and well-organized interest groups spend millions annually to persuade elected officials to pass legislation that often-times is at odds with the electorate. But if Jones can successfully build a system where the people would decide the vote, lobbyists lose the opportunity to rig the process in their favor. Or - in an alternate universe - refocus their lobbying efforts to the general public. (Which could be a bad thing, but my neighbors and I wouldn't mind it too much if a lobbyist tried to buy our vote with a steak dinner every now and then.)
Direct democracy has its merits, and it has its shortcomings. There's no debating that. Whether direct democracy is a feasible idea, and whether the people of Atlanta are ready to undertake the task of building such a system...well that remains to be seen. If nothing else, Jones is at least forward-thinking. In August of 2012, Jones recorded a video that said that one of the pitfalls of our current political system is that council members could potentially author a bill that increases their pay, and then collectively vote to approve the measure. And what do you know; only 5 months later did Atlanta's city council members pass a bill that increased their annual salary by a massive 52 percent. This point alone is often cited by Jones' supporters that he is ahead of his time. And his rare enthusiasm for technology (he designed and built his own website. How many candidates can say that?) compels many supports to liken his pursuit to build a technology-based social/civic infrastructure to the early ventures of Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook), and even Bill Gates.
But Jones' vision of making Atlanta the first US city with direct democracy is a long way away from fruition. Before even embarking upon the task of building a system that truly incorporates every district resident (without leaving technologically inept residents in the dark), he has to battle his way through 9 grueling months of election politics; and win. Jones is going up against a popular incumbent, Kwanza Hall - who even Jones admits he has nothing negative to say about. Hall has served for 7 years, ran unopposed in the last election, and enjoys a campaign war chest with funds in excess of $100,000. Jones, on the other hand - equipped only with a tech-savvy team of volunteers, a social media prowess common only to a Generation Y candidate, and a campaign ledger with cash-on-hand of just under $2,000 - acknowledges that the odds of his victory are slim. Nevertheless, Jon Jones remains committed to making sure that every voice in the community gets heard. Are we ready for Direct Democracy? "This election demonstrates that people have the right to decide," Jones answers. And with that, I have to agree.
Categories: Politics
Tags: Atlanta City Council, Direct Democracy, Jon Jones


text:
Galaxy Note 3 Pink Model Launched in United Kingdom
The Samsung Galaxy Note 3 is now available in pink for customers in the United Kingdom.
The new color might also be launching in South Korea sometime in the near future. The pink model has the same leather finish on the back along with a matching S Pen.
Samsung partnered with Beaker, which is part of Cheil Industries to market the new pink Galaxy Note 3.
The Galaxy Note 3 has been one of the company's most successful devices to date, shipping 5 million units in just 28 days.
The news was announced by the company's CEO JK Shin earlier today. The new phablet was able to reach this milestone in half the time that it took the Note 2. The original Galaxy Note took five months to sell this many.
Samsung normally does not reveal how many devices it sold to consumers, so it is not clear how many of those units that were shipped actually ended up in people's hands.
The company launched the Galaxy Note 3 on Sept. 25 in 58 countries and an additional 82 markets since that time. JK Shin discussed the strong interest for the phablet that seems to be on its way to eclipsing the company's high-end flagship, the Galaxy S4.
Spec on the device include improved LTE connectivity, a 2.3GHz quad-core processor, a 5.7-inch Full HD Super AMOLED display with 1920x1080 resolution, Android 4.3, JellyBean, a 13-megapixel rear camera, LED Flash, a 2-megapixel front shooter, dual camera capabilities, and a redesigned version of the S Pen.
It comes with 3GB RAM. Previous rumors had conflicted on how much RAM it would come with. The most recent stating Samsung was going to give it 2.5GB. It also packs either 32GB or 64GB of internal storage depending on which model a user purchases. The battery has been enhanced to a 3,200 mAh.