BERLIN – Germany’s Deutsche Telekom reported Thursday that its fourth quarter loss narrowed to euro3 million ($4.1 million) on improved revenue in its domestic market but said the financial crisis in Greece had cost its operations there euro500 million.
The German provider of high-speed Internet access and home and cell phone service said the quarterly loss compared with a euro730 million loss a year earlier, when the global credit crunch was most intense.
Revenue was up more than half a percent in the final three months of 2009 to euro16.2 billion, a sign of improvement in its critical home market. The figure compared with euro16.1 billion a year earlier.
The company was hurt, however, by the ongoing financial turbulence in Greece through its acquisition of Hellenic Telecommunications Organization SA, or OTE, in 2008.
For the year, the company earned euro353 million in net profit, down 76 percent from nearly euro1.5 billion in 2008 business card. Revenue, however, managed to rise nearly 5 percent to euro64.6 billion compared with euro61.6 billion the year before.
“After a bumpy start, we rounded 2009 off with good results,” said Chief Executive Rene Obermann. “Cost discipline was key to getting through economically challenging times. However, we did not save at the expense of the future, but continued to invest heavily.”
Late Wednesday, the company committed itself to paying dividends from this year through 2012, and proposed a dividend of 78 euro cents a share for 2009. From this year to 2012 it said it planned to pay at least a 70 euro cent per share dividend and pledged to buy back shares, a move that it said was worth around euro3.4 billion.
___
On the Net:
http://www.deutschetelekom.com
Deutsche Telekom loss narrows despite Greek costs
Hot News: Deal Seen for Stake in China Investment Bank
“According to the US Census Bureau, the US population in 2000 was 281,421,906. Of that, 194,552,774 (69.1%) were white; 33,947,837 (12.1%) were black; and 35,305,818 (12.5%) were of Hispanic origin. Additionally, 2,068,883 (0.7%) were Native American, and 10,123,169 (3.8%) were Asian.”
Source: US Census Bureau, Department of Commerce, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File for states, Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the United States: 2000 (PHC-T-a) Table 1.http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t1/tab01.txt
“Most drug offenders are white. Five times as many whites use drugs as blacks. Yet blacks comprise the great majority of drug offenders sent to prison. The solution to this racial inequity is not to incarcerate more whites, but to reduce the use of prison for low-level drug offenders and to increase the availability of substance abuse treatment.”
Source: Human Rights Watch, “Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs” (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000), from their website at http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/drugs/war/key-facts.htm
—
“Because of their extraordinary rate of incarceration, one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in a state or federal prison, compared to one in every 180 whites.” In five states, between one in 13 and one in 14 black men are in prison.
Source: Human Rights Watch, “Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs” (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, 2000). http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm#P149_24292
—
“When incarceration rates by State (excluding Federal inmates) are estimated separately by gender, race, and Hispanic origin, male rates are found to be 10 times higher than female rates; black rates 5-1/2 times higher than white rates; and Hispanic rates nearly 2 times higher than white rates.” Source: Harrison, Paige M., & Beck, Allen J., PhD, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, May 2006) (NCJ213133), p. 10.
(2005) Of the 253,300 state prison inmates serving time for drug offenses at yearend 2005, 113,500 (44.8%) were black, 51,100 (20.2%) were Hispanic, and 72,300 (28.5%) were white.
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, and West, Heather C., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2007 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2008), NCJ224280, p. 21, Appendix Table 10.http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf
—
“At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation’s criminal justice system than the total number in college. This and other factors have led some scholars to conclude that, “crime control policies are a major contributor to the disruption of the family, the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto, and the ‘inability of people to get the jobs still available.’”
Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., “The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment,” American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 716.http://www.csdp.org/research/haney_apa.pdf
—
“The racially disproportionate nature of the war on drugs is not just devastating to black Americans. It contradicts faith in the principles of justice and equal protection of the laws that should be the bedrock of any constitutional democracy; it exposes and deepens the racial fault lines that continue to weaken the country and belies its promise as a land of equal opportunity; and it undermines faith among all races in the fairness and efficacy of the criminal justice system. Urgent action is needed, at both the state and federal level, to address this crisis for the American nation.”
Source: Summary and Recommendations from “Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs” (Washington, DC: Human Rights Watch, June 2000)
“In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among white males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for white males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and white females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison.”
Source: Bonczar, Thomas P., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Prevalence of Imprisonment in the US Population, 1974-2001,” NCJ197976 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 2003), p. 8.
—
“Due to harsh new sentencing guidelines, such as ‘three-strikes, you’re out,’ “a disproportionate number of young Black and Hispanic men are likely to be imprisoned for life under scenarios in which they are guilty of little more than a history of untreated addiction and several prior drug-related offenses… States will absorb the staggering cost of not only constructing additional prisons to accommodate increasing numbers of prisoners who will never be released but also warehousing them into old age.”
Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., “The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment,” American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 718.
February 17, 2010 marked the anniversary of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) implemented by the Obama administration to boost employment and lead us out of the economic recession of 2008 and 2009. RESI, also, held an important event on this day, our Annual Economic Outlook Conference. Ok, maybe, I exaggerate when I compare a national event to our event but it was still important to us. During the conference, three panelists provided us with some excellent opinions on the effects of ARRA on the economy. In particular, two Towson University economists, Dr. Dorn and Dr. Rhoads, were especially knowledgeable and gave us two differing opinions.
Dr. Dorn and Dr. Rhoads
Professor Dorn opinioned that ARRA has not been an efficient policy and American taxpayers will have to pay the bill through higher taxes in the following years. In his view, the government sector is not as efficient as the private sector and increasing public sector spending does not provide as many jobs as the private sector. He also questioned the assertion by some people that the US had many “shovel ready” projects that needed investment from the federal government. Few of the allotted dollars have been spent on public infrastructure projects so far and maybe there were not as many “shovel ready” projects as portrayed. In his opinion, the problem was the supply side of the economy. Instead, the Federal government should have given more tax breaks to businesses and eliminated corporate taxes for example. Also, the ARRA money would have been more efficient if the government would have given it to the private sector to spend and manage public infrastructures.
Professor Rhoads had a different take on the efficiency of ARRA. He reminded us that in extremely difficult times, the government needs to provide short term economic relief and has a legal obligation to create policies leading to full employment. In his opinion, the private sector does not have the ability to lead us out of one of the most difficult economic times facing the US economy. Many economists participated in the craft of ARRA and found this policy necessary. According to Dr. Rhoads, another positive aspect of ARRA was that the government made sure that it did not put all its eggs in the same basket. Seemingly, the government had learned from past policy mistakes. Therefore, spending for ARRA was rightly divided in several different areas; tax breaks to businesses, extended financial support to unemployed people or people in dire economic situations, and investment in public infrastructures. In addition, the use of monetary policy could have not been as successful. The federal interest rate has been kept at almost zero percent since 2000, which meant that it was not as effective as before.
These two distinguished experts made some excellent arguments regarding the efficiency of ARRA. And I left with so many questions of my own.
Was the policy crafted efficiently?
Will American taxpayers pay higher rates of tax in the future?
Should the Obama administration have implemented more tax breaks for the private sector?
Will more tax breaks on businesses create more jobs?
Etc… All in all the RESI conference displayed TU’s expertise at providing varied solutions to complex problems while also giving the audience food for thought going forward.
Where “are” stereotypes? We all recognize certain stereotypes as real stereotypes (perhaps African-Americans’ love of fried chicken or the poor driving skills of Asians) and reject others as simply made up (such as African-Americans’ fear of ceiling fans or the fact that every Asian man can do like a thousand push-ups) — even though we simultaneously believe that stereotypes are themselves untrue.
What’s more, very few people will admit to holding a stereotype, though they recognize them when they hear them. Indeed, when pressed even people who seem to be hardened racists will most often admit that of course not all black people are like that, etc. — calling into question whether racists, as stereotype-believers par excellence, really “believe” in stereotypes in some straightforward way. And even if we imagine that some people believe certain stereotypes to be at least grounded in truth — and indeed, it may be difficult to tell a stereotype from a genuine cultural difference — it is difficult to imagine that there is anyone out there who believes all of them, especially since they are so often contradictory (such as stereotypes of Mexicans as both lazy and absolutely desperate to work).
If no one (or almost no one, or no one who counts) believe in stereotypes, if they aren’t beliefs in a critical mass of heads, then where are they? Some might claim that they are in those heads, but as unconscious beliefs — but where else does the unconscious manifest itself but in what we do? That, I suggest, is where stereotypes abide, or at least the broader images that the stereotypes point toward.
For instance, one might say that the idea that black people like fried chicken — a food that surely every meat-eater enjoys, just as I know very few people of any race who don’t like watermelon — points toward the idea that black people just naturally enjoy cheaper food (not beef, but chicken; not fruit juice, but Kool-Aid) and therefore that the dominance of fast food outlets and convenience stores (rather than good restaurants and grocery stores) in black neighborhoods simply reflects the way black people are and is therefore “okay” — and so you don’t see the mayor of Chicago trying to get more grocery stores into black neighborhoods, for instance.
The dominance of cheap, unhealthy food in black neighborhoods is where all the stereotypes about black food and drink preferences “are.” And one could perform this exercise for all kinds of stereotypes that of course no one “believes” — we don’t have to believe them, because the very physical terrain of our society believes them for us. Where we go and what we do every day believes them for us.
Arizona’s three state universities presidents are proposing steep increases in tuition this fall, saying they are necessary to make up for cuts in state funding.
University of Arizona is proposing the steepest hike with a $2,130 jump in tuition and fees for undergraduate students, raising the cost by 31 percent, to $8,972 a year.
Arizona State University where President Michael Crow and his wife Sybil Francis are paid phenomenal salaries (as of last report back in 2007), is recommending a $1,286-a-year increase for new students, or 19 percent, bringing annual tuition and fees to $8,126. The daily reports that under the proposal, current ASU students costs would not increase quite as much but could still face hikes of nearly 14 percent, or $770 to $871 more a year, depending on when they started.
Incoming students at Northern Arizona University would pay $1,040 more a year, or 16 percent. The new charges would bring tuition and fees to $7,667 annually. NAU said Friday that new students’ tuition would be frozen at that level for the next eight semesters, though they could pay more in future years via fee increases.
The stunning proposals need the approval of the 12-member Arizona Board of Regents, which oversees the three state universities. Individual contact information is here. Let your voice be heard. In this toughest of economic times, these steep increases will keep many students out of the education loop.
The Arizona Constitution Article 11, Section 6 requires that “the university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.”
Apparently ASU.’s President Michael Crow, U of A’s President Robert Sheldon, and NAU’s President John Haeger haven’t gotten the message.
In a corollary to the Laffer Curve, the Californian economist Kurt Hauser pointed out that no matter what the tax rates had been in postwar America, tax revenues had remained at around 20% of GDP. This remained the situation whether the top individual rate was 90% as in the 1950s or 30% in the late 1980s. The best way to raise tax revenues is to increase GDP, not simply to increase top tax rates since such an action simply reduces the GDP. If any of the New Labour grandees had ever held a job or had any experience of the workplace, they would realise that higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest, and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity, and job creation. A large number rich are likely to choose to live off their capital until tax rates come down to a level they view as fair or move to another country where the tax rates are more welcoming. Capital migrates away from regimes in which it is treated harshly and toward regimes in which it is free to be invested profitably and safely. In this regard, the capital controlled by our richest citizens is especially tax intolerant.
I’ve often detailed on this blog the tough economic times that are ahead for many people –some are already there. Since I’ve defined the problem, it would be good to look at how it affects the basic group unit above the individual level and provide some possible strategies for weathering the storm ahead. Many authors have addressed basic survival of the family unit in the sense of stockpiling food and maintaining a secure home. Charles Hugh Smith took families to the next level in his book Survival+ in the sense of placing them in small communities with a common supportive philosophy.
In Operation SERF I used many families (one in particular) scattered across the USA and placed them in a fictional scenario of a long economic collapse followed by a civil war. The families ranged from the anonymous poor to the well-connected and powerful. This was based on my years of experience as both a health care provider serving America’s urban and rural areas for many years and as a former soldier who served in Iraq. Through this experience I had the chance to see the effects of different things that can happen in life at both the individual and family levels and how larger factors far beyond the control of those families can affect their larger communities and a nation as a whole.
With all those things in mind, I would like to begin posting some of my current thoughts on the topic of Family Survival in Tough Times beginning on Monday, Feb 22, 2010. I might do this for one day or an entire week –it just depends where the topic takes me. Please stay tuned for more. Thank you.
