Hello everyone!(or no one?)
I am sorry about not updating this blog regularly...but it was not my fault!it was the IB exams :P. I am still having exams,specifically I have also to take the economics end physics exam...I am desperately waiting for Christmass to study economics and maths,and also to visit my hometown Rhodes(it's a loooong story...)...anyway...
I discovered something really entertaining on youtube the other day and I thought it might be worth posting...It's about a ventriloquist...I am sure many of you have seen the comedian Jeff Dunham with the video ''Silence,i kill u'',but i personally find Dan Horn(in this video) really amazing,because his ventriloquistic talent combined with his acting and entertaining skills are creating the perfect illusio:that the puppet is actually ALIVE!
Enjoy!
Book Association Challenges Retailers’ Price Plan
What do Amazon and Wal-Mart do to win control of the market for hardcover bestsellers...
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: October 22, 2009
The American Booksellers Association, which represents independently owned bookstores, has sent a letter to the Justice Department asking it to investigate what it describes as “predatory pricing” by Amazon, Wal-Mart and Target.
In the letter dated Thursday, the association argues that steep discounting on 10 hardcover titles by authors including John Grisham, Stephen King and Barbara Kingsolver “is damaging to the book industry and harmful to consumers.”
The price war began last week when Wal-Mart announced that it would offer Walmart.com customers who preordered any of 10 of the coming holiday season’s biggest potential best sellers the chance to buy the books in hardcover editions for just $10. Typically new hardcovers sell for $25 to $35, although some discounting is common.
Amazon.com quickly matched Wal-Mart’s preorder price on the same books, which include “Ford County” by Mr. Grisham, “Under the Dome” by Mr. King and “Going Rogue,” Sarah Palin’s memoir. Wal-Mart then lowered the price to $9, and Amazon followed suit. By late Friday afternoon Wal-Mart had cut another penny off the price.
On Monday, Target entered the fray by offering six of the preorder titles on Target.com for $8.99. By Tuesday Wal-Mart had lowered the price on those titles to $8.98.
The association’s letter, which is signed by the group’s nine board members, accused the retailers of “devaluing the very concept of the book” and effectively selling the books at a loss in an “attempt to win control of the market for hardcover best sellers.” Retailers typically pay publishers a wholesale price of half the list price of a hardcover book — so on a $35 hardcover, the retailer pays $17.50, meaning that it loses money on a $9 consumer price.
Most publishers whose titles were affected did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. But David Young, chief executive of Hachette Book Group — publisher of James Patterson, whose “I, Alex Cross” is included in the discounted promotions — said he wished that the United States would emulate France’s prohibition against booksellers’ pricing books below cost. “I do think this massive devaluation of the industry’s crown jewels could very quickly be extremely harmful,” Mr. Young said. “And I would not be alone in thinking that.”
By MOTOKO RICH
Published: October 22, 2009
The American Booksellers Association, which represents independently owned bookstores, has sent a letter to the Justice Department asking it to investigate what it describes as “predatory pricing” by Amazon, Wal-Mart and Target.
In the letter dated Thursday, the association argues that steep discounting on 10 hardcover titles by authors including John Grisham, Stephen King and Barbara Kingsolver “is damaging to the book industry and harmful to consumers.”
The price war began last week when Wal-Mart announced that it would offer Walmart.com customers who preordered any of 10 of the coming holiday season’s biggest potential best sellers the chance to buy the books in hardcover editions for just $10. Typically new hardcovers sell for $25 to $35, although some discounting is common.
Amazon.com quickly matched Wal-Mart’s preorder price on the same books, which include “Ford County” by Mr. Grisham, “Under the Dome” by Mr. King and “Going Rogue,” Sarah Palin’s memoir. Wal-Mart then lowered the price to $9, and Amazon followed suit. By late Friday afternoon Wal-Mart had cut another penny off the price.
On Monday, Target entered the fray by offering six of the preorder titles on Target.com for $8.99. By Tuesday Wal-Mart had lowered the price on those titles to $8.98.
The association’s letter, which is signed by the group’s nine board members, accused the retailers of “devaluing the very concept of the book” and effectively selling the books at a loss in an “attempt to win control of the market for hardcover best sellers.” Retailers typically pay publishers a wholesale price of half the list price of a hardcover book — so on a $35 hardcover, the retailer pays $17.50, meaning that it loses money on a $9 consumer price.
Most publishers whose titles were affected did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. But David Young, chief executive of Hachette Book Group — publisher of James Patterson, whose “I, Alex Cross” is included in the discounted promotions — said he wished that the United States would emulate France’s prohibition against booksellers’ pricing books below cost. “I do think this massive devaluation of the industry’s crown jewels could very quickly be extremely harmful,” Mr. Young said. “And I would not be alone in thinking that.”
Economics Rap
Have you ever heard of economics rap?Check this:
Demand, Supply - Rhythm, Rhyme, Results
...and this...
Demand, Supply - Rhythm, Rhyme, Results
...and this...
Reform or Bust
This is an article by Paul Krugman,in which he argues about the way bank executives are paid concerning bonuses.He also criticises Mr.Obama's actions and states that it is sometimes necessary to take a polpulist stance...
Reform or Bust
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In the grim period that followed Lehman’s failure, it seemed inconceivable that bankers would, just a few months later, be going right back to the practices that brought the world’s financial system to the edge of collapse. At the very least, one might have thought, they would show me restraint for fear of creating a public backlash.But now that we’ve stepped back a few paces from the brink — thanks, let’s not forget, to immense, taxpayer-financed rescue packages — the financial sector is rapidly returning to business as usual. Even as the rest of the nation continues to suffer from rising unemployment and severe hardship, Wall Street paychecks are heading back to pre-crisis levels. And the industry is deploying its political clout to block even the most minimal reforms.
The good news is that senior officials in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve seem to be losing patience with the industry’s selfishness. The bad news is that it’s not clear whether President Obama himself is ready, even now, to take on the bankers.
Credit where credit is due: I was delighted when Lawrence Summers, the administration’s ranking economist, lashed out at the campaign the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with financial-industry lobbyists, is running against the proposed creation of an agency to protect consumers against financial abuses, such as loans whose terms they don’t understand. The chamber’s ads, declared Mr. Summers, are “the financial-regulatory equivalent of the death-panel ads that are being run with respect to health care.”
Yet protecting consumers from financial abuse should be only the beginning of reform. If we really want to stop Wall Street from creating another bubble, followed by another bust, we need to change the industry’s incentives — which means, in particular, changing the way bankers are paid.
What’s wrong with financial-industry compensation? In a nutshell, bank executives are lavishly rewarded if they deliver big short-term profits — but aren’t correspondingly punished if they later suffer even bigger losses. This encourages excessive risk-taking: some of the men most responsible for the current crisis walked away immensely rich from the bonuses they earned in the good years, even though the high-risk strategies that led to those bonuses eventually decimated their companies, taking down a large part of the financial system in the process.
The Federal Reserve, now awakened from its Greenspan-era slumber, understands this problem — and proposes doing something about it. According to recent reports, the Fed’s board is considering imposing new rules on financial-firm compensation, requiring that banks “claw back” bonuses in the face of losses and link pay to long-term rather than short-term performance. The Fed argues that it has the authority to do this as part of its general mandate to oversee banks’ soundness.
But the industry — supported by nearly all Republicans and some Democrats — will fight bitterly against these changes. And while the administration will support some kind of compensation reform, it’s not clear whether it will fully support the Fed’s efforts.
I was startled last week when Mr. Obama, in an interview with Bloomberg News, questioned the case for limiting financial-sector pay: “Why is it,” he asked, “that we’re going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or N.F.L. football players?”
That’s an astonishing remark — and not just because the National Football League does, in fact, have pay caps. Tech firms don’t crash the whole world’s operating system when they go bankrupt; quarterbacks who make too many risky passes don’t have to be rescued with hundred-billion-dollar bailouts. Banking is a special case — and the president is surely smart enough to know that.
All I can think is that this was another example of something we’ve seen before: Mr. Obama’s visceral reluctance to engage in anything that resembles populist rhetoric. And that’s something he needs to get over.
It’s not just that taking a populist stance on bankers’ pay is good politics — although it is: the administration has suffered more than it seems to realize from the perception that it’s giving taxpayers’ hard-earned money away to Wall Street, and it should welcome the chance to portray the G.O.P. as the party of obscene bonuses.
Equally important, in this case populism is good economics. Indeed, you can make the case that reforming bankers’ compensation is the single best thing we can do to prevent another financial crisis a few years down the road.
It’s time for the president to realize that sometimes populism, especially populism that makes bankers angry, is exactly what the economy needs.
Reform or Bust
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In the grim period that followed Lehman’s failure, it seemed inconceivable that bankers would, just a few months later, be going right back to the practices that brought the world’s financial system to the edge of collapse. At the very least, one might have thought, they would show me restraint for fear of creating a public backlash.But now that we’ve stepped back a few paces from the brink — thanks, let’s not forget, to immense, taxpayer-financed rescue packages — the financial sector is rapidly returning to business as usual. Even as the rest of the nation continues to suffer from rising unemployment and severe hardship, Wall Street paychecks are heading back to pre-crisis levels. And the industry is deploying its political clout to block even the most minimal reforms.
The good news is that senior officials in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve seem to be losing patience with the industry’s selfishness. The bad news is that it’s not clear whether President Obama himself is ready, even now, to take on the bankers.
Credit where credit is due: I was delighted when Lawrence Summers, the administration’s ranking economist, lashed out at the campaign the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with financial-industry lobbyists, is running against the proposed creation of an agency to protect consumers against financial abuses, such as loans whose terms they don’t understand. The chamber’s ads, declared Mr. Summers, are “the financial-regulatory equivalent of the death-panel ads that are being run with respect to health care.”
Yet protecting consumers from financial abuse should be only the beginning of reform. If we really want to stop Wall Street from creating another bubble, followed by another bust, we need to change the industry’s incentives — which means, in particular, changing the way bankers are paid.
What’s wrong with financial-industry compensation? In a nutshell, bank executives are lavishly rewarded if they deliver big short-term profits — but aren’t correspondingly punished if they later suffer even bigger losses. This encourages excessive risk-taking: some of the men most responsible for the current crisis walked away immensely rich from the bonuses they earned in the good years, even though the high-risk strategies that led to those bonuses eventually decimated their companies, taking down a large part of the financial system in the process.
The Federal Reserve, now awakened from its Greenspan-era slumber, understands this problem — and proposes doing something about it. According to recent reports, the Fed’s board is considering imposing new rules on financial-firm compensation, requiring that banks “claw back” bonuses in the face of losses and link pay to long-term rather than short-term performance. The Fed argues that it has the authority to do this as part of its general mandate to oversee banks’ soundness.
But the industry — supported by nearly all Republicans and some Democrats — will fight bitterly against these changes. And while the administration will support some kind of compensation reform, it’s not clear whether it will fully support the Fed’s efforts.
I was startled last week when Mr. Obama, in an interview with Bloomberg News, questioned the case for limiting financial-sector pay: “Why is it,” he asked, “that we’re going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or N.F.L. football players?”
That’s an astonishing remark — and not just because the National Football League does, in fact, have pay caps. Tech firms don’t crash the whole world’s operating system when they go bankrupt; quarterbacks who make too many risky passes don’t have to be rescued with hundred-billion-dollar bailouts. Banking is a special case — and the president is surely smart enough to know that.
All I can think is that this was another example of something we’ve seen before: Mr. Obama’s visceral reluctance to engage in anything that resembles populist rhetoric. And that’s something he needs to get over.
It’s not just that taking a populist stance on bankers’ pay is good politics — although it is: the administration has suffered more than it seems to realize from the perception that it’s giving taxpayers’ hard-earned money away to Wall Street, and it should welcome the chance to portray the G.O.P. as the party of obscene bonuses.
Equally important, in this case populism is good economics. Indeed, you can make the case that reforming bankers’ compensation is the single best thing we can do to prevent another financial crisis a few years down the road.
It’s time for the president to realize that sometimes populism, especially populism that makes bankers angry, is exactly what the economy needs.
Hello!
Hello everyone,
I am glad to announce the creation of a blog in which I'll share my thoughts and post anything that's interesting to me.I really have no idea if anyone in the world is going to view or read anything from this blog,but if anyone does,this blog has a reason to exist.I am an IB(International Baccalaureate) student in Moraitis School, in Athens.I would describe my personality as an open-minded person.Someone who likes friends,music,pizza,maths,economics and ,generally, any kind of knowledge.I give value to things others may not and I am not shy to show and to share what I find interesting or funny or worth watching-reading.This is not some sort of CV or personality description of myself so I will stop my writing at this point.In this blog,you'll know me as Athinagoras(weird huh?)or Athis,if you like.
Take care,
Athinagoras
I am glad to announce the creation of a blog in which I'll share my thoughts and post anything that's interesting to me.I really have no idea if anyone in the world is going to view or read anything from this blog,but if anyone does,this blog has a reason to exist.I am an IB(International Baccalaureate) student in Moraitis School, in Athens.I would describe my personality as an open-minded person.Someone who likes friends,music,pizza,maths,economics and ,generally, any kind of knowledge.I give value to things others may not and I am not shy to show and to share what I find interesting or funny or worth watching-reading.This is not some sort of CV or personality description of myself so I will stop my writing at this point.In this blog,you'll know me as Athinagoras(weird huh?)or Athis,if you like.
Take care,
Athinagoras
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)
