Stock Price Charts

Which stock index reflects the insurance industry of China? 1. Which insurance companies in China constitute the insurance industry of China ? 2. Which stock index reflects the insurance industry of China ? 3. Which stock index reflects the sector including concerns of varied investment of venture capital funds of China ?

Where can I see a live weekly/monthly chart of India's and China's main stock market index? Please provide a link to a weekly/monthly chart. Or provide a link to a charting site with the ticker symbols for the main indexes of China and India. Thanks! I found it: China: http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/0/000001.ss India: http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/_/_bsesn If anyone has any better charts, please post and I will reward you with Best Answer.

Please suggest where to find Index ETF Funds? Hi - I would like to know some good websites to get a list of index ETF funds. Like an Index ETF fund which tracks the full US stock market, index ETF fund which tracks all of India's stock markets, all of china's stock market, all emerging markets, all commodities index etc. Also, I would like to know people's thoughts on investing in such index ETFs? I have had friends who have said these are the best investments (risk wise and long term ROI-wise). Please advice.

Where can I find detailed information on China stocks? I want to invest in the China stockmarket but I'm having trouble finding well--formatted information in English. I have all the graphs and options in Chinese, however it's a struggle to use. I need all the typical graphic output for the market indices over the last three or five years as well as a stock-by-stock option, of course.

How Can I Invest In a Estimated Cash Amount Per Creation Unit or .EU ETF Index as a stock? Hey everyone I really have a problem I want to get into stocks and trading ETF and I have been practicing on a stock simulator game called Market Millionaire with pretty good results but now that I am ready to move to the next level and open up a brokerage account no investment company seems to be able to access a connection or have a connection to the ETF I have been investing in, on the simulator .Is there a International brokerage firm or special account that I need ? Thanks Here are some of the ETFs I was trying to invest in (NOTE THEY HAVE TO HAVE .EU AT THE END OR Estimated Cash Amount Per Creation Unit ) ENY.EU ►Claymore/SWM Canadian Energy Income Index ETF HAO.EU ►Claymore/Alpha Shares China Small Cap Index LVL.EU ►Claymore/BBD High Income Index ETF

Economic growth / shrinkage: GDP or stock index? Hi This is a very basic question. typically when people talk about a country's economic growth (e.g. China's economy shrank by 80% last year) are they referring to the change in GDP or the stock market? thanks

Worldwide stock-market indexes for specific sectors? Is there an index or are there indexes that track specific market-sectors but on a worldwide basis rather than on a national or a stock-exchange basis? For example, is there an index that tracks the housing market or the technology market or the textile market, in multiple countries (e.g. the tele-communications market in US, France, Brazil, China, Egypt and Australia? I am looking for something that tracks the volume of shares sold as well as the relative increase or decrease in value, on a daily basis.

What would happen to developing nation (India/China etc) stocks if the US economy crashed severely? It's my opinion that the US economy is heading for a major economic crash, perhaps even another great depression. I was just wondering what would happen to an index fund that was invested in emerging markets (such as India/China/Russia etc) if the US economy crashed heavily - both in the short term and long term.

Are you still worried that China will take over the world? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276337,00.html Every time the Chinese have an opertunity to allow free trade markets to make themselves more economically powerful, they do something to curb it. This is an example of raising the trade tax, and earlier this month they advised college students not to invest. Are you still worried about a nation of over a Billion people whose stock index is only in the 4,000's will one day be able to take over the US? Have any of you actually seen a country ever try to collect debt? What about the millions owed to the US by other countries? And just to show you guys, I've got the same story from good Ol'e unbiased CNN.com: http://chasingthedragon.blogs.fortune.com/2007/05/30/chinas-bull-market-can-beijing-seize-the-horns/#comments Of coarse they don't shoot you strait to the point that Fox news does.

Why is COMI China the BIGGEST STOCK HOLDER IN GM? China's SAIC is now lobbying Congress using US tax payer money to block Motor Vehicle Safety, Fuel economy rules, Wall Street reform, taxes, appropriations, Global Warming, fair trade using $500 million Comi China money to control stake in General Motors. Soon America will be more polluted than Bejing. http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2220-Nader-and-Associates-Letter-to-President-Obama-on-GMs-IPO.html#extended http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101118/bs_afp/chinausautocompanysaicgmipo_20101118124328

Where can I find list of symbols (yahoo uses) for foreign stock exchange indexes to make tracking portfolio? Especially need Shanghai China & France CAC.

Given China and India's growth, should I rethink what a diversified portfolio looks like? I'm investing for a 30+ year horizon and I have a hypothesis that I should put the majority of my money in index funds tied to the stock markets of India (India Index Exchange Traded Note) and China (iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index) because those are economies of growth. I have heard that American companies such as GE, Gillete, P&G, Coca-Cola, etc. will benefit by serving these countries, but I still think that foreign firms based in those countries will better understand and take advantage of those markets. Furthermore, why should I assume that the American markets are any more safe for my money than China or India? From an education standpoint, the U.S. is not looking too competitive 20 or 30 years from now and that is not good for an economy that is dependent on innovation. For my equity investments I was thinking of this distribution: Fidelity Asset Manager (85%) - 20% India Index Exchange Traded Note (INP) - 40% iShares FTSE/Xinhua China 25 Index (FXI) - 40%

There has to be a way to take advantage of the stock market correction? I only have one mutual fund, and it got creamed today (an nrg index). Is it best for an inexperienced investor to just let it run its course, or can I take advantage by diversifying now? My thoughts are china, gold, military, nrg. Why are these flawed? I understand china might be correcting itself as well, but we are selling our debt to them...

Should the stock markets go clash in Hong Kong and China to cool overheated economy and lower the inflations? Hong Kong has a boost up economic outlook this year because the inclination of stock markets go nearly to 30,000 in Heng Seng index. We boasts Hong Kong has the highest numbers of rich citizens in Asia but the contemporary problem of highest gini coefficient of 0.535 reflecting the poor and rich gap is highest among all developed counties with estimated two millions out of slightly less than seven million population. Hong Kong has no pension for the retired citizens The damn fruit fund only pays ranging from $625-705 per month which is equivalent to less than one hundred US dollars. Canadians are entitled to equivalent to 8,000 to 9,000 Hong Kong dolllars per month. What a great comparison and contrast between Hong Kong and Canada? The recent TV programs showed many university graduated young couples are tending to have mental disease problem because the housing prices go up twice as much as last year. They can't afford to buy a small living unit in Shenzhen, the damned "market city" . I want to say Hong Kong has estimated more than two millions out of less than seven millions total population are currently live under the poverty line. Hong Kong government should provide assistance to those welfare families. Just this week, there are many shocked suicide incident happened in Hong Kong. Do you think god will allow a welfare recipient who stole an organge pack of HK.$14 (less than two US dollars) jumped out of the window and killed herself in this city of no mercy! Hong Kong government must provide a basic pension fund to citizens who reached the age of 60s as the basic needs. Hong Kong citizens are experiencing hard to get works at their 50s. Why the god damned Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen entitled to have his already too much overpaid salary and benefit by 90k dollars each month. He is not a good catholic; he has no compassion; he is not even a normal human kind. I think a basic pension of at least $4,000 a month is just about right in Hong Kong for retiree reach age 60

Are British aware that democracy is not universal? example: democracy in the ASEAN region has been detrimenalt to regional and civil stability. Singapore- wealthiest city/state per capita on earth- is a one-party government where elections are merely a charade. Brunei is absolute monarchical. Malaysia holds sham elections too. In Indonesia formerly long-quashed ethnic and religious tensions re-ignited with the usurping of Suharto's 32 year reign. Corruption is now actually worse than under Suharto and living conditions even worse for many (around 40-80 million) than post-Independence. China's massive growth can only be due to its' complete political stability- otherwise India's growth rate of 7% pa would match China's 9+% and its' China's Stock Index increase of would be matched (India's was 35% for 2007). Alsoeconomists would not predict India would only optimally attain 65% of China's economic capacity. Vietnam too is now booming, as is again Thailand. Democracy is simply un-Asian. Will British admit democracy does not always work? Democracy remains a Greco-Roman cultural legacy incongruent with Asia's Kingship culture& 90%+ of all Asians lack the education and background to shoulder the responsibilities of democracy. Democracy remains a Greco-Roman cultural legacy incongruent with Asia's Kingship culture& 90%+ of all Asians lack the education and background to shoulder the responsibilities of democracy.

Stock Indices? I am looking for a good page where I can see (or set up myself) performance for world indices. So I want to see various indices such as S&P, Nikkei, FTSE, DAX, China, etc. and I want to see monthly, 3 month and 1 year performance. Everything I can find only gives me daily changes unless I go into the charts one-by-one and calculate it myself.

Can anyone suggest a source 4 current (ie regular) views on the equity/indices of countries round the world? I tried to get the whole question in the title so apologies for it not being grammatically correct. Anyway, I'm trying to get a consensus view on the relative prospects of worldwide stock indices - for example, the consensus for FTSE100 is that it will breach 7000 this year. China is volatile and moves disproportionality on rumour. I want to make money (sorry) by getting a feel for which indices are hot and whats not. Thanks.

What does it mean when stock...? "China’s Shanghai Composite Index dropped 0.7 percent, while Japan’s Nikkei 225 Stock Average fell 1.4 percent. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index declined 1.3 percent." I got this quote off bloomberg.com So what does it mean when lets say Nikkei 225 Stock Average fell 1.4%? Does that mean the value of the whole Stock Exchance has lost 1.4% of its value? Can u explain me in greater detail? Thanks.

Is there a "My Yahoo" in Yahoo Chinese? How can add a portfolio into my Yahoo Chinese page? I like to track Shanghai stock index from My Yahoo China.

can the Dow Jones Industrial Average ever reach 20 000 ? do we have the nation to support such a range China stock market last year was around 20 000 points its called the HANG SENG INDEX If I had a box of old coins from 1920 and I took each coin add up the interest for the last 67 years could they do it ? Does interest coint if you take the money and save it in your own personal saving box like a home made cigar box and could it have any value ?

Does anyone think this is a good stock to invest in? Hello, My dad bought a couple thousand shares of Geely Auto stock (82 cents/share). He says that it's going to be huge because they're cheap cars from China, and I saw on the news that they're starting to become popular. Do you think this is a good stock to invest in, by looking at the graphs? Any other advice? The website is here: http://203.194.148.110/~geelmhk1/en/index.html The stock code is 175 Thanks a lot, any advice is appreciated :)

Help me with asset allocation!? I came up with a contribution strategy so that at the end of 2011, my asset allocation will look like the following. Let me know what you think. Fixed Income (total 30%): - 6%, Inflation protected bonds - 6%, Long term treasury bond index - 19%, Total bond market index Equity (total 70%): - 21%, Small cap index - 6%, REITs index - 10%, Int'l equity (Brazil, China, India) - 37%, Total stock market index - 6%, S&P 500 Index I am 30 years old and plan to retire in 20-30 years. In the future I can add ETFs for commodities and other investments. Many thanks.

Why did China Allows Short Sales, Margin Loans to Help Market as legistlative policy ahead of the big crash &? didn't they recently buy 10% of stock in Blackstone Group? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArNFGLnYhVuxPxgZ.VI_AYTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20081008161435AAb4qTv http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2007hearings/transcripts/may_24_25/05_24_25_07_trans.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/22blackstone.html?dlbk http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/business/03backlash.html?ei=5090&en=b943b83e92b7f0ee&ex=1343793600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90778/6259330.html http://www.housingmarketforecasts.com/2008/08/04/us-sec-selective-short-selling-protection-ensures-survival-of-the-unfittest-banks.html http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20081009&id=9248895 http://news.jongo.com/articles/08/1007/155962/MTU1OTYyIE3zIdDs.html http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601089&sid=ajvJdZpdH3LQ&refer=china Hi Ed, China sure did acquire non-voting shares in Blackstone. Not clear if in the final deal if it was 8% or 10%, but sice they bought prior to initial stock offering it may be 10++%. The purchase was made back in May of last year due to China's interest in entering the commercial paper market. Why they decided to enter the market during an international freeze would seemingly be to add pressure to unfreeze the market. Which happened here on Wednesday and pretty much wiped out the immediate gains of the bailout package, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/business/22blackstone.html?dlbk http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/business/worldbusiness/21yuan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin The CEO of Blackstone was Treasury Secretary for about a year during the Watergate scandal, Nixon's Resignation and the start of the Ford administration. Coincidentally, this is when "free trade" was truly incepted with China. By the way Blackstone also purchased 20% of Blue Star

China's biggest bank gets approval for IPO? (China Econominc Net, Jul 19, 2006)China's biggest state-owned commercial bank, ICBC, has received approval for an initial public offering, the country's top bank regulator said Tuesday, following reports the deal could raise up to US$14 billion (euro11.17 billion). Industrial & Commercial Bank of China's IPO "has been officially approved," said Liu Mingkang, chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, quoted by the official Xinhua News Agency. The report didn't say when or where the IPO would take place or how much money it was intended to raise. But earlier reports said ICBC wants to raise as much as US$14 billion (euro11.17 billion) with a simultaneous offering on stock exchanges in Hong Kong and Shanghai. With a successful IPO, ICBC would join other Chinese state-owned banks that have raised billions of dollars from investors in a massive industry overhaul as Beijing prepares to open their http://www.zoomchina.com.cn/index.php?/content/view/9735/1/

confirmation whether these are normative/positive/microeconomic/macroeconomic statements.. :)? I've never had any basics of economics before in high school; but now i'm taking the subject since it sounds interesting. My lecturer gave my class an assignment where we have to cut out 4 newspaper parts; where each of the articles contain micro,macro,normative & positive statement (1 type of statement for each article).. i've found some lines for all these statements, but the problem is; i'm not really sure whether the statements are suitable or vice versa. this assigment will be counted in our exam percentage. so, plz do confirm me whether the statements below are matched accordingly... thank you!!! normative = "We need to be determined to make the right necessary changes," an economy with a local bank says. positive = 1. Singapore's benchmark stock index has climbed 28% in the past year, more than Hong Kong's Hang Seng and Taiwan Taiex, while Shanghai benchmark has fallen 22%. 2. Official data puts China's growth rate for 2009 at 9.1%. It grew a healthy 10.7% year-on-year in the fourth quarter last year, compared within 6.2% in the first quarter, 7.9% in the second quarter and 9.1% in the thrid quarter, driven largely by stimulus policies and a low base following the financial crisis in 2008. Macroeconomic = Things are changing and exports to China are accelerating. Microeconomic = 1. The company's tight rein has produced positive results as it registered a 158 million yuan (RM74mil) profit lastyear, seven times more than 2007, while other private Chinese airlines slumped into crisis. 2.Under its expansion plans, Spring Airlines will buy 50 aircraft in addition to its existing 18 within the nest five years. The company aims for initial public offering next year to raise about 20 billion yuan(RM9.6bil) to buy more aircraft. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHETHER EACH SENTENCES MATCHES THE TYPE OF STATEMENT.. AND FOR THOSE WHICH HAS 2 STATEMENTS, LET ME KNOW WHICH IS MORE CONVINCING.. THANK YOU VERY MUCH! ^_^

Stock markets go into freefall? What do you think? HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- Share markets across Europe and Asia plunged for a second day Tuesday as global markets reacted to fears that a U.S. economic slowdown will lead to a global recession. Check: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/01/22/markets.plunge.asia/index.html#cnnSTCText

Do you agree with Donald Trump that we should impose a tariff on imports from China? http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/news/economy/donald_trump_cpac/index.htm Trump: U.S. is a 'laughing stock' "Real estate mogul Donald Trump told hundreds of conservative activists Thursday, that if he was president, he would take in "hundreds of billions from countries that are screwing us." "The comment repeated past statements from "The Apprentice" star, who has said he wants to put a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports, to level trade imbalances in the global economy."

Korean/Asian?China Clothing Website.. A SCAM!? I am very very upset. I worked my tail off this summer and planned on using every dime i had to buy the things i wanted for my junior year in high school. I was doing some searching for some good online sites and came across this http://asia-fashion-wholesale.com/welcome/index.php?_g=co&_a=step1 website. I was blown away how low their stuff is. Eventually i got all the things i wanted to order in one shopping cart. 22 shirts for a grand total of 195 dollars and some change. They said they prefered paypal but i ended up just using a credit card. I gave them my info and then thought i was all set for the wait... that was wrong. I soon got the confirmation email from them and in it they told me that 19 pieces of mine were ready. the other three pieces had turned out to be out of stock. They told me that i could do one of three things. Evenutally I chose to do the option where they would allow me to chose three more items that came up to the same price. I did that... Then everything was fine. The next day i emailed them asking for a tracking number. They said "1 of the pieces that you added could not be found would you like us to refund you or use it as credit for you next order?" Since i had planned on ordering dresses from them again very soon I decided that would be a good idea. They soon sent me yet another email and said my order was ready to be shiped but they also sent THIS: Dear Sir/Madam, you order 110822-173751-5927 is ready. But the your SSN(Social Security Number) is necessary for Fedex when they deliver your goods, Please provide us your SSN soon so that you can receive your parcel successfully. Thanks for your cooperation! Best regards Charles WTF!!?? I asked them whothehell they thought i was! I am really pissed i paid them already for crying out loud!? What can i do if my money from my mothers account has been stolen from me? As i was typing this they acutally emailed me back and said: Dear Sir/Madam, I'm sorry to hear that! Because Fedex informed us that the local customs need this number, if you can't provide it, okay, we can send out your order shortly. If they need it when the goods arrive, please provide it to the customs. Thanks for your cooperation! Best regards Ella TF???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? -_- Okayy thank you so much but how can I go about reporting htem?? Call 911? lol that seems silly but resonable i guess Nevermind everyone turns out fedex DOES sometimes require your ssn number for out of state products and so does canada! lol I was floored. I never provided them with my ssn but my goos are in town so yeaaa lol check out the site!:)

Which is the most humane way to cook dog meat in China? Well I am seeking people's opinions with regard to a question that I answered. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090904020252AAGDsoI&r=w#G5YuXFXGA3OKlJ3w0JqU My Way _________ 1. Starve the dog for at least 3 days, till it starts crying with the pangs of hunger. This will help clear his bowel of any residual guts. 2. Now take a lot of uncooked rice and serve it in front of the dog. The dog being extremely hungry will devour all rice and his stomach will be filled with rice. 3. Chop off the head of the dog, and roast it. If you don't have an oven that big, you may consider burning a fire outside your apartment. 4. While the dog meat is being roasted, the uncooked rice inside the stomach of dog will cook in its saliva and other enzymes, the same way as we cook rice in water. 5. When roasting is complete, cut the whole lot into small pieces, depending on the number of servings you want to make. You can add garlic, salt and other spices according to your taste. Aileen HK's way ______________ use a stick to hit strongly on the dog's nose and break its bone and make it fainted. Yes, right in the front and cruel! Then they cut the dog's neck to let it bleed till dead., boil a big pot of water, put it in the pot and boil till they can take off its hair. Butcher the dog from opening its tummy, wash it under running tap water. <<<<<< Dog stewed in Clay pot >>>>>>>>> 1) Chop the dog in pieces, prepare lot of garlic, ginger and fermented soy bean sauce, soy sause, sugar... seasoning ..Chinese yellow wine, finely chopped garlic, finely chopped dried orange peels, soy sauce, sugar and fermented soy bean sauce, mix all the above to a paste. 2) rub salt on the meat, wait for a while, then wash away the salt. Drain well and set aside. 3) heat some peanut oil on a clay pot, when the pot is real hot, stir fry crushed fresh ginger and sliced garlic till fragrant, remove the garlic and ginger, pour dog meat in the pot, stir fry quickly then sprinkle some rice wine in the pot, make a fame, turn heat to medium. 4) Pour the seasoning paste to the pot, toss the dog meat and the paste with 1 cup of chicken stock, cover the clay pot and let it cook till the sauce is thicken. 5) Turn off the heat, add chinese leek or green onion & corriander on top, serve hot. ____________ Which method you prefer? Floyyy :D, your method does not sound Chinese at all. In Anhui we all prepare the dog meat the way I have described. We starve it at least three days before the final preparation. Liuzhou Laowai, dog is very common food in China, just that some are ashamed to owe up to it because of being ridiculed. Have you ever cooked it my way? Hunt a dog, starve it and then feed it raw rice before killing and cooking it?

Can we all block those guys from nike who list all their current stock in our answers? They we won't have too read that crap! For example - "maybe you can find your answers at: HTTP://WWW.FASHBIZ.COM keyword:wholesale cheap Jordan, china Nike factory Jordan wholesale, cheap Jordan spiz'ikes, air Jordan factory directn, Jordan mixed with air force one new style, cheap air force ones outlet, authentic Nike af1s,air force 1 xxv'07 anniversary edition premium, custom Nike SB dunks outlet, wholesale cheap dunks, Nike dunks premium SB wholesale, USA custom Nike sneakers for sale, Nike factory air max 87 style," Thats not even half the sh!t he wrote! Here's one here lets all block and report him - http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArC6GHhh_3Gz.93yLbAebkzOBwx.;_ylv=3?qid=20090603071825AAbGiL6 I'm ok Amie, you sorta lost me Abramovich's attic though.

Igor Panarin says that America will collapse next year. Your thoughts? Edit: Igor Panarin is a "dean" at the Foreign Ministry's school for future diplomats and a regular on Russia's state-guided TV channels. Panarin argued that Americans are in moral decline, saying their great psychological stress is evident from school shootings, the size of the prison population and the number of gay men. Turning to economic woes, he cited the slide in major stock indexes, the decline in U.S. gross domestic product and Washington's bailout of banking giant Citigroup as evidence that American dominance of global markets has collapsed. "I was there recently and things are far from good," he said. "What's happened is the collapse of the American dream." Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar. Asked for comment on how the Foreign Ministry views Panarin's theories, a spokesman said all questions had to be submitted in writing and no answers were likely before Wednesday. It wasn't clear how persuasive the 20-minute lecture was. One instructor asked Panarin whether his predictions more accurately describe Russia, which is undergoing its worst economic crisis in a decade as well as a demographic collapse that has led some scholars to predict the country's demise. Panarin dismissed that idea: "The collapse of Russia will not occur." But Alexei Malashenko, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center who did not attend the lecture, sided with the skeptical instructor, saying Russia is the country that is on the verge of disintegration. "I can't imagine at all how the United States could ever fall apart," Malashenko told the AP. Here's the complete article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_the_end_is_near;_ylt=AiwSS5tWTMdTXR7P.H_9NLfZn414

Why did the Dow drop 150 points on the very day the freshman class of the Republican US House Elect shows up? NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. stocks tumbled Tuesday morning, with the Dow sliding more than 150 points and all three major indexes down 1.5%, as investors cast a worried eye at economic developments in Europe and China. http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/16/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?hpt=T2

Does Nixon Abolishing the Gold Standard in 1971 mean Gold has no intrinsic value and Fiat with no standard is? better. I mean, it's just the countries say if it's good or not. And the Stock Market is the index, I find that frightening even though it is also funny in a Hogarthian way. By the beginning of the 20th century almost all countries had adopted the gold standard, backing their legal tender notes with fixed amounts of gold. After World War II, at the Bretton Woods Conference, most countries adopted fiat currencies that were fixed to the US dollar. The US dollar was in turn fixed to gold. In 1971 the US government suspended the convertibility of the US dollar to gold. After this many countries de-pegged their currencies from the US dollar, and most of the world's currencies became unbacked by anything except the governments' fiat of legal tender and the ability to convert the money into goods via payment. Wow, wonder if the Yuan will be the next indicator since the Bank of China is now the Richest Bank in the World. Wasn't Gold still the Standard when Eisenhower was President? I know, I don't understand anything That's why I have you geniuses telling me how it really works

Egypt:what do you think? are we going to see ad's for the Chinese green card lottery soon? are we going to see American show , instead Russian show, in the hotels of Cairo? are we going to see the great United state of China in place USA soon??... in the occasion of the collapse of the Capitalism , the stock markets in USA , and Europe and the raise of the Chinese stock market industrial indexes !!!! http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7955E9B2-195D-4F05-BC72-F7AA04D9AF01.htm Translation http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.net%2FNR%2Fexeres%2F7955E9B2-195D-4F05-BC72-F7AA04D9AF01.htm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ar&tl=en (automated translation) @AquarinaI: thought always the first sentience learned by any foreign languages: -For Men: I love you -For woman : I need extra money I do not see them....lol hahahahah like that: 我爱你 I love you 我需要更多的钱 I need more money 在这方面的浴室呢? where is the bathroom? haha ok read this :你我笑

Can be today the best day in history; To start a riot ★?!? (CNN) -- Asian stock markets are recording sharp declines Friday, extending a staggering global equity sell-off after Wall Street had its worst day in recorded history. Hong Kong's Hang Seng opened down more than 4%. Australia's All Ordinaries was down more than 4%, and Japan's Nikkei and South Korea's Kospi had also shed 3% China's Shanghai SE Composite Index was down 2%. The falls came after the Dow tumbled 512 points Thursday -- its ninth deepest point drop ever -- as fear about the global economy spooked investors. "The conventional wisdom on Wall Street was that the economy was growing -- that the worst was behind us," shouted Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital. "Now what people are realizing is the stimulus didn't work, and we are facing a world-wide global recession of inescapable magnitude. We are finished" - he said with visible distress. >Rumors of massive bank-runs spreading through Europe >4 Unconfirmed suicides reported on Wall Street since yesterday >America, Europe and Asia to hold EMERGENCY CRISIS MEETING in Brussels >Martial law is 'a very real prospect' in the United States Now is not the time to riot. Now is the time to get rid of oppressive governments and get back to basics. Learning to be self sufficient, learning basic farming, building a nice cabin, living without useless vices like gambling, hard drugs, television, sports, and useless distractions like that. If we take our resources and devote them to building a nice life free of bullshyt, we'll be just fine and we'll build a stronger society for the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmdPQp6Jcdk

My investment Plan. Please take a look? Please any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated. 1) 70,000 money market 2) 170,000 S&P 500 index fund 3) 30,000 international stock market My plan is to have a emergency reserve of 70,000 in money market. If a hot investment comes up, I could always take money out of money market and invest as I choose. Second is too have a majority of my money 170,000 in a moderate risk S&P 500 index fund for at least 5 years. Im thinking of just leaving this money in there and forgetting about it. Third is to put about 30,000 in a high risk stock such as international. But I don't know where to invest. Did research but still unsure. China has been doing really well but some say they'll crash others say they'll keep rising. So confusing. Since stock market tends to do better long term, I plan to leave it for at least 7 years. My plans decent?? Please ANY advice, comments or suggestions would really help. Im 23 & and want max growth without being to risky. 9-14% would be good

My investment plan. Please take a look.? Please any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated. 1) 70,000 money market 2) 170,000 S&P 500 index fund 3) 30,000 international stock market My plan is to have a emergency reserve of 70,000 in money market. If a hot investment comes up, I could always take some money out of money market and invest as I choose. Second is too have a majority of my money 170,000 in a moderate risk S&P 500 index fund for at least 5 years. Im thinking of just leaving this money in there and forgetting about it. Good idea?? Third is to put about 30,000 in a high risk stock such as international. But I don't know where to invest. Did research but still unsure. China has been doing really well but some say they'll crash others say they'll keep rising. So confusing. Since stock market tends to do better long term, I plan to leave it for at least 7 years. Should I put some money in small cap too?? My plans decent?? Please ANY advice, comments or suggestions would really help. Thanks

How long before the market bubble bounce by Obama artificial stimulation bursts and the market crashes? The rally has been achieved with global economic growth barely above zero and unemployment still rising. The S&P 500 index of US stocks is already far above the forecasts nine out of 10 Wall Street strategists have in place for the end of the year, according to a Bloomberg survey. Concerns are prevalent that US consumers will not return to their old buying habits because of high unemployment and the debts they need to pay off. There are also concerns that China, the other leading source of growth, has achieved that only by stoking lending – notably, Chinese stocks sold off sharply in August when authorities hinted at tightening lending. The speed of the rally is itself cause for concern. Historically, big sell-offs have typically been followed by big bounces. But as measured by the S&P 500, the current rally is stronger after six months than any predecessor, including those that followed the lowest points of the market in 1932, 1974 and 1982. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/defff18e-aa07-11de-a3ce-00144feabdc0.html?catid=68&SID=google&nclick_check=1

What do you call a "Racist" and a "Nazi" in Chinese? Or is there a similar word? I came across a post on this forum which sounds so much of a Jew hating post http://answers(.)yahoo(.)com/question/index?qid=20090102061236AAmVyrq Jews taking over Shanghai Stock Exchange? Either this person a "Nazi" or paid by CIA /MI6 to break China's defense cooperations with Israel by inciting anti Jew sentiments and then reporting them back to our partner "Israel". What do you call such a person in Chinese? ADD Remove the brackets that I have put around the dots (.) for the link to work. Or is there a cultural equivalent?

Who likes Zhang Ziyi now? Anyone at all? I've noticed that her films have really gone down and down. Her media presence has one up and up! She is almost completely hated in China and really doesnt use her talent and just dates an old stock trader (Who is in his 50's) to keep her in the limelight. Which I'm sure he is happy to pay for. I used to be her fan but I'm so disappointed by her right now. Does she actually have any fans left? If so tell me what do you think. Sorry dear, Lucy Liu is the Chinese princess of acting and Gong Li is the most popular Chinese actress of all time . You either got it or you aint, Zhang Ziyi you dont even come close! http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/24/content_377505.htm http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2006-09/04/content_681178.htm http://asianfanatics.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t48342.html http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?tid=503681 http://forums.chinesesavvy.com/viewtopic.php?t=1441&sid=7f9f92948b6241a770c72451fe3c3484

Which shox do u like better?? Do u like the shox with the 4 shox http://www.nike.com/index.jhtml#l=nikestore,grid,_pdp,cid-1/gid-154068/pid-154068,_grid,f-10001+12001&re=US&co=US&la=EN or 5 http://sunnydinlea.ecvv.com/upload/info/China_Product_C20071615220991177_Nike_shox_R5_shoes_in_stock.jpg I was just wondering which ones do u like better the 4 shox or 5 shox not those pairs I want totally different colors but i was just wondering if u like the 4 or 5 shox

Investing in a 403B. Which percentage would you place of the following options and why? See fidelity list:? I have all these choice names below... which would you pick and why? They all mean nothing to me. Would like to retire in 25 years. * (Total must equal 100%) Total: 0% Fund Name FID STRAT DIV & INC FID ASSET MGR 50% FID CONVERTIBLE SEC FID ASSET MGR 20% FID ASSET MGR 30% FID ASSET MGR 40% FID ASSET MGR 60% FID ASSET MGR 70% FID ASSET MGR 85% FID BALANCED FID DYNAMIC STRAT FID FREEDOM 2000 FID FREEDOM 2005 FID FREEDOM 2010 FID FREEDOM 2015 FID FREEDOM 2020 FID FREEDOM 2025 FID FREEDOM 2030 FID FREEDOM 2035 FID FREEDOM 2040 FID FREEDOM 2045 FID FREEDOM 2050 FID FREEDOM INCOME FID GLOBAL BALANCED % FID PURITAN FID STRAT REAL RET % FID CAPITAL & INCOME % FID CORPORATE BOND FID FLOAT RT HI INC % FID FOCUSED HIGH INC % FID GNMA FID HIGH INCOME % FID INFLAT PROT BOND FID INST SH INT GOVT FID INTERMED BOND FID INTM GOVT INCOME FID MORTGAGE SEC FID NEW MARKETS INC % FID SHORT TERM BOND FID STRATEGIC INCOME FID TOTAL BOND FID ULTRASHORT BOND % FIDELITY GOVT INCOME FIDELITY INVST GR BD FIDELITY US BD INDEX SPTN INT TR INDX INV SPTN LT TR INDX INV SPTN ST TR INDX INV FID GOVT MMKT FID MONEY MARKET FID SEL MONEY MARKET FID US TREASURY MM FIDELITY CASH RESRVE FIDELITY RET GOVT MM FIDELITY RETIRE MMKT FIDELITY US GOVT RES ABF LG CAP VAL INV AF GRTH FUND AMER R4 CALAMOS GROWTH A FID 130/30 LG CAP FID BLUE CHIP GROWTH FID BLUE CHIP VALUE FID CAP APPRECIATION FID CONTRAFUND FID DISCIPLINED EQTY FID DIVIDEND GROWTH FID EQUITY INCOME II FID EQUITY INCOME FID EXP & MULTINATL % FID FIDELITY FID FIFTY FID FOCUSED STOCK FID FOUR IN ONE IDX FID GROWTH & INCOME FID GROWTH COMPANY FID GROWTH DISCOVERY FID INDEPENDENCE FID LARGE CAP GROWTH FID LARGE CAP STOCK FID LARGE CAP VALUE FID LC CORE ENH INDX FID LC GR ENH INDX FID LC VAL ENH INDX FID MEGA CAP STOCK FID NASDAQ COMP INDX % FID OTC PORTFOLIO FID STK SEL ALL CAP FID TREND FID VALUE DISCOVERY FIDELITY MAGELLAN SPARTAN 500 INDEX SPTN TOTAL MKT INDEX % COLUMBIA ACORN Z FID GR STRATEGIES % FID LEVERAGED CO STK % FID MID CAP ENH INDX % FID MID CAP GROWTH % FID MID CAP STOCK % FID MID CAP VALUE % FID VALUE FIDELITY LOW PR STK % FIDELITY NEW MILLEN SPTN EXTND MKT INDEX % FID SM CAP DISCOVERY % FID SM CP ENH INDX % FID SMALL CAP GROWTH % FID SMALL CAP STOCK % FID SMALL CAP VALUE % FID STK SEL SM CAP % FID VALUE STRATEGIES FID CANADA % FID CHINA REGION % FID DIVERSIFIED INTL % FID EMEA % FID EUROPE CAP APP % FID EUROPE % FID INTL CAP APPREC % FID INTL DISCOVERY % FID INTL ENH INDEX % FID INTL GROWTH % FID INTL SM CAP OPP % FID INTL SMALL CAP % FID INTL VALUE % FID JAPAN SMALLER CO % FID JAPAN % FID LATIN AMERICA % FID OVERSEAS % FID PACIFIC BASIN % FID SOUTHEAST ASIA % FID TOTAL INTL EQ % FID WORLDWIDE % FIDELITY EMERG MRKTS % FIDELITY NORDIC % SPARTAN INTL INDEX % FID INTL REAL ESTATE % FID REAL ESTATE INC % FID REAL ESTATE INVS % FID SEL AIR TRANSPRT % FID SEL AUTOMOTIVE % FID SEL BANKING % FID SEL BIOTECH % FID SEL BROKERAGE % FID SEL CHEMICALS % FID SEL COMM EQUIP % FID SEL COMPUTERS % FID SEL CONS DISCR % FID SEL CONS STAPLES % FID SEL CONSTR/HOUSE % FID SEL DEFENSE % FID SEL ELECTRONICS % FID SEL ENERGY SVCS % FID SEL ENERGY % FID SEL ENV ALT ENGY % FID SEL FINANCIAL % FID SEL GOLD % FID SEL HEALTHCARE % FID SEL HOME FINANCE % FID SEL INDUST EQUIP % FID SEL INDUSTRIALS % FID SEL INSURANCE % FID SEL IT SERVICES % FID SEL LEISURE % FID SEL MATERIALS % FID SEL MED EQ & SYS % FID SEL MEDICAL DEL % FID SEL MULTIMEDIA % FID SEL NATURAL GAS % FID SEL NATURAL RES % FID SEL PHARMACEUTCL % FID SEL RETAILING % FID SEL SOFTWARE % FID SEL TECHNOLOGY % FID SEL TELECOMM % FID SEL TRANSPORT % FID SEL UTILITIES % FID SEL WIRELESS % FID TELECOM & UTIL FID GLB COMDTY STK

CNPC invests US$500 mln in Rosneft's IPO? July 19 - China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China's largest oil producer, announced Wednesday that it bought Russia's OAO Rosneft 66.2252 million listed shares for 500 million U.S. dollars at 7.55 U.S. dollars per share. Rosneft, one of Russia's oil giants, is scheduled to go public on both London and Moscow stock exchanges on Wednesday. Raised 10.4 billion U.S. dollars by last Friday, the IPO is considered one of the biggest in the world. The move signified that China, an economic powerhouse that is thirsty for oil, is marching at a fast pace to enter the Russian energy market, and it will enable China to have better access to oil worldwide, according to analysts. http://www.zoomchina.com.cn/index.php?/content/view/9643/1/

How should invest my 401k contributions? i'm 23 and doing a 12% contribution. My company currently is not matching. I was told to choose High Risk - High Growth stocks - also, should i get a Roth IRA on the side? These are my options: Fund Name Alger Health Sciences A American Funds Amcap Fund (Class R-4) # American Funds New Perspective (R4) # Ariel Appreciation Fund Dodge & Cox Balanced Fund # Dodge & Cox Income Fund # Dodge & Cox Stock Fund # Evergreen Instl Money Mkt/Is Heartland Value Fund Ivy Science & Technology A HighMark NYSE Arca Tech 100 Index A Oakmark Equity and Income Fund I Pioneer High Yield Fund (Class A) Thornburg International Value (R5) Vanguard 500 Index Fund # Vanguard Explorer Fund (Investor) # Vanguard Midcap Index Fund Investor # Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund # Vanguard Wellington Fund # T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Bond # + T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stk Fund # + Fairholme Dreyfus Greater China/A +

Even after just finishing off a 30 year battle with LTTE isn't it good to know that Sri Lanka keeps advancing? our milk production has increased by 30% http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/10/06/news25.asp our human development index per the UN has grown more than half a point year upon year and we are at the top echelon for human development in our region http://www.colombopage.com/archive_091/Oct1254755696CH.html We have excellent and comprehensive settlement programmes for IDPs with great partners such as China, Japan and Iran but the pricing needs to be brought in line with reality. http://www.island.lk/2009/10/06/news12.html Rohitha should be mindful of his words and actions vis-a-vis the foreign service http://www.slbc.lk/index.php/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1408-government-emphasizes-that-sovereignty-will-not-be-sacrifice-for-perks-and-benefits- No matter how the UN might postulate they should allow, accomodate and fund proper temporary accomodations for IDPs specifically getting this population out of tents and into structured units at IDP centers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8291963.stm We thank the US State Department for issuing a retraction on the Clinton statement but the reality exists that proper protocols would encourage that such a detraction go to the head of state from a member of the Presidential Cabinet. http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/10/06/news01.asp It is very lopsided that there is allegedly 8 B US in the less than penny ante stock market but that there is no assistance for these greatly needed resettlement and livelihood programmes run per Central Government directive. http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_438491.html http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=1286664376# Isn't 8B the same amount that went missing in the Timor Leste incident? I wonder if this is what Waldner-Ferrero considers aide? http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=318457&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24 Marvelous news about the President's upcoming visit to the birthplace of the Buddha. CHECK DRAFTS NOW RAJA/BEN B CHECK DRAFTS NOW RAJA/GOTHY/PMR/BEN B

australian houseprices are 30-60 days from crashing... how far will they tumble? property update .com .au is a pack of lies - Hong Kong house price index in its front page graph -23% since 1977 is a laugh!! The AU decline will be staggered but in 3 sudden waves. 1 US orders decline - happening now 2 China minerals orders decline - emerging 3 Homeland reaction and market protection trends Q2 09-2010 Australia will start to stumble from Nov 08-February 09. UK will suffer an unexpected snowball decline in December Another stock market debacle is just around the corner in US.

can some one summarize this article? "US economy in transition from recovery to expansion phase"? Stocks advanced yet again last week in light of rising optimism about economic growth, strong corporate earnings and a continued fading of the fears that kept many investors away from risk assets over the past couple of years. For the week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 1.5% to 12,273, the S&P 500 Index rose 1.4% to 1,329 and the Nasdaq Composite advanced 1.5% to 2,809. In our view, while the rally has been strong, it is not yet exhausted. Although a short-term correction could take place at any time, equities remain relatively inexpensive and we believe the bull market should continue. Economic growth in the United States has continued to improve in recent weeks. Business confidence measures have moved to multi-year highs, sales levels are rising, profits are improving and business investment levels remain robust. The economy is clearly transitioning from a recovery phase to an expansion phase. The difference between the two is that the former is dependent on monetary and fiscal stimulus while the latter is based on improvements in demand from the consumer sector as well as on companies’ top-line growth and growing trends in capital investment — trends that are more self-sustaining. It is important to remember, however, that the significant long-term issues that drove the economy into recession (the fiscal crisis and resultant deleveraging) have not gone away and will still take some time to address. It is clear that the launch of QE2 in late 2010 as well as the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts (plus additional sweeteners) has helped lift near-term economic prospects, but what happens in the second half of the year and beyond remains an open question. The murkiness of the long-term outlook combined with the fact that economic growth expectations have improved result in some additional risks. At present, expectations for 2011 economic growth have risen to around the 3.5% level, meaning that it will be an increasing challenge for data releases to result in positive surprises. It is extremely difficult at this point to make any sort of assessment as to what the economy will look like in 2012, but we expect 2012 to be a year marked by a Federal Reserve that is slowly working to normalize rates, by emerging economies that are continuing to experience faster growth levels than the rest of the world, by a political backdrop that will make President Obama eager to promote growth-friendly policies and possibly by a housing market that is able to make some contributions to economic growth levels. One factor that we do not believe will be a significant issue in the year ahead is inflation. Rising food and energy prices have received their share of headlines, and while these factors are highly significant in emerging economies (where purchases of food and energy make up a much larger percentage of consumer spending), they are less so in the developed world. There is still a great deal of slack in the world’s developed market economies (which can be seen in the labor markets), and we do not believe we need to be overly concerned about inflation. Given the improving economic backdrop, it should not be a surprise that we are seeing a broad asset allocation shift among investors from bonds toward equities. Some observers have suggested that the recent inflows into equity mutual funds mean that the rally in stocks may be coming to an end, but we do not share that view and continue to believe that equities are a good place for most investors to be. From a geographic perspective, we continue to believe that US stocks are very well positioned relative to alternatives. US economic growth is continuing to improve, while Japan and Europe are continuing to face some problems. Emerging markets do represent some attractive opportunities, but in some cases (such as China) growth levels are too high and inflation is becoming a problem, causing authorities to ramp up tightening efforts. For many investors, the shift into equity markets is still in the early stages and equity valuations are hardly stretched, suggesting that the upward moves have further to run. While pullbacks and corrections will no doubt occur along the way, we believe they should be short and shallow and should be taken advantage of to add to positions.

Which company stocks are the best to invest? I'm an active trader and I change my portfolio's composition on a monthly basis. I had previously invested in MSCI Indices like EEM and EFA, and companies like Mittal and Merrill Lynch. But I am now looking for some more company shares to invest in. Does anyone know which and why should I invest in them? Give good reasons. I know everyone is saying China is the next big thing but I want to hear from u seasoned traders out there on what stocks u would recommend on the NYSE, NASDAQ and AMEX. PS: I'm a technical analyst

What would happen to developing nation (India/China etc) stocks if the US economy crashed severely? It's my opinion that the US economy is heading for a major economic crash, perhaps even another great depression. I was just wondering what would happen to an index fund that was invested in emerging markets (such as India/China/Russia etc) if the US economy crashed heavily - both in the short term and long term.

how does the article make distinction between firms? use these distionctions to analyze and gain insights? Abstract (Summary) Instead, Giancarlo Di Risio, Versace's bespectacled chief executive, presided over an evening that highlighted luxury goods: Parked at one end of the courtyard was a half-million-dollar Lamborghini Murcielago with a black-and-white leather interior by Versace. A huge poster showed an AgustaWestland helicopter with a Versace-designed cabin. Stacked nearby was luggage embossed with the brand's Greek motif, with pieces starting at about $4,000. The company found it increasingly tough to squeeze profits out of highly perishable fashions as production costs rose in Italy. In 1997, Mr. Versace was murdered outside his Miami villa. The firm's finances went into a tailspin, and it was forced to shelve plans to go public. Mr. Versace's 50% stake in the label went to his niece, Ms. Versace's then-preteen daughter Allegra Versace Beck, shifting the balance of power. Though Ms. Versace owns only 20% of the company, she was seen to exert huge influence because of her daughter's stake. A third sibling, Santo Versace, owns the remaining 30% of the company. Ms. Versace Beck, now 20 years old, manages her stake with the help of advisers. "I said to Di Risio, 'This is not going to work. This is going to die,'" recalled Ms. Versace. But, she said, "I was wrong, and he was right. We sell more now." » Jump to indexing (document details) Full Text (1463 words) (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission. Milan -- When Italian fashion house Gianni Versace SpA recently threw a cocktail party in the courtyard of its 16th-century palazzo to promote its latest creations, designer Donatella Versace ducked out of the soiree early, flanked by bodyguards. Instead, Giancarlo Di Risio, Versace's bespectacled chief executive, presided over an evening that highlighted luxury goods: Parked at one end of the courtyard was a half-million-dollar Lamborghini Murcielago with a black-and-white leather interior by Versace. A huge poster showed an AgustaWestland helicopter with a Versace-designed cabin. Stacked nearby was luggage embossed with the brand's Greek motif, with pieces starting at about $4,000. Mr. Di Risio is trying to shift Versace's attention away from clothes and to accessories, home interiors and other lifestyle products that will bring in new streams of revenue and offset fickle fashion cycles. "Fashion does not exist at Versace," he said, describing his strategy in an interview before the reception. The new approach is bearing fruit. Versace swung back into the black last year, posting a $25.4 million profit after years of losses, and has shaken off millions in debt. Driving that turnaround were rising sales in the lucrative accessories Mr. Di Risio is pushing. Yet the effects of the makeover have touched the core of the company's identity. Ms. Versace has begun taming the flamboyant clothing designs that once set her and the fashion house apart from the crowd. "I no longer recognize myself in that kind of woman," the 52-year-old Ms. Versace said in a telephone interview. The culture shift at Versace highlights how an increasingly competitive fashion industry is forcing even the most freewheeling players to embrace a corporate culture. Many labels, including LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton's smaller brands like Celine and Marc Jacobs, have also been toning down their looks to appeal to a wider swath of consumers. Designers who once called the shots are ceding authority to executives who run the numbers. "In the beginning, it was a shock for me," Ms. Versace said. "When you tell a person who is used to being in power -- to saying yes or no on everything -- to take a step back, it's not easy. But it was necessary." Tweaking a label's aesthetics carries risks. If pushed too far, transformations risk alienating loyal customers, says Robert Burke, head of New York-based luxury-goods consultancy Robert Burke Associates and the former fashion director at Bergdorf Goodman. "You will always want to see a fashion edge to Versace," he says. Yet for family-owned fashion labels like Versace, pressure to make more money is high. They compete with publicly traded conglomerates such as LVMH and PPR SA's Gucci Group, which have the financial heft to expand with stores in the emerging markets of China, India and Russia -- seen as fueling the industry's growth. A number of Italy's top family-owned fashion houses, including Versace, Prada SpA and Salvatore Ferragamo SpA, are considering stock- market listings in the next couple of years. "An IPO would be the best way to raise money and implant in these countries," says Peter Farren, a luxury-goods analyst at the French investment firm Bryan Garnier. At Versace, a sobering realization is spurring Mr. Di Risio's moves: The clothes that once made the brand are now struggling to make money. In its heyday in the early 1990s, Versace stayed ahead of the fashion mainstream with lavish catwalk shows that celebrated the racy designs of founder Gianni Versace. The label amassed collections of real estate and artwork that enhanced the family's jet-setter status. The company found it increasingly tough to squeeze profits out of highly perishable fashions as production costs rose in Italy. In 1997, Mr. Versace was murdered outside his Miami villa. The firm's finances went into a tailspin, and it was forced to shelve plans to go public. Mr. Versace's 50% stake in the label went to his niece, Ms. Versace's then-preteen daughter Allegra Versace Beck, shifting the balance of power. Though Ms. Versace owns only 20% of the company, she was seen to exert huge influence because of her daughter's stake. A third sibling, Santo Versace, owns the remaining 30% of the company. Ms. Versace Beck, now 20 years old, manages her stake with the help of advisers. The Versace stakeholders decided the company needed a CEO who could turn the company around. Fabio Cacciatori, at one time an outside financial consultant for the company, became CEO in September 2003 but resigned in December. The company named Versace's then-Chief Financial Officer Daniele Ballestrazzi interim CEO as it searched for new leadership. When Versace recruited Mr. Di Risio from LVMH's Fendi label in the summer of 2004, the house was saddled with more than $146 million in debt and heading to a net loss of $124 million for the year, on revenue of $416 million. High-end retailers like Bergdorf Goodman had stopped carrying the brand. Bergdorf Chief Executive Jim Gold recalls that Versace was distributing too widely, diluting its exclusivity, and was overly consumed with making a splash on the runway. While many labels had started delivering retailers fresh designs more frequently, ahead of the runway collections, Versace resisted. Mr. Di Risio arrived with a new mantra. Clothing that is too fashionable, he told his lieutenants, is bad for business because it eats up capital and goes out of style quickly. Accessories and other leather goods are a better bet because they have a longer shelf life and fatter profit margins. To reduce Versace's dependence on fashion, Mr. Di Risio shut down lines such as Versace Intimates lingerie and Versace Young, a children's line. The company sold its unprofitable perfume, jewelry and watchmaking divisions, replacing them with lucrative licensing agreements with U.S. watch group Timex Corp. and Italian perfume and cosmetics maker EuroItalia Srl. Mr. Di Risio homed in on the company's shoes and handbags, which have higher profit margins because they cost less to produce than clothes but are easier to sell to a wide array of customers. Last year, more than 30% of Versace's $383 million in revenue came from accessories, compared with 4% when Mr. Di Risio arrived. He also expanded the label's push into home furnishings -- a business that generated sales of $82.5 million in 2006, up 55% from the year before. Versace recently unveiled its "Jet Seat," an aerodynamically-styled leather chair in a high-tech ceramic frame that is sold in Europe for <euro>38,000 (about $50,000). "It was like taking a blank page and rewriting everything," Mr. Di Risio says. To succeed, however, he had to get Ms. Versace on board. She had hoped to resurrect the costly haute-couture fashion shows the label had discontinued before Mr. Di Risio's arrival. But he argued she could more effectively enhance the line's exclusivity by holding showings for individual clients. "I said to Di Risio, 'This is not going to work. This is going to die,'" recalled Ms. Versace. But, she said, "I was wrong, and he was right. We sell more now." Ms. Versace had to become more conscious of how much time and money the label invests in promoting designs at events like the Oscars. Last year, the designer dressed actresses Hilary Swank, Uma Thurman and Salma Hayek and director Robert Altman's wife, Kathryn Reed Altman, who donned a navy-blue sequin gown. This year, however, Ms. Versace limited herself to one gown, designing a rose-colored dress with a sweeping train for best-actress nominee Penelope Cruz. For Versace's ready-to-wear line, Ms. Versace is going for looks she calls "a little more understated." Bergdorf Goodman will carry her designs in the fall for the first time in years. Ms. Versace is also working more closely with retailers, adding four more collections beyond the traditional spring and fall runway collections. These are shown to retailers in private visits, giving them a preview of what to expect. On the financial side, Mr. Di Risio has untangled the company's assets from those of the family, selling property he deemed "nonstrategic" to pay the company's debts. The family's Manhattan townhouse was sold for about $35 million, and its contents went up for auction in 2005. The paintings alone -- including works by artists Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Roy Lichtenstein and Julian Schnabel -- fetched more than $11 million dollars. Flagship stores in New York, London and Milan that Mr. Di Risio described as "decadent and sad," were redone with sleek, minimalist designs. The label, which operates 82 stores and has 35 franchise operations, plans to open more than 10 boutiques by the end of the year, including seven stores in China alone. When Versace opened the doors of its updated Moscow boutique in April, an array of leather bags, belts and shoes greeted customers at the store's lacquered ground-floor entrance. The label's ready-to-wear collection was relegated to the upper floor.

Which Ones Of These Are Significant Events? Year 2000 •January 1 – The world enters 2000s without serious, widespread computer failures, despite fears to the contrary. •January 3–10 – Israel and Syria hold inconclusive peace talks. •January 4 – Alan Greenspan is nominated for a fourth term as U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman. •January 5–8 – The 2000 al-Qaeda Summit of several high-level al-Qaeda members (including 2 9/11 American Airlines hijackers) is held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. •January 6 The last natural pyrenean ibex is found dead apparently killed by a falling tree. •January 10 – America Online announces an agreement to purchase Time Warner for $162 billion (the largest-ever corporate merger). •January 11 – The armed wing of the Islamic Salvation Front concludes its negotiations with the government for an amnesty and disbands in Algeria (see Algerian Civil War#GIA destroyed, GSPC discontinues) •January 11 – The trawler Solway Harvester sinks off the Isle of Man.[3] •January 12 – 9/11 hijackers Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jahrah read their wills in the Martyrdom Video. •January 14 – A United Nations tribunal sentences 5 Bosnian Croats to up to 25 years in prison for the 1993 killing of over 100 Bosnian Muslims in a Bosnian village.[4] •January 14 – The Dow Jones Industrial Average closes at 11,722.98 (at the peak of the Dot-com bubble). •January 16 – In Sacramento, California, a commercial truck carrying evaporated milk is driven into the State Capitol building, killing the driver. •January 18 – The Tagish Lake meteorite impacts the Earth. •January 24 – God's Army, a Karen militia group led by twins Johnny and Luther Htoo, takes 700 hostages at a Thai hospital near the Burmese border. •January 26 – The rap-metal band Rage Against the Machine plays in front of Wall Street, prompting an early closing of trading due to the crowds. •January 30 – Super Bowl XXXIV: The St. Louis Rams win the NFL Championship for the first time since 1951, defeating the Tennessee Titans 23–16. •January 30 – Kenya Airways Flight 431 crashes off the coast of Côte d'Ivoire into the Atlantic Ocean, killing 169. •January 31 – Alaska Airlines Flight 261 crashes off the California coast into the Pacific Ocean, killing 88. •January 31 – Dr. Harold Shipman is found guilty of murdering 15 patients between 1995 and 1998 and sentenced to life imprisonment. •February 4 – German extortionist Klaus-Peter Sabotta is jailed for life for attempted murder and extortion, in connection with the sabotage of German railway lines. •February 6 – Tarja Halonen is elected the first female president of Finland. •February 7 – Stipe Mesic is elected president of Croatia. •February 9 – Torrential rains in Africa lead to the worst flooding in Mozambique in 50 years, which lasts until March and kills 800 people. •February 11 – A blast from an improvised explosive device in front of a Barclay's Bank, across from the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street, wounds dozens but kills none. •February 13 – The final original Peanuts comic strip is published, following the death of its creator, Charles Schulz. •February 17 – Microsoft releases Windows 2000. •February 21 – UNESCO holds the inaugural celebration of International Mother Language Day. [edit] March March 1 – The Constitution of Finland is rewritten. •March 2 – Hans Blix assumes the position of Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC. •March 7 – George W. Bush and Al Gore emerge victorious in the Republican and Democratic caucuses and primaries of the United States presidential election. •March 8 – Tokyo train disaster: A sideswipe collision of 2 Tokyo Metro trains kills 5 people. •March 9 – The FBI arrests art forgery suspect Ely Sakhai in New York City. •March 9 – Nupedia, predecessor to Wikipedia, is created. •March 10 – The NASDAQ Composite Index reaches an all-time high of 5,048.[5] •March 12 – Pope John Paul II apologises for the wrongdoings by members of the Roman Catholic Church throughout the ages. •March 18 – ROC presidential election, 2000: Chen Shui-bian is elected President of the Republic of China (Taiwan); the Democratic Progressive Party ends Kuomintang rule for the first time. •March 20 – Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown), a former Black Panther, is captured after a gun battle in Atlanta, Georgia that leaves a sheriff's deputy dead. •March 21 – Pope John Paul II begins the first official visit by a Roman Catholic pontiff to Israel. •March 21 – The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the government lacks authority to regulate tobacco as an addictive drug, throwing out the Bill Clinton administration's main anti-smoking initiative. •March 26 – Vladimir Putin is elected President of Russia. •March 27 – The Phillips explosion of 2000 kills 1 and injured 71 in Pasadena, Texas. •March 31 – Myra Hindley loses a High Court appeal against her life imprisonment sentence. April 1 – Japanese prime minister Keizo Obuchi suffers a

What do you think of the 1000 characters limit? Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake. Global impact McDonald's has become emblematic of globalization, sometimes referred as the "McDonaldization" of society. The Economist magazine uses the "Big Mac Index": the comparison of a Big Mac's cost in various world currencies can be used to informally judge these currencies' purchasing power parity. Because McDonald's is closely identified with American culture and lifestyle, its international business expansion has been termed[by who?] part of Americanization and American cultural imperialism. McDonald's is a perpetual target of various and often conflicting anti-globalization protests worldwide. The brand is known informally as "Mickey D's" (in the US and Canada), "Macky D's" (in the UK), "McDo" (in France, Quebec, the Philippines, and the Kansai region of Japan), "Maccer's" (in Ireland), "Maccas" (in New Zealand and Australia) or "de Mac" (in the Netherlands). Thomas Friedman once said that no country with a McDonald's had gone to war with another.[8] However, the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" is not strictly true. Careful historians point to the 1989 United States invasion of Panama, when NATO bombed Serbia in 1999, and the 2006 Lebanon War as exceptions. Some observers have suggested that the company should be given credit for increasing the standard of service in markets that it enters. A group of anthropologists in a study entitled Golden Arches East (Stanford University Press, 1998, edited by James L. Watson) looked at the impact McDonald's had on East Asia, and Hong Kong in particular. When it opened in Hong Kong in 1975, McDonald's was the first restaurant to consistently offer clean restrooms, driving customers to demand the same of other restaurants and institutions. In East Asia in particular, McDonald's have become a symbol for the desire to embrace Western cultural norms. McDonald's have recently taken to partnering up with Sinopec, China's second largest oil company, in the People's Republic of China, as it begins to take advantage of China's growing use of personal vehicles by opening numerous drive-thru restaurants. [9] In addition to its effect on business standards, McDonald's has also been instrumental in changing local customs. By popularizing the idea of a quick restaurant meal, Watson's study suggests, McDonald's led to the easing or elimination of various taboos, such as eating while walking in Japan.[dubious – discuss] CriticismPotted plants at a McDonald's. The company has been a target of criticism practically since its inception. Since the mid-1990s this protest has taken the form of an anti-globalization movement as documented in Naomi Klein's manifesto No Logo. McDonald's restaurants have been the targets of protests, peaceful and otherwise, by environmental, anti-globalization and animal rights activists. The company has used a litigious approach to protecting its business interests. This conflict, and the company's approach to resolving it, was epitomized in the early 1990s by what came to be known as the McLibel case. Two British activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, distributed leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's? on the streets of London. McDonald's wrote to Steel and Morris demanding they desist and apologize, and, when they refused, sued them for libel. The trial lasted more than two years. The company's advertising techniques and business practices were scrutinized in the High Court of Justice in London and reported extensively in the press, who saw the case as a David and Goliath battle (under UK law, legal aid could not be granted for a defamation suit, so Steel and Morris did most of their own legal casework while McDonald's was represented by an extensive legal team). In June 1997, the judge ruled in favor of McDonald's, awarding the company £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. The amount was low because the judge ruled that some of the claims made by Morris and Steel had been proved, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris later successfully challenged UK libel law in the European Court, arguing that it was an infringement of the right to free speech. The British Government was forced to re-write the legislation as a result. In 2005, a film by Ken Loach was made about the court case. In 2001, Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation included criticism of McDonald's' business practices. Among the critiques are allegations that McDonald's (along with other companies within the fast-food industry) uses its political influence to increase their own profits at the expense of people's health and the social conditions of its workers. The book also brings into question McDonald's advertisement techniques where it targets children. While the book does mention other fast-food chains, it focuses primarily on McDonald's. In 2002, vegetarian groups, largely Hindu, successfully sued McDonald's for misrepresenting their French fries as vegetarian.[10] Even after the discontinuation of frying the French fries in beef tallow in 1990, the French fries still had beef extract added to them. The French fries sold in the U.S. still contain beef and animal flavoring. McDonald's biscuits also contain beef flavoring along with animal flavoring. Also in 2004, Morgan Spurlock's documentary film Super Size Me said that McDonald's food was contributing to the epidemic of obesity in society, and failing to provide nutritional information about its food for its customers. For 30 days Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald's (supersizing whenever asked). He ate everything on the menu at least once and continued to eat after he was full. At the same time he consciously attempted to get little or no exercise. By the end of the month he had gained 24.5 pounds (11.11 kg), was moody and had less interest in sex. Others have disputed Spurlock's claims (see below). After the film was shown at the Sundance Film Festival, but before its cinematic release, McDonald's stated it was phasing out its Supersize meal option and would begin offering several healthier menu items, though no link to the film was cited in this decision. However, while the healthier menu items have appeared, the Supersize meal option still remains available at some locations. The company also began a practice of putting nutritional information for all menu items in light grey small print on the reverse of their tray liners. It is currently phasing in nutritional labeling in clear black print on the actual packaging of its food items. Anthony Bourdain on his show, No Reservations, has criticised McDonald's among other fast-food restaurants for its culinary blandness. Legal challenge over trans fats In September 2002, McDonald’s announced it was voluntarily reducing the trans fat content of its cooking oil by February 2003. Because of operational problems, the oil was not changed on time. In the ensuing lawsuits, plaintiffs claimed that McDonald’s didn't do enough to inform the public that the oil was not changed. The bantransfat.com website contains testimonials from people, one claims she thought the oil was low in trans fat, and she said, "that is why I have been eating there every week..." In a settlement agreement, bantransfat.com said "While there is a difference of opinion regarding whether McDonald’s gave effective notice to its customers that the oil was not changed, McDonald’s deserves recognition and credit for having achieved a reduction in the trans fat levels ... and for working diligently over the last two years to test additional cooking oils." Nevertheless, bantransfat.com demanded monetary damages. Settlement of the lawsuit brought by BanTransFats.com and one private party requires McDonald’s spend up to $1.5 million to publish notices on the status of its trans fat initiative. McDonald’s will also donate $7 million to the American Heart Association for public education about trans fat. [3]. The settlement also requires some money be paid directly to bantransfat.com. The California Superior Court for Marin County has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. Supporters of McDonald's point out that the company is successful because it meets the needs of customers and adapts to its customers wants. In response to public pressure, McDonald's has sought to include more healthy choices in its menu and has introduced a new slogan to its recruitment posters: "Not bad for a McJob". (The word McJob, first attested in the mid-1980s[11] and later popularized by Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland in his book Generation X, has become a buzz word for low-paid, unskilled work with few prospects or benefits and little security.) McDonald's disputes the idea that its restaurant jobs have no prospects, noting that its CEO, Jim Skinner, started working at the company as a regular restaurant employee, and that 20 of its top 50 managers began work as regular crew members. [12] In 2007, the company launched an advertising campaign with the slogan "Would you like a career with that?" on Irish television, outlining that their jobs have many prospects. In a bid to tap into growing consumer interest in the provenance of food, the fast-food chain recently switched its supply of both coffee beans and milk. UK chief executive Steve Easterbrook said: “British consumers are increasingly interested in the quality, sourcing and ethics of the food and drink they buy". McDonald's coffee is now brewed from beans taken from stocks that have been certified by the conservation group the Rainforest Alliance. Similarly, milk supplies used for its hot drinks and milkshakes have been switched to organic sources which could account for 5% of the UK's organic milk output[13]. In other cases, the firm has shown itself ready to adjust its business practices. When the public became concerned that product packaging was environmentally damaging, McDonald's started a joint project with Friends of the Earth to eliminate the use of polystyrene containers, only in the United States, and to reduce the amount of waste produced. Throughout the McLibel trial, senior representatives of the firm said they were merely trying to protect its image from undue and unfounded attack. With regard to its numerous and often controversial copyright and trademark actions, McDonald's lawyers say they are simply protecting the company's intellectual property. Super Size Me has been characterized as a non-scientific publicity stunt. The subject of the film consumes massive quantities of McDonald's food, to the point of being sickened by it. Eating on an hourly schedule and, as part of his rules, eating additional quantities each time a McDonald's worker says the word "supersize," the subject gains weight. Following the release of the film Super Size Me, some people reported they had experienced no weight gain and suffered no ill effect by eating only at McDonald's for a month, but choosing menu items more judiciously and exercising frequently.Minimize Me Merab Morgan, a North Carolina woman, was even able to lose weight.Woman loses 33 lb on McDonald's diet She claimed that the transparency of nutritional information made it easy to control her daily caloric intake.

Recession : With War or Without it ? Isrel vrs Iran// War - and US?? Recession: With War or Without It? by Gary North by Gary North DIGG THIS The world's economy has been in growth mode at least since 1991. China has been in growth mode since 1979. The American economy had a sharp recession in 1991. Asia had a financial crisis in 1998. America had a very brief, very shallow recession in 2001. The Federal Reserve System pumped in money at an accelerating rate after mid-2000 through 2004, and did not go to tight money until the month Bernanke took over: February 2006. Inflation overcame the recession of 2001, and it overcame the crisis of 9/11, but it created the housing bubble and the commodity bubble. The housing bubble has popped. This is going to take the price of housing in the United States lower than it is today. I think 20% lower is a conservative figure. We are nowhere near the end of this popped bubble. The commodity bubble is still in full force. It is a worldwide bubble. The price of energy and the price of rice and other food commodities have received most of the attention. Federal Reserve policy since early 2006 has been one of relatively stable money. There is a lot of chatter to the contrary, but if we look at the two most significant monetary indicators, the adjusted monetary base and M1, we see that there has been very little growth in either. This is why the United States is now either in a recession or is facing one in the next few months. When a period of monetary inflation ends, economies go into recession. The American economy is slowing down, and it will continue to slow down. Both China and India have expanded their money supplies dramatically for a decade. Both countries are now facing a crisis of rising prices. Price inflation is a major threat to the continued prosperity of both countries. China's government has begun to impose selective price controls. This is creating shortages and production bottlenecks. India's government is considering doing the same thing. What both governments need to do is to tell their central banks to cease buying all government debt and all assets of any kind. The central banks need to stop inflating the money supply. But if the banks do this, both countries will experience major recessions. The governments do not want to have major recessions, but they also do not want to experience the effects of monetary inflation: price inflation. So, both of them are tempted to go back to the traditional policy of imposing price controls. This always creates shortages, and it always reduces the rate of growth of the economy. China and India are trapped. AN INTERNATIONAL TRAP The United States is in the same trap. The headlines scream of the skyrocketing costs of energy and food, but the broader consumer price indexes indicate slow increases: maybe 3% a year. This is because families are readjusting their budgets. As the prices of gasoline and food rise, families are forced to cut back expenditures in other areas. So, the general price indexes are not rising dramatically, but families are struggling with their budgets. This struggle will get much worse this winter, when the price of heating oil rises. This will exacerbate the existing economic slowdown. Furthermore, the rising price of oil means a rising balance of payments deficit for the United States. Oil-exporting countries are the main beneficiaries of the rising price of oil. This means that foreign sellers of oil will get the lion's share of the increase of the price of oil. American producers will pay for the prosperity of the oil exporting countries. They will pay in the form of reduced demand for their products. The world is facing simultaneous recession. Meanwhile, the American financial system has absorbed hundreds of billions of dollars of IOUs from home buyers who cannot possibly pay off their debts. They are in the process of defaulting to the lenders. This has created a crisis for America's largest banks, and for several major European banks. We all know the story by now, but psychologically, most Americans have not adjusted to the new economic reality. Most investors have not adjusted. Yes, the American stock market is down by 20% since last October. But still they think a recovery is just around the corner. The media keep saying this. American investors still have faith that the economy is essentially healthy, that there will not be a continuing fall in the stock market, and that the economy will not go into recession and stay in the recession for two or more years. So far, I am giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. Why is this good news? Because this recession is going to put a cap on the rising cost of energy. Commodity prices will fall during the recession; this includes the price of oil. NO MORE FISCAL WIGGLE ROOM Americans have steadily stopped saving over the last 28 years. In 1981, they saved over 11% of their discretionary income. Today, they save nothing. They are now in full spending mode. They have borrowed money against their future income, against their home equity, and on simple promises to pay (signature loans: credit cards). They have stretched themselves thin with respect to debt. If oil goes to $400 a barrel, or $500 a barrel, and stays there for a year, American consumers will be in panic mode. They will have to cut their budgets, and they have forgotten how to cut their budgets. They have forgotten how to save. The strategy of the optimists is to tell us that the worst is over economically. This is the government's official position. Chairman Ben Bernanke does not say this. He keeps hinting of more trouble to come. He keeps telling us that the Federal Reserve System is monitoring events. He keeps implying that there is some sort of rabbit still remaining in the Federal Reserve System's hat which they can pull out if the banking system moves into paralysis mode. But he doesn't tell us what these rabbits are, or under what conditions the FED will pull them out of its hat. The good news regarding the economy in general is not backed up by anything specific. The government tells us that the worst is over, but there are almost no indications that the worst is over. The housing market is still in decline. Foreclosures are still rising rapidly. The lenders are not selling foreclosed properties at market prices. Instead, they keep buying back the properties. There is a growing inventory of unsold properties on the books of the lenders. Meanwhile the two major sources of liquidity for the housing market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are verging on bankruptcy. On Wednesday, July 9, the stock price of Freddie Mac dropped by 23%. Yet its stock price was down over 50% since January. These two stocks have continued to fall. Everywhere we look on the horizon of the domestic economy, there is bad news. There is no sector of the economy that is improving, unless it is heavily funded by the Federal government. Health care has not slumped, because health care as funded by Medicare and other state and local government programs. This means that the Federal deficit is going to get worse in any recession. Medicare and Social Security are non-discretionary spending items. The revenues will fall. So, the supposed strength sectors of the economy are in fact guarantees of a government fiscal crisis. If the general economy slumps, the Federal deficit is likely to go over $500 billion a year. When the recession hits, commodity prices will fall. If the recession does not hit, commodity prices will continue to rise. But rising commodity prices will force bankruptcies in those firms that are not in a position to pass on increased costs to their consumers. This means industries associated with discretionary spending. If your company is dependent upon discretionary spending by the public, your job is at risk. If the recession hits, your company will suffer. If the recession doesn't hit, rising commodity prices will squeeze your company. Consumers will spend their money for gasoline and heating oil, not on the products or services your company produces. The boom economy has not been based primarily on non-discretionary income. The boom has come at the margin: those areas of the economy in which consumers do have the option of spending their money rather than saving it. So far, I have been giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. THE BAD NEWS The bad news is that the State of Israel is increasingly likely to launch an air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities. I have discussed this before. If this happens, the price of oil will skyrocket. This will force massive readjustments of family budgets in every country on a permanent basis. This is going to force producers to fire people out of fear of bankruptcy. Consumers are going to stop buying much in the area of discretionary income. That is, those items that can be cut back will be cut back. This could mean you. If the State of Israel launches an attack on Iran, the economic news will get really bad really fast all over the world. So, the most important question today is whether or not the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran. From an economic standpoint, this is the crucial question. Here, too, the mainstream media have generally promoted optimism. They suggest that the Israelis will not attack Iran. The problem is, they can't point to anything specific that officials in the State of Israel have said that indicates that there will not be an attack. On the contrary, officials there keep saying "no comment." Something else is really ominous. The political leaders in the countries over which Israeli bombers will have to fly are deadly silent. They are not telling Israel in full public view that if Israel sends planes over their airspace, they will go to war with Israel. They are not saying that they are preparing right now to shoot down every Israeli plane that flies over their airspace. They are saying nothing. Why? I think the main reason is that they will not back up their words with deeds. They will not shoot down Israeli planes. They say nothing in public because they will do nothing if the overflights take place. If they go public with bellicose threats today, their own people will turn on them if they fail to back up their words with deeds if the flights take place. "You said you would do something. You did nothing. Get out!" This could start internal revolutions in the overflown countries. Silence is golden. It's yellow, but it's golden. This tells me that the overflight countries' leaders think the attack may take place. They would prefer to be accused of having been caught flat-footed by the Israeli Air Force than unwilling to back up a threat. American officials are offering the bipartisan line: "We must settle this through diplomacy." (To which Israeli government officials can respond, Tonto-like: "Who you mean we, paleface?") They are not saying anything about what sanctions against the State of Israel that America will impose as soon as Israeli jets bomb Iran. That is because there will be no such sanctions. Admiral Mullen supposedly sent Israel a statement in early July saying that the United States has not issued a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran. This supposedly means something important in itself. It means nothing in itself. What it means is the United States has not issued a red light against an Israeli attack on Iran. This means that there is no stop sign. There is no red light, so the absence of a green light means nothing. Of course no one has said that the United States will help Israel in such an attack. So what? Israeli officials are not asking for a public offer of American help. If the United States and those governments over which the Israeli Air Force must fly are not issuing public statements at this time warning that there will be significant negative sanctions imposed on the State of Israel as soon as the attack is launched, then this is an implied green light. Do we imagine that senior decision-makers in the Israeli government care a whit about the lack of an official American green light to their attack on Iran? They are as unconcerned about the lack of a green light as Iran is unconcerned about President Bush's threat of sanctions if Iran does not comply with all requirements announced by the Bush administration. Iran knows what Israel knows: the Bush administration is terminal. It will end on January 20, 2009. It has no teeth. Lame ducks don't bite. They merely squawk. Why should we think that either Iran or Israel gives a fig about the red light/green light debate? American pundits may think this debate is important, but why should anyone with common sense think it's important? TIMETABLES Iraq has announced that the United States must pull out its troops. It is demanding dates for this withdrawal. The Bush administration is pooh-poohing all this, and will not under any circumstances announce such a timetable, but so what? There is a timetable for the Bush administration's withdrawal: January 20, 2009. This means that the United States is going to be pressured by Iraq's government to leave Iraq from now on. Most of the troops will be forced to leave Iraq unless things change dramatically. Then what will be done with the 14 major military bases that have been built? As the pressure increases to force us to leave Iraq, and as the pressure from the Taliban increases in Afghanistan, and as the pressure from voters increases to get our troops out of both countries, and as the likelihood of the election of Obama increases, decision-makers in the State of Israel are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If the United States pulls out of the region, the State of Israel will be left high and dry. But there is another possible scenario. If Iran's surrogate Shia forces in the region take on the United States troops in reaction to an Israeli attack on Iran, American public opinion will swing in favor of keeping the troops there, no matter what. "Who do those Iranians think they are? We issued no green light to the Israelis. It's not our fault." If Iran begins to supply weapons to Shia forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American death rate goes up, then American voters will switch back to a pro-war position. At least, this is a possibility. Americans do not like to be pushed around. Any escalation of war in the region will create havoc for the supply of oil. The world economy is moving into recession already; it may go into a true depression if oil goes to $500 and stays there. So, the stakes are enormous. The outcome is no longer in the hands of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any of the other outsiders to the Middle East. The outcome, or at least the trigger, is completely in the hands of the decision-makers in the State of Israel. They hold the gun. Unless the United States and Western Europe tell the decision-makers in the State of Israel that Europe and the United States will impose significant negative sanctions after an attack on Iran, then decision-makers there are going to make a decision based on the self-interest of the ruling party, not the self-interest of American or European voters. They are going to take care of their perceived problem, exactly as we would expect any other national political leaders would take care of their problem. That's why all talk about war being a threat to the self-interest of the whole makes sense only if the Israelis conclude that the economic crisis will be so severe that it will take them down in the whirlpool of economic collapse. They are not afraid of military retaliation from Iran. They are also not afraid of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any other coalition that does not have the backbone to say in advance that there will be major sanctions placed on the State of Israel if there is an attack on Iran. This is why I am concerned about the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran. I am in no way calmed by statements attributed to Admiral Mullen. When Admiral Mullen holds a press conference and says publicly that there is no green light for an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran, and that any flyover of Iraq by Israeli planes will lead to shoot downs of Israeli planes by American planes, then I will stop worrying about the threat of an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force. How likely do you think such a press conference is? We must face reality: the decision to go to war with Iran is 100% in the hands of Israeli decision-makers. It is not in the hands of the United States, Europe, or Asia. In other words, the economic fate of the West over the next decade is now in the hands of decision-makers who are concerned about the long-term survival of their own country. They are concerned because they do not want to have Iran in the possession of nuclear weapons. Both candidates for President have said the same thing. We have seen saber-rattling by the Iranians with the film-doctored test of the missiles this week. These missiles are militarily useless as weapons against the Israelis. They are as irrelevant militarily as Germany's V-2 missiles were in 1945. They cannot inflict enough damage to make a difference, unless they are used against Saudi Arabian oil fields. But, if they had a nuclear warhead, that would make all the difference. The Israelis know this. So, they are going to make their decision in terms of this long-term threat. The main inhibition against an attack is the possible collapse of the Western economy, which buys Israeli-produced goods. This threat may be sufficient to keep them from attacking. I dearly hope that it is. But it is naïve to believe that they are going to make their decision because of worries about whether Admiral Mullen has issued a green light or not. CONCLUSION When you invest your money, do not ignore the worst-case scenario. Set aside some of your money on the assumption that the worst-case will come true. This is what any military strategist does. He makes his decisions in terms of what the enemy can do, not what it would be convenient for the enemy to do. I suggest that you be aware of this threat. I suggest that you sit down with the family budget and outline what your response would be if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon or $15 a gallon or $20 a gallon. What would you do? I know what you would do. You would drive less. Ignore the happy-face assessments of the geopolitical strategists. Ignore the happy-face assessment of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson. These assessments are being issued to keep panic from spreading. I am doing my best to encourage people to take rational steps with some of their liquid assets: to hedge themselves against the possibility that there will be an attack on Iran before January 20, 2009. This doesn't mean that I think such an attack is a sure thing. Decision-makers in the State of Israel are going to have to live with $400 oil, just like all the rest of us. They may decide that this risk is too great. They may decide to put up with the threat of a future nuclear-armed Iran. I won't bet all of my money on this. I don't think you should either. July 12, 2008 Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.

First Lady's Staffs: Michele Obama has 22? And they say the OBAMAS havent created jobs....... LMFAO From the Canada Free Press : First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants July 7, 2009 "In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary. Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers: *Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salary *Jackie Kennedy: 1 *Roseline Carter: 1 *Barbara Bush: 1 *Hilary Clinton: 3 *Laura Bush: 1 *Michele Obama: 22 How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public: *Michele Obama's personal staff: 1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff) 2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady) 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama) 4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady) 5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 7. $84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady) 8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady) 9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady) 10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady) 13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady) 14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady) 15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady) 16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady) 17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady) 18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office) 19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary) 21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant) 22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) (total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries) There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense. Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe . Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 < http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652>;;; Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press had to publish this, perhaps because America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama. Sorry America ! SICKENING.........ISN'T IT? Gee, folks, I didn't mean to upset your day........But you KNOW that she's more privledged than any other first lady has been....... ;(( Just wanted to keep ppl on track with what's going on with OUR tax dollars.......

First lady has 22 assistants...for what?! We are paying 1.6 million dollars a year for this? Republican, democrat, white, black - whatever - it doesn't even matter anymore - people need to take off the blinders and see how ridiculous all of this is getting! Just an FYI - BO is suppose to get 400k a year and his "staff" is running the country (or pretending to) - what does Michelle Obama get paid? AND WHY DOES SHE NEED THIS??? That 1.6 million a year could be going to so many better things than making this woman feel as important as she thinks she is. Note the comparison to how many staffers even Hillary Clinton had when she was practically Bills right hand WOman back in the day. “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it” —Albert Einstein First LadyRequires More Than Twenty Attendants July 7, 2009 Dr. Paul L. Williams "In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "Michelle Obama No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as theFirst Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just thinkMary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for theWhite House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.. How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public: 1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff) 2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady) 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President andWhite House Social Secretary) 4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady) 5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President andDeputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady) 8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady) 9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady) 10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 11.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady) 13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady) 14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady) 15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady) 16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady) 17.. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady) 18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office) 19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary) 21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant) 22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three;Jackie Kennedy one;Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket. Every Day this thing seems to get worse! This is a very nice staff for someone who does not ever like the USA. Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe . Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 You can judge me all you want, but thankfully, for right now - I have the right to question government spending, especially since I pay taxes. How many homes could be rebuilt for Katrina victims with that money? It's so funny how much the Obamas get compared to the Bush's to justify behavior... isn't Obama supposed to be a change from the whole Bush thing? I'm sorry, I didn't realize I have to state all of my disappointments in our government over my lifetime and from what I know about our governments history to justify my having another one. Does your job pay your spouse because you got hired? I have had a problem with government spending overall - not just this presidency - so don't try to turn this into some Bush was worse - so what - does that justify Obama being just like him if not worse? I'm not a hater in anyway - but I will voice my opinion as it is my right to do so - and hopefully you won't win you fight to censor anyone that dares question the almight Obamaman.

Is this the kind of "CHANGE" he was talking about ..? Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams, Copyright 2009 Canadafreepress.com "In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady, and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think, Mary Todd Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhowe had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary. Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers: Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salary Jackie Kennedy: 1 Roseline Carter: 1 Barbara Bush: 1 Hilary Clinton: 3 Laura Bush: 1 Michele Obama: 22 How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the National Security and Defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public: Michele Obama's personal staff: 1.. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff) 2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady) 3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama) 4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady) 5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 7. $84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady) 8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady) 9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady) 10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady) 13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady) 14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady) 15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady) 16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady) 17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady) 18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office) 19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary) 21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant) 22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) (total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries) There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense. Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe . Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652 Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press had to publish this perhaps because America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama.

Recession : With War or Without it ? Isrel vrs Iran// War - and US?? Recession: With War or Without It? by Gary North by Gary North DIGG THIS The world's economy has been in growth mode at least since 1991. China has been in growth mode since 1979. The American economy had a sharp recession in 1991. Asia had a financial crisis in 1998. America had a very brief, very shallow recession in 2001. The Federal Reserve System pumped in money at an accelerating rate after mid-2000 through 2004, and did not go to tight money until the month Bernanke took over: February 2006. Inflation overcame the recession of 2001, and it overcame the crisis of 9/11, but it created the housing bubble and the commodity bubble. The housing bubble has popped. This is going to take the price of housing in the United States lower than it is today. I think 20% lower is a conservative figure. We are nowhere near the end of this popped bubble. The commodity bubble is still in full force. It is a worldwide bubble. The price of energy and the price of rice and other food commodities have received most of the attention. Federal Reserve policy since early 2006 has been one of relatively stable money. There is a lot of chatter to the contrary, but if we look at the two most significant monetary indicators, the adjusted monetary base and M1, we see that there has been very little growth in either. This is why the United States is now either in a recession or is facing one in the next few months. When a period of monetary inflation ends, economies go into recession. The American economy is slowing down, and it will continue to slow down. Both China and India have expanded their money supplies dramatically for a decade. Both countries are now facing a crisis of rising prices. Price inflation is a major threat to the continued prosperity of both countries. China's government has begun to impose selective price controls. This is creating shortages and production bottlenecks. India's government is considering doing the same thing. What both governments need to do is to tell their central banks to cease buying all government debt and all assets of any kind. The central banks need to stop inflating the money supply. But if the banks do this, both countries will experience major recessions. The governments do not want to have major recessions, but they also do not want to experience the effects of monetary inflation: price inflation. So, both of them are tempted to go back to the traditional policy of imposing price controls. This always creates shortages, and it always reduces the rate of growth of the economy. China and India are trapped. AN INTERNATIONAL TRAP The United States is in the same trap. The headlines scream of the skyrocketing costs of energy and food, but the broader consumer price indexes indicate slow increases: maybe 3% a year. This is because families are readjusting their budgets. As the prices of gasoline and food rise, families are forced to cut back expenditures in other areas. So, the general price indexes are not rising dramatically, but families are struggling with their budgets. This struggle will get much worse this winter, when the price of heating oil rises. This will exacerbate the existing economic slowdown. Furthermore, the rising price of oil means a rising balance of payments deficit for the United States. Oil-exporting countries are the main beneficiaries of the rising price of oil. This means that foreign sellers of oil will get the lion's share of the increase of the price of oil. American producers will pay for the prosperity of the oil exporting countries. They will pay in the form of reduced demand for their products. The world is facing simultaneous recession. Meanwhile, the American financial system has absorbed hundreds of billions of dollars of IOUs from home buyers who cannot possibly pay off their debts. They are in the process of defaulting to the lenders. This has created a crisis for America's largest banks, and for several major European banks. We all know the story by now, but psychologically, most Americans have not adjusted to the new economic reality. Most investors have not adjusted. Yes, the American stock market is down by 20% since last October. But still they think a recovery is just around the corner. The media keep saying this. American investors still have faith that the economy is essentially healthy, that there will not be a continuing fall in the stock market, and that the economy will not go into recession and stay in the recession for two or more years. So far, I am giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. Why is this good news? Because this recession is going to put a cap on the rising cost of energy. Commodity prices will fall during the recession; this includes the price of oil. NO MORE FISCAL WIGGLE ROOM Americans have steadily stopped saving over the last 28 years. In 1981, they saved over 11% of their discretionary income. Today, they save nothing. They are now in full spending mode. They have borrowed money against their future income, against their home equity, and on simple promises to pay (signature loans: credit cards). They have stretched themselves thin with respect to debt. If oil goes to $400 a barrel, or $500 a barrel, and stays there for a year, American consumers will be in panic mode. They will have to cut their budgets, and they have forgotten how to cut their budgets. They have forgotten how to save. The strategy of the optimists is to tell us that the worst is over economically. This is the government's official position. Chairman Ben Bernanke does not say this. He keeps hinting of more trouble to come. He keeps telling us that the Federal Reserve System is monitoring events. He keeps implying that there is some sort of rabbit still remaining in the Federal Reserve System's hat which they can pull out if the banking system moves into paralysis mode. But he doesn't tell us what these rabbits are, or under what conditions the FED will pull them out of its hat. The good news regarding the economy in general is not backed up by anything specific. The government tells us that the worst is over, but there are almost no indications that the worst is over. The housing market is still in decline. Foreclosures are still rising rapidly. The lenders are not selling foreclosed properties at market prices. Instead, they keep buying back the properties. There is a growing inventory of unsold properties on the books of the lenders. Meanwhile the two major sources of liquidity for the housing market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are verging on bankruptcy. On Wednesday, July 9, the stock price of Freddie Mac dropped by 23%. Yet its stock price was down over 50% since January. These two stocks have continued to fall. Everywhere we look on the horizon of the domestic economy, there is bad news. There is no sector of the economy that is improving, unless it is heavily funded by the Federal government. Health care has not slumped, because health care as funded by Medicare and other state and local government programs. This means that the Federal deficit is going to get worse in any recession. Medicare and Social Security are non-discretionary spending items. The revenues will fall. So, the supposed strength sectors of the economy are in fact guarantees of a government fiscal crisis. If the general economy slumps, the Federal deficit is likely to go over $500 billion a year. When the recession hits, commodity prices will fall. If the recession does not hit, commodity prices will continue to rise. But rising commodity prices will force bankruptcies in those firms that are not in a position to pass on increased costs to their consumers. This means industries associated with discretionary spending. If your company is dependent upon discretionary spending by the public, your job is at risk. If the recession hits, your company will suffer. If the recession doesn't hit, rising commodity prices will squeeze your company. Consumers will spend their money for gasoline and heating oil, not on the products or services your company produces. The boom economy has not been based primarily on non-discretionary income. The boom has come at the margin: those areas of the economy in which consumers do have the option of spending their money rather than saving it. So far, I have been giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy. THE BAD NEWS The bad news is that the State of Israel is increasingly likely to launch an air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities. I have discussed this before. If this happens, the price of oil will skyrocket. This will force massive readjustments of family budgets in every country on a permanent basis. This is going to force producers to fire people out of fear of bankruptcy. Consumers are going to stop buying much in the area of discretionary income. That is, those items that can be cut back will be cut back. This could mean you. If the State of Israel launches an attack on Iran, the economic news will get really bad really fast all over the world. So, the most important question today is whether or not the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran. From an economic standpoint, this is the crucial question. Here, too, the mainstream media have generally promoted optimism. They suggest that the Israelis will not attack Iran. The problem is, they can't point to anything specific that officials in the State of Israel have said that indicates that there will not be an attack. On the contrary, officials there keep saying "no comment." Something else is really ominous. The political leaders in the countries over which Israeli bombers will have to fly are deadly silent. They are not telling Israel in full public view that if Israel sends planes over their airspace, they will go to war with Israel. They are not saying that they are preparing right now to shoot down every Israeli plane that flies over their airspace. They are saying nothing. Why? I think the main reason is that they will not back up their words with deeds. They will not shoot down Israeli planes. They say nothing in public because they will do nothing if the overflights take place. If they go public with bellicose threats today, their own people will turn on them if they fail to back up their words with deeds if the flights take place. "You said you would do something. You did nothing. Get out!" This could start internal revolutions in the overflown countries. Silence is golden. It's yellow, but it's golden. This tells me that the overflight countries' leaders think the attack may take place. They would prefer to be accused of having been caught flat-footed by the Israeli Air Force than unwilling to back up a threat. American officials are offering the bipartisan line: "We must settle this through diplomacy." (To which Israeli government officials can respond, Tonto-like: "Who you mean we, paleface?") They are not saying anything about what sanctions against the State of Israel that America will impose as soon as Israeli jets bomb Iran. That is because there will be no such sanctions. Admiral Mullen supposedly sent Israel a statement in early July saying that the United States has not issued a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran. This supposedly means something important in itself. It means nothing in itself. What it means is the United States has not issued a red light against an Israeli attack on Iran. This means that there is no stop sign. There is no red light, so the absence of a green light means nothing. Of course no one has said that the United States will help Israel in such an attack. So what? Israeli officials are not asking for a public offer of American help. If the United States and those governments over which the Israeli Air Force must fly are not issuing public statements at this time warning that there will be significant negative sanctions imposed on the State of Israel as soon as the attack is launched, then this is an implied green light. Do we imagine that senior decision-makers in the Israeli government care a whit about the lack of an official American green light to their attack on Iran? They are as unconcerned about the lack of a green light as Iran is unconcerned about President Bush's threat of sanctions if Iran does not comply with all requirements announced by the Bush administration. Iran knows what Israel knows: the Bush administration is terminal. It will end on January 20, 2009. It has no teeth. Lame ducks don't bite. They merely squawk. Why should we think that either Iran or Israel gives a fig about the red light/green light debate? American pundits may think this debate is important, but why should anyone with common sense think it's important? TIMETABLES Iraq has announced that the United States must pull out its troops. It is demanding dates for this withdrawal. The Bush administration is pooh-poohing all this, and will not under any circumstances announce such a timetable, but so what? There is a timetable for the Bush administration's withdrawal: January 20, 2009. This means that the United States is going to be pressured by Iraq's government to leave Iraq from now on. Most of the troops will be forced to leave Iraq unless things change dramatically. Then what will be done with the 14 major military bases that have been built? As the pressure increases to force us to leave Iraq, and as the pressure from the Taliban increases in Afghanistan, and as the pressure from voters increases to get our troops out of both countries, and as the likelihood of the election of Obama increases, decision-makers in the State of Israel are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If the United States pulls out of the region, the State of Israel will be left high and dry. But there is another possible scenario. If Iran's surrogate Shia forces in the region take on the United States troops in reaction to an Israeli attack on Iran, American public opinion will swing in favor of keeping the troops there, no matter what. "Who do those Iranians think they are? We issued no green light to the Israelis. It's not our fault." If Iran begins to supply weapons to Shia forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American death rate goes up, then American voters will switch back to a pro-war position. At least, this is a possibility. Americans do not like to be pushed around. Any escalation of war in the region will create havoc for the supply of oil. The world economy is moving into recession already; it may go into a true depression if oil goes to $500 and stays there. So, the stakes are enormous. The outcome is no longer in the hands of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any of the other outsiders to the Middle East. The outcome, or at least the trigger, is completely in the hands of the decision-makers in the State of Israel. They hold the gun. Unless the United States and Western Europe tell the decision-makers in the State of Israel that Europe and the United States will impose significant negative sanctions after an attack on Iran, then decision-makers there are going to make a decision based on the self-interest of the ruling party, not the self-interest of American or European voters. They are going to take care of their perceived problem, exactly as we would expect any other national political leaders would take care of their problem. That's why all talk about war being a threat to the self-interest of the whole makes sense only if the Israelis conclude that the economic crisis will be so severe that it will take them down in the whirlpool of economic collapse. They are not afraid of military retaliation from Iran. They are also not afraid of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any other coalition that does not have the backbone to say in advance that there will be major sanctions placed on the State of Israel if there is an attack on Iran. This is why I am concerned about the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran. I am in no way calmed by statements attributed to Admiral Mullen. When Admiral Mullen holds a press conference and says publicly that there is no green light for an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran, and that any flyover of Iraq by Israeli planes will lead to shoot downs of Israeli planes by American planes, then I will stop worrying about the threat of an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force. How likely do you think such a press conference is? We must face reality: the decision to go to war with Iran is 100% in the hands of Israeli decision-makers. It is not in the hands of the United States, Europe, or Asia. In other words, the economic fate of the West over the next decade is now in the hands of decision-makers who are concerned about the long-term survival of their own country. They are concerned because they do not want to have Iran in the possession of nuclear weapons. Both candidates for President have said the same thing. We have seen saber-rattling by the Iranians with the film-doctored test of the missiles this week. These missiles are militarily useless as weapons against the Israelis. They are as irrelevant militarily as Germany's V-2 missiles were in 1945. They cannot inflict enough damage to make a difference, unless they are used against Saudi Arabian oil fields. But, if they had a nuclear warhead, that would make all the difference. The Israelis know this. So, they are going to make their decision in terms of this long-term threat. The main inhibition against an attack is the possible collapse of the Western economy, which buys Israeli-produced goods. This threat may be sufficient to keep them from attacking. I dearly hope that it is. But it is naïve to believe that they are going to make their decision because of worries about whether Admiral Mullen has issued a green light or not. CONCLUSION When you invest your money, do not ignore the worst-case scenario. Set aside some of your money on the assumption that the worst-case will come true. This is what any military strategist does. He makes his decisions in terms of what the enemy can do, not what it would be convenient for the enemy to do. I suggest that you be aware of this threat. I suggest that you sit down with the family budget and outline what your response would be if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon or $15 a gallon or $20 a gallon. What would you do? I know what you would do. You would drive less. Ignore the happy-face assessments of the geopolitical strategists. Ignore the happy-face assessment of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson. These assessments are being issued to keep panic from spreading. I am doing my best to encourage people to take rational steps with some of their liquid assets: to hedge themselves against the possibility that there will be an attack on Iran before January 20, 2009. This doesn't mean that I think such an attack is a sure thing. Decision-makers in the State of Israel are going to have to live with $400 oil, just like all the rest of us. They may decide that this risk is too great. They may decide to put up with the threat of a future nuclear-armed Iran. I won't bet all of my money on this. I don't think you should either. July 12, 2008 Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.