And here’s a similar attack on Coke from the UK:
An anti-capitalist former stockbroker and the son of Sir James Goldsmith have launched an audacious attempt to halve the value of Coca-Cola’s shares.
The radical activist Max Keiser has joined forces with the editor of the Ecologist magazine, Zak Goldsmith, to launch a hedge fund that will donate the profits from short-sales in Coke’s stock to the “victims of Coke’s business model in places like India and Colombia”.
The idea is that as a boycott spreads the money in the fund will increase as shares in the company drop.
Mr Keiser, founder of activist website Karmabanque.com, believes the stunt will reduce Coca-Cola shares from their current value of $41 (£22) to $22 (£11). The campaign says it will “commit to as much money as it takes to take down Coke”, but Mr Keiser refused to say whether the son of the late billionaire had invested any money of his own in the project.
Looks like Leon Panetta is trying to talk Israel out of attacking Iran.
You’d almost think this was for show and not meant to actually solve the problem, wouldn’t you?
Why has the administration’s flagship foreclosure prevention program been so ineffective in helping struggling homeowners get loan modifications and stay in their homes? One reason: The government’s supervision of the program has apparently ranged from nonexistent to weak.
Documents obtained by ProPublica – government audit reports of GMAC, the country’s fifth largest mortgage servicer – provide the first detailed look at the program’s oversight. They show that the company operated with almost no oversight for the program’s first eight months. When auditors did finally conduct a major review more than a year into the program, they found that GMAC had seriously mishandled many loan modifications – miscalculating homeowner income in more than 80 percent of audited cases, for example.
Yet GMAC suffered no penalty. GMAC itself said it hasn’t reversed a single foreclosure as a result of a government audit.
Continue Reading »
Public Citizen on the trade agreements Obama just sent to the Congress:
By asking Congress to approve three NAFTA-style trade deals signed by former President George Bush, President Barack Obama has completely flip-flopped on his campaign promises to fix America’s failed trade policy and has cast his lot against the majority of the American people who oppose more of these job-killing deals.
At a time of 9 percent unemployment and broad public opposition to more NAFTA-style trade agreements, it’s a fairly shocking shift away from the president’s job-creation message to suddenly call on Congress to pass three old Bush trade deals that the federal government’s own studies say will increase the U.S. trade deficit.
The Korea FTA is the most economically significant since NAFTA, is projected to increase our trade deficit in key “jobs of the future” sectors such as computers, high-speed trains and solar, and result in the loss of an additional 159,000 U.S. jobs.
Congress should not even be considering a trade deal with Colombia, where scores of trade unionists, human rights defenders and Afro-Colombians are murdered or displaced from their lands every year and conditions have worsened since the administration signed off on an unenforceable “Labor Action Plan.” At a time when America is trying to reduce the national debt, Congress should not be considering a trade deal with Panama, a notorious tax-haven where U.S. firms and wealthy individuals go to dodge their taxes.
These trade deals replicate the mistakes of the past, not the way to win the future, and thus pose serious policy and political perils. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of the American public – across stunningly diverse demographics – is opposed to more of these NAFTA-style trade deals and that members of Congress vote for them at their peril. Even White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, whose job it is to sell these trade deals and who helped former President Bill Clinton sell NAFTA to a skeptical Congress, recognized that workers “lose from these agreements,” and implied that campaigning against free trade agreements could even be an electoral advantage. ( “White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers,” The Washington Post, June 16, 2011).