Los Europeos evitan usar Buscadores Americanos...

European Consumers Avoid U.S. Search Engines

Play

Dec. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Hans Nichols reports on European security concerns in the wake of NSA spying allegations. He speaks on Bloomberg Television's "In The Loop." (Source: Bloomberg)

El Papa Francisco...Es Marxista o No? ....(BusinessWeek)

Economy

Pope Francis Says He's Not a Marxist. Others Aren't Sure

By Carol Matlack                                                                                                                  December 16, 2013

 

Is a Communist running the Vatican? Pope Francis, after stirring controversy with his “who am I to judge?” comment on homosexuality, now is under attack for his criticisms of capitalism.

 

In a Dec. 14 interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, the pontiff defended a recent “apostolic exhortation” in which he disputed the theory of “trickle-down” economics, condemned the global financial system, and accused rich people of “stealing” if they do not share their wealth with the poor.

 

In the document, the pope decried “ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation.” He called on the world’s political leaders to enact financial reform with “an ethical approach which favors human beings.”

 

STORY: Bloomberg View: Pope Francis and the Poor

 

His statements outraged some conservatives such as radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, who described them in a Nov. 27 broadcast as “pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope.”

 

In the La Stampa interview, the pope said: “The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”

 

In the interview, the pope said that he questioned “trickle down theories” that assume that “economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefiting the poor. But what happens, instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger and nothing ever comes out for the poor.” That view, he said, reflects “the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist.”

 

The pope’s comments on capitalism also drew an attack from Lant Pritchett, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, who writes in a Bloomberg View op-ed column that the pontiff is “promoting envy” of the rich while discouraging entrepreneurship and innovation. “Encouraging people to measure themselves against others only leads to grief,” he writes. “Resenting the success of others is a sin in itself.”

It’s worth noting that Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to criticize capitalism—particularly the neo-liberal brand promoted by the U.S. Here’s what John Paul II wrote in a January 1999 exhortation:

“More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as ‘neoliberalism’ prevails; based on a purely economic conception of man, this system considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust.”

Nobody accused that pope, whose interventions were widely credited with helping end Soviet rule in his native Poland, with being a Marxist sympathizer.

Matlack is a Paris correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek.

Intel invierte en elm interior de las camisetas del Barcelona Futbol Club

By Ira Boudway                                                                                December 13, 2013


Barcelona's forward Lionel Messi shows a shirt reading 'Happy Birthday Mami' after scoring during a 2011 match in Barcelona

Next time you start to feel like everything that can be sold will be sold, just remember that most soccer clubs in the world do not sell the underside of their jerseys to advertisers. Most of the time, when a player lifts up his shirt to celebrate a goal, it is an act of joy that brings profit to no one. Do not fret over news that Futbol Club Barcelona, the second-richest soccer team in the world, has sold the inside of its shirts to silicon chip maker Intel (INTC) for a reported $25 million over five years.

Do not consider that the space that striker Lionel Messi once used to wish his mother a happy birthday (earning a fine of about €2,000, or $2,740) now belongs to a corporation with a market value of about $120 billion. Do not wonder if Barcelona players are raising their shirts because they want to or because they have to. Definitely do not think of Barcelona goal celebrations as a return on investment. But if you must know, they are worth $8,858,678 annually, according to Eric Smallwood, an analyst who tracks these things for Front Row Marketing Services—$6,013,000 from TV exposure, $469,680 from in-stadium exposure, and $2,375,000 from surrounding promotions and publicity such as this story.

Try not to consider the cleverness of a company that makes internal parts for computers buying the inside of a shirt. Don’t think of the slogan Intel Inside. And whatever else you do, try not to remember the time Danish striker Nicklas Bendtner was fined £80,000 ($130,400) for exposing the logo of an Irish bookmaker on his underwear.

STORY: Samsung Bought Almost Every Screen Anywhere Near an NBA Game

 

 Boudway is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek in New York.

 

From BusinessWeek: The Business of War...

What Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Learned About the Business of War
By Drake Bennett                                                                  November 21, 2013

What Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Learned About the Business of War

Erik Prince is not whining, he wants that clear. “However much I had to put up with, in terms of the assault from all sides, from the lawyers and the bureaucrats, pales in comparison to guys who lost their lives, who were maimed, either active-duty military or contractors,” he says. “I’m just providing a cautionary tale to the next guy dumb enough to run to the sound of the alarm bell. Because the government can drop you on a dime and leave you hanging.” For Prince, who in less than a decade took an obscure military training facility, Blackwater USA, and transformed it, with government contracts, into a billion-dollar company before selling it in late 2010, even score-settling is a public service.

 

In a dark suit and white, open-collar shirt, Prince is sitting warily in a hotel suite above New York’s Times Square. For years he’s been rumored to be working on a memoir about Blackwater (now called Academi), a name linked in the public imagination with the killings of dozens of Iraqis and Afghans. Now, Civilian Warriors: The Inside Story of Blackwater and the Unsung Heroes of the War on Terror, is published, and Prince is busy promoting it. A private person, he submits to an interview with the enthusiasm of a dog in a shower. And yet he’s been waiting for this, too—to make the case for himself and his company and place the blame where he believes it belongs: “If I could send a message back to my younger self, it would be: Do not work for the State Department at all.”

 

Story: Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Is Tired of Other People Telling His Secrets

 

At 44, Prince has always striven to be the sort of person who runs to the alarm. At Hillsdale College in Michigan, he joined the local volunteer fire department, becoming a rescue diver. It was grim work. The emergency calls were usually for snowmobilers who had gone through thin ice, and they never lasted long enough to be revived. Still, he found it thrilling: stepping through a hole into inky water, accompanied only by the hiss of his own breath.

 

As Prince was growing up in the conservative, proudly Dutch town of Holland, Mich., Edgar Prince, his father, built a billion-dollar fortune making auto parts. When Erik graduated from college, however, he signed up for the U.S. Navy, survived the brutal attrition of Hell Week, and joined SEAL Team 8. In the spring of 1995, when Erik was 25, his father died of a heart attack, and a year later Erik’s wife, Joan, was diagnosed with breast cancer—she would live with it for seven years before succumbing. Erik left the service to tend to his family and his father’s estate. The family sold Prince Automotive, and Erik went into business for himself, building a private military training ground in the backwoods of North Carolina.

 

The business catered to law enforcement and the military—post-Cold War cuts had reduced training capacity—but struggled to find clients for its first couple of years. After Sept. 11, however, Prince and Blackwater went from training soldiers to finding them work, deploying thousands of vets to guard and transport American diplomats, aid workers, politicians, and CIA case officers through two wars. Forty-one Blackwater contractors eventually died in the line of duty. None of the U.S. State Department officials they were guarding were killed or seriously injured. While running the company, Prince says, he did covert intelligence work for the CIA.

 

Video: How Are Security Contractors Vetted and Hired

 

Civilian Warriors is an angry book, and some of Prince’s contentions have made immediate headlines: He argues that ill-conceived State Department regulations led to Blackwater’s many firefights in Iraq; he has accused former CIA Director Leon Panetta of blowing his cover as an intelligence asset; and he contends that, had Blackwater still been providing security for America’s diplomats, Chris Stevens, the ambassador killed in Benghazi, would be alive today.

And yet, Civilian Warriors is not just a rant about government incompetence. It’s also the tale of how Prince founded, ran, and then lost his company. Like many a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Prince never saw Blackwater as simply a moneymaking venture. He wanted it to prove two things he strongly believed in: the dynamism of the private sector, and that some of the world’s most frustrating problems—piracy, warlords, genocide—could be solved by small groups of highly trained men with guns.

Blackwater got into the security business almost by chance. After the attacks of Sept. 11, Prince writes, he applied to the CIA’s National Clandestine Service but was turned down for a lack of field experience—he had seen little action in his five years in the SEALs. Soon thereafter, though, the CIA asked his company for help, and they developed a close relationship. (Prince’s book was vetted by the CIA.) The agency’s executive director, Alvin Bernard “Buzzy” Krongard, had heard of Blackwater—his son, a SEAL, had trained there. Krongard, uneasy about some of the local guards at the facilities the agency was setting up in Afghanistan, asked Prince if Blackwater could supply some men to do the job, drawing on its growing Rolodex of special forces veterans. That contract, fulfilled in days, was the first of many.

Incorporated in 2002, Blackwater’s security arm soon began supplying guards to other parts of the government. Crucially, two Blackwater contractors were attached to the U.S. Army team protecting Paul Bremer, the American diplomat who from May 2003 to June 2004 ran Iraq as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. One of the two was Frank Gallagher, a former Force Reconnaissance marine who had once run security for Henry Kissinger. When the Pentagon decided to contract out the whole detail in August 2003, he became its leader. Seven days later, Blackwater had found 34 more guys—former Army Rangers and special forces, Force Recon marines, SEALs, and SWAT team officers—promised them $600 a day, and flown them into Baghdad. Gallagher had a single day to train his team, and then they were in the field.

Story: Pentagon Cuts Leave Largest Military Air Charter in Chapter 11—Again

 

To read the complete story, go to: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-21/what-blackwater-founder-erik-prince-learned-about-the-business-of-war?campaign_id=DN112113 

 

Bennett is a staff writer for Bloomberg Businessweek in New York. 

 

 

 

Politics & Policy: (BusinessWeek) "Sí, la gente está perdiendo su seguro con OBAMACARE"

Health Care

Yes, People Are Losing Their Insurance Under Obamacare

By John Tozzi                                                                                                                          October 29, 2013

 

 

Six months into his presidency, Barack Obama promised that his proposed health reforms wouldn’t force people who were happy with their insurance to change. “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period,” he said. But hundreds of thousands of people are finding out that’s not the case. Insurance companies are terminating policies for many people whose insurance doesn’t meet the standards of the new health law. Here’s what you need to know:

 

 

Why is this happening?

The Affordable Care Act sets standards that private insurance companies must follow. Health plans must pay for at least 60 percent of their members’ medical costs on average. They also have to provide 10 areas of coverage, called essential health benefits, such as hospitalization, mental health treatment, and maternity care. Plans that don’t meet these standards generally can’t be sold after 2013, unless they’re grandfathered (more on that below). Insurers are ending these plans and pushing people to buy more comprehensive policies, some of which may also have higher premiums. For low- and middle-income people, the law provides subsidies to make health coverage more affordable.

 

Which plans are getting canceled?

The change mostly affects people who buy their health plans on their own, rather than those getting coverage through an employer. Most employer health plans already meet those standards. There were about 11 million people in the individual market in 2011, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Not all of their plans are being terminated, because some of them meet the law’s requirements. A study published last year in Health Affairs found that half of the people in this market had plans that pay for less than 60 percent of their medical costs, falling short of the law’s requirement. Even more plans may not have offered all 10 essential health benefits, but the study didn’t look at that.

 

STORY: Democrats Warm Up to a Delayed Obamacare

 

What about “grandfathered” plans?

Health plans that existed before Obamacare was passed in 2010 could avoid some of the new standards if they didn’t change much else. It’s up to insurers and employers to decide whether they want to keep offering so-called grandfathered plans. But plans that significantly increased what people have to pay or changed the benefits offered in the last three years would lose their grandfathered status, and they have to follow the new rules starting in 2014. The grandfather option also gives some political cover to the White House, because it puts the decision to terminate a plan on insurance companies, not the government.

 

How big a deal is this?

Politically, it’s awful for Obama. The promise to let people keep their doctors and health plans was one of his biggest talking points when he sold the health law to Americans. The line underplayed how Obamacare’s many moving parts would affect the health insurance market, with some unforeseen consequences for consumers. People are getting letters from their insurance companies saying their old plan is ending just as the healthcare.gov marketplace, where they theoretically could shop for new plans, is limping along. The situation angers and confuses ordinary consumers and gives fodder to the president’s critics.

 

Beyond the politics, though, insurers are being forced to replace skimpy coverage with more robust health plans. These will cost some people more, but the law also helps those with modest incomes pay for them. Obamacare’s market reforms keep insurers from turning people with preexisting conditions away, so those people whose plans are terminated are guaranteed to be able to buy new coverage. It’s one more difficult step in the messy process of changing the health-care system.

STORY: Why Obamacare's Success Rides on Hispanic Enrollment

Tozzi is a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek in New York.

10 síntomas de que llegó la hora de dejar ir a un empleado...( TechRepublic)

10 signs it's time to let an employee go

By Jack Wallen in 10 Things, October 9, 2013, 12:54 PM PST

oEmail

oPrint

oReddit

For some it's tough to let an employee go, even when the signs are obvious. If you see these behaviors, prepare to make a personnel move.

Everyone has done it – held on to an employee too long. For whatever reason (family, friends, fear), you just can't seem to muster up the courage to get rid of that one particular employee. For some managers/owners, it's quite a simple process. For others, the prospect of releasing an employee is a gut-wrenching experience they'd rather avoid. It doesn't have to be. Not when you have tell-tale signs it's time to let that employee go. Sometimes, they are practically asking for it.

I have brought together ten such signs. Use these as guideposts to help gauge your own instincts on the release of employees.

1. Apathy

When they no longer care, you should no longer care. The biggest problem with apathy is that it not only prevents people from doing their jobs, it's quite contagious. Should you wind up with an outbreak of apathy, recovery can be quite a chore. If apathy has set in with an employee that previously displayed no such behavior, it would behoove you to get a feel for what is going on. If the employee is undergoing a personal issue, make sure they understand that, although you respect their personal lives and might even offer some form of support, they need to keep the apathy in check. If the employee indicates no issues going on, very likely that apathetic approach is aimed specifically at work.

2. Disappearing acts

If disappearing acts are preceded by the employee dressing up (beyond the norm) or other changes in behavior, it could mean they are already scouting out new employment. If not, they could simply be skirting their duties. Either way, ducking out beyond regularly scheduled breaks is a sure sign you have an employee that feels they are above and beyond the job. Not only do you risk other employees assuming unscheduled disappearing acts are allowed, you will have resentment boiling up from employees who actually follow the rules.

3. Arguments

This usually takes two different forms: those employees that feel strongly about their positions and those that have grown weary of their environment and wish to argue for the simple act of releasing their aggression. If the former, congratulations, you have a passionate employee! If the latter, you have someone on your team who has reached the point where a blowup is imminent. When the latter type of employee begins frequently arguing with you, other management, fellow employees, or clients...that's a very good sign it's time for that employee to go. If you're very kind hearted, you could (and probably should) bring said employee in for a conference to see if any issues can be resolved. Otherwise...it's hit the road. 

4. Productivity decline

Production loss can come for many reasons. Some times staff can become overloaded with work or be placed on a project they have no business on because they lack the skill set. Other times, a drop in production can come for no apparent reason. It's when this type of slow down occurs that attention must be paid to the culprit. If the employee in question seems to be spending more time with his or her eyes in places other than their work, it's time to bring that employee in for a chat. When that happens, the employee will either deny your claims or make excuses for their (in)action.

5. Secrecy

Huddled employees who scatter when you appear are a problem. When you start hearing whispered tales around the office, that could mean dissension is spreading like wildfire. In some cases, those tales can be traced back to one particular member of the team. It is always best to get to the heart of the matter before that discontent (or false information) is spread among the masses.

6. Disaffection

Cleaning house is a bad sign. When you see employees slowly removing their personal effects from their desks, you should take that as a sure bet the employee is starting to disassociate themselves with their job and the company. The end game in this scenario is a slow severing of the ties that bind. During that process bad blood can be spilled. If you find this employee already dangling on an unsteady precipice, it's time they were cut loose.

7. Pot-stirring

This one of the most damaging behaviors you'll find in the office. When you see signs of this behavior, the first thing you must do is find out who is holding the spoon. The one fomenting trouble, whether it's by spreading rumors or setting employees against one another, is doing so for a reason (either legitimate or not). That staff member must be dealt with quickly or you'll never calm the sauce of your department/company.

8. Unreasonable demands

When employees become dissatisfied with either their jobs or their work environments, they start asking for things that aren't realistic. In some cases they are practically begging for you to let them go. If you find this to be the case, oblige them. Do take one thing under consideration – if more than one employee seems to be making unreasonable demands, it is upon you to figure out if there is one employee driving this coup or if you have actually created an environment that breeds such behavior. Take responsibility and try to view the situation objectively; you might discover something that can be easily remedied.

9. Redundancy

If you're lucky, you can afford to keep someone around for the times when his or her skills are a necessity, even if that need ebbs and flows. When business is in high demand, those redundancies can keep you afloat, but when business is slow, you're spending more than you need. The most important thing is to try and strike a balance. But economics might lead to the hard decision to cull the herd a bit, and rely on a contractor if and when the situation requires it.

10. Internal affairs

I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill office politics. I'm talking about emotional and sexual affairs. It's tough to devise a policy that prevents dating among employees, but it's smart. As much as we don't want to admit this, inter-office romance can be a breeding ground for slapping Scarlet Letter A's on the blazers of employees. When this happens, you'll find yourself cleaning up messes you don't want to be involved in. Try to avoid this altogether by creating a strong policy concerning relationships in the workplace. If someone breaks that policy – they have to go.

The hiring and firing of employees is a tough business. This is especially true when you are trying to create an environment of trust and ease. In the end, there will always be hard decisions to make. Finding employees that fall into any of the above behaviors can help to make that decision a bit easier.

About Jack Wallen

Jack Wallen is an award-winning writer for Techrepublic and Linux.com. As an avid promoter/user of the Linux OS, Jack tries to convert as many users to open source as possible. His current favorite flavor of Linux is Bodhi Linux

Cómo obtener ganancias del cierre del Gobierno (Bloomberg BusinessWeek)

 Government Shutdown

An Investor's Guide to Profiting From the Government Shutdown

 

To most of the U.S., today’s government shutdown comes as a maddening peak in a long-rising fever line of political dysfunction. For hundreds of thousands of federal employees and their families, on the other hand, the shutdown means lost work and missing paychecks. And to the biggest private-sector contractors doing work for the government, the shutdown carries real business risks.

 

To the folks at Goldman Sachs (GS), that means today could be a big trading opportunity. The investment bank has been sending clients a number of strategies to protect themselves and possibly profit from the gridlock in Washington. The main gambit: Find companies that do a lot of business with the government and then buy puts—contracts for the right to sell a company’s shares at a certain price in a certain time period.

 

Let’s say you have a put option to sell one share of a hypothetical company called, I don’t know, “Congress” at $10. If squabbling and poor results drive the price down to $4, you can buy a share on the open market for $4 and exercise the put to sell at $10, booking a $6 profit.

 

In light of Goldman’s strategic advice, we crunched data from Bloomberg Government on the top U.S. contractors in a number of categories to see what public companies might get pinched in a protracted shutdown. Here’s the list:

 

Company (Industry) | Outstanding Contracts in Dollars | Percent of Revenue (12-month trailing)

 

• Lockheed Martin (LMT) (Defense/Aircraft) | $36.9 billion in contracts | 80 percent of revenue

• Shaw Group (SHAW) (Construction) | $900 million in contracts | 15 percent of revenue

• Textron (TXT) (Defense/Drones) | $2.4 billion in contracts | 20 percent of revenue

• General Electric (GE) (Engines) | $2.7 billion in contracts | 2 percent of revenue

• BAE Systems (BA/:LN) (Defense) | $6.3 billion in contracts | 24 percent of revenue

• Caterpillar (CAT) (Facilities/Parts) | $500 million in contracts | 1 percent of revenue

• Tyson Foods (TSN) (Food) | $600 million in contracts | 2 percent of revenue

• Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA:NA) (Fuel) | $2.9 billion in contracts | 1 percent  of revenue

• Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) (Consulting) | $4.1 billion in contracts | 71 percent of revenue

• Oshkosh (OSK). (Vehicles) | $1.6 billion in contracts | 20 percent of revenue

• Fluor (FLR). (Logistics) | $2.1 billion in contracts | 7 percent of revenue

• Vesuvius (VSVS:LN) (Metals/Mining) | $300 million in contracts | 19 percent of revenue

• Humana (HUM) (Medical Services) | $3.5 billion in contracts | 9 percent of revenue

• McKesson (MCK) (Medical Supplies) | $4.6 billion in contracts | 4 percent of revenue

• Northrop Grumman (NOC) (Defense/Research) | $12.5 billion in contracts | 50 percent of revenue

• General Dynamics (GD) (Defense) | $15.4 billion in contracts | 49 percent of revenue

• Ball (BLL). (Aerospace) | $300 million in contracts | 3 percent of revenue

• Dell (DELL) (Technology/Equipment) | 1.2 billion in contracts : 2 percent of revenue

• FedEx (FDX) (Transportation) | $1.4 billion in contracts | 3 percent of revenue

• Raytheon (RTN) (Defense/Weapons) | $14.5 billion in contracts | 59 percent of revenue

 

Given the scale of business these companies do with the government, this week’s shutdown might be a mere hiccup. And many of the names on the list above rely on Uncle Sam for only a tiny slice of revenue. But the longer the government remains dark, the cloudier the forecast will be for some of these contractors.

Stock is an associate editor for Businessweek.com.