Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Meet 2016's Worst Economic Performers (BusinessWeek)

Venezuela will contract the most while Taiwan faces a heightened risk of recession

For the world's worst-performing economies, no good will come from New Year's resolutions to do better. For many, 2016 will only bring more disappointment, say economists surveyed by Bloomberg.

Oil-rich Venezuela will contract by 3.3 percent this year, the worst forecast of any of the 93 countries in our analysis, followed by junk-rated Brazil, debt-laden Greece and commodities-ravaged Russia. 

Below are the bottom 10: 

The Recession Club

The club no one wants to join has some surprises. Among the nations with a 50-50 chance of two quarters of contraction is Taiwan. Its annual growth rate slow dramatically from 4 percent in the first quarter of 2015 to minus 0.6 percent in the third quarter due to a slowdown in exports to China.

Even with expected growth this year of 1.2 percent, Ukraine, one of last year's worst performers, is still at risk. Economists rate its chance of recession over the next 12 months at  60 percent, the third-highest tied with Argentina.

Latin America

The outlook is dire for bottom-ranked Venezuela: from shortages of basic goods such as medicine to the collapse in the price of oil, which accounts for 95 percent of the country's exports, the nation is looking at a third straight year of negative GDP. The opposition party taking over congress for the first time in 16 years offers brave investors a glimpse of good news.

The situation doesn't get much better elsewhere on the continent. Brazil's 2016 GDP forecast combined with last year's drop puts the country in its deepest recession since at least 1901.  Two major credit rating companies have already downgraded its sovereign debt to "junk" status. 

Next door in Argentina, newly-elected President Mauricio Macri is steering the country in a new direction to dodge economic catastrophe and prevent a drop in GDP this year. Sworn into office last month, he has already begun to implement measures aimed at bolstering growth and reigning in the country's fiscal deficit.

Europe

Greece did not get booted from the euro and managed to recapitalize its struggling banking sector, yet 2016 is still full of challenges. The economy will shrink by 1.8 percent, making the hundreds of billions of dollars Greece still owes that much harder to pay off.  Serious debt relief will still prove to be elusive. Add to that the strain on its borders of migrants fleeing violence in Syria. 

Russia will stay in negative territory after contracting about 3.6 percent in the first nine months of last year, but will also turn the corner on what will likely be its longest recession in over two decades. Sanctions from the U.S. and European Union as well as low oil prices, which account for 40 percent of the government's budget revenues, took their toll.


Finland and Switzerland also made the expected list of 10 worst performers for 2016. The former suffers from its geographic proximity and economic reliance to Russia while the latter is still reeling from a surprise central bank decision to drop its currency cap, which crippled exports and tourism.

Asia

Deflation-pained Japan is forecast to grow 1 percent this year, lagging behind many of its neighbors who made the projected list of 2016's best performers. The country's Cabinet recently approved a record budget for next fiscal year, betting that fiscal stimulus and labor market reform will boost growth.

Current forecasts are the median estimate from each country's latest survey conducted between Oct. and Dec. 2015, bringing the total number of economies surveyed to 93.



Thursday, January 14, 2016

Charging a Smartphone While Driving Isn't as Free as You Think


  • Handsets plugged into car ports cut mileage, boost pollution
  • It also costs 33 times more than using outlets at home

It’s not just using a handheld phone while driving that’s a menace to society. It turns out that charging it in the car has consequences too. 

That’s because a phone drawing electricity from a USB port cuts 0.03 miles from each gallon of gasoline in a tank. Across the fleet of vehicles in the U.S., that would mean about 970,000 tons of extra planet-warming carbon dioxide a year, according to calculations by Jon Bereisa, a retired General Motors Co. engineering executive who studies vehicle power usage. With a race under way to see how many charging ports automakers can cram into a car, the increased pollution is only going to get worse.

“Do I think we’re at peak USB? No,” said Mary Gustanski, vice president of engineering and program management at Delphi Automotive Plc, which makes wiring and USB ports for vehicles. “We’ll get more and more creative to not only allow you to connect with USB but also to connect wireless. Consumers want their car to be just like their home.”

It’s not just an environmental issue, either. The proliferation of consumer devices, the growth of dashboard touch screens and other technology, and the shrinking size of engines to meet fuel-economy mandates mean the 12-volt automobile electrical system is just about tapped out. Some automakers are already turning to supplemental 48-volt systems in future models.

Port Proliferation

The number of vehicles sold in the U.S. with USB charge ports rose to about 14.6 million last year from about 3.3 million in 2005, the first year they were available, and is projected to climb to 16.7 million by 2022, according to a forecast from the consulting firm IHS. Global sales of vehicles with USB ports will increase to 85 million in 2022 from about 49 million last year, IHS said.

That estimate doesn’t capture how many ports are in a particular vehicle. For example, the new Chrysler Pacifica minivan, which goes on sale later this year, will have nine USB charging points, the most of any automobile, said Bruce Velisek, director of Chrysler brand product marketing. The model it replaces has four charging points, he said.

To make his calculation, Bereisa assumed that a typical smartphone connected to WiFi or the Internet needs about 4.8 watts of energy to charge in a car. (Delphi estimates that some less-efficient models draw twice that amount.) For a vehicle getting about 30 miles per gallon, that’s a 0.03 mpg loss, he said. Spread out across about 3 trillion road miles motorists drive each year in the U.S. -- assuming an average speed of 30 mph -- the estimated extra usage is 100 million gallons of gasoline, or about $200 million in costs, said Bereisa, the chief executive officer of Auto Electrification LLC in Sunrise Beach, Missouri.

Home Charging

The estimated extra CO2 created by plugging in one phone in every car in the U.S. would be about the same as that produced by 185,257 passenger vehicles in one year, according to an Environmental Protection Agency website that converts greenhouse gas into real-world equivalents. Put another way, that’s the pollution created by burning 945 million pounds of coal.

By far, the cheapest way to charge a smartphone is at home, Bereisa said. With gasoline at $2 a gallon, it costs about 2 cents an hour to charge a phone in a car compared with about 0.06 cent at home, or 33 times less. Gasoline would have to fall to 6 cents a gallon to compete with home electricity, he said. It would also produce about half the carbon dioxide.

“That’s why modern electricity power plants are not driven by gasoline engine generators,” said Bereisa, who worked on the EV-1 and Volt electric-vehicle programs and fuel-cell models during his 35 years at GM. “We go through life without realizing how important energy is to everything we do, and the consequences of our energy consumption. We grow up entitled to just plug it in or flip the switch or push start -- with no idea of what’s behind it all.”

Monday, January 11, 2016

Meet the Two Brothers Making Millions Off the Refugee Crisis in Scandinavia (BusinessWeek)

Hero Norway’s for-profit model offers lodging for asylum seekers.

It’s a scene that could possibly warm even the two-sizes-too-small heart of the Grinch. Here in a little village in Norway, as dusky midday light filters in through the forest outside a classroom, a half-dozen Afghan teenagers hunch over a long wooden table, assiduously scissoring colored sheets of construction paper. These are 15- to 18-year-old boys who’ve endured miseries no child deserves—gunfire, explosions, the killing of a parent by Islamic State—and they’ve traveled here from their homeland on foot and in suffocatingly crowded vans. They sneaked through the woods on the Turkey-Bulgaria border, and they’ve been chased and bitten by police dogs and beaten by their smugglers. Now they’re celebrating Christmas and inscribing cards with some of the very first Norwegian words they’ve learned: God Jul. Merry Christmas.

Are they happy to be here?

“It is calm and peaceful,” says Bilal, 15, in Pashto.

“It is nice,” says Ahmad, also 15, “but why isn’t there a cricket pitch?”

Their middle-aged teachers—a Syrian and an Eritrean, both onetime refugees themselves—hover over them, benevolent, smiling, as a commuter train rattles in the distance. This, arguably, is the Scandinavia that the self-proclaimed socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was referring to in October when he suggested that Americans “should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished”—particularly when it comes to government programs that assist those in need.

Except there’s this other guy in the room, standing off to the side, almost invisible as he handles incoming e-mail on his smartphone. Kristian Adolfsen, 55, wears a V-neck sweater, a striped button-down, and glasses. This is his first visit to this refugee center in Hvalstad, but he owns the operation with his brother, Roger, 51, and they run 90 such centers in Norway and 10 more in Sweden. Refugees represent a huge opportunity for them; the Adolfsens’ Oslo-based company, Hero Norway, is the leader of a burgeoning Scandinavian industry that charges the Norwegian and Swedish governments a fixed fee—$31 to $75 per person per night in Norway—to house and feed refugees.

In Norway, Hero operates several different kinds of refugee lodging, among them short-stay dormitories where asylum seekers sleep a few nights, waiting to be screened by police after crossing the border; a second phalanx of facilities where refugees wait a couple of weeks to be interviewed by immigration officials, taking their meals in a cafeteria; and longer-term camps where they live more independently, in detached houses, cooking their own meals, as they wait, often for years, to be settled in Norway with protected refugee status.

For 2015, Hero Norway expects revenue of $63 million, with profits of 3.5 percent. In the rest of Europe, where asylum seekers typically are cared for by nongovernmental organizations such as the Red Cross, only one for-profit is larger than the Adolfsens’ operation, ORS Services, a Swiss company that in 2014 generated $99 million in profit caring for refugees in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. (ORS won’t disclose its 2015 profits.)

The Adolfsens have succeeded in part because they have a background in hospitality. In the three decades since they founded Adolfsen Group, Kristian and Roger have built an $800 million-a-year network of businesses that includes preschools and nursing homes, as well as hotels, apartment buildings, cruise lines, and ski resorts. The two entered the refugee sector in May 2014, when they paid a Danish company, ISS Facility Services, $22 million for Hero Norway, a 27-year-old company that ran 32 refugee centers.

At first the Adolfsens set their sights on Sweden. Almost immediately, though, refugee arrivals in Norway exploded, and they’ve kept arriving since. A country of 5 million people—a relatively sleepy, snow-clad, 1,600-mile-long, lutefish-eating kingdom that had never seen more than 17,000 refugees in a single year—received more than 31,500 asylum seekers in 2015 as Syria continued to fall apart and wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea drove refugees to Europe. The Norwegian Directorate of Immigration (UDI) can’t cope with the influx, so it’s turning to entrepreneurs, desperately, lest more refugees sleep in the streets. “UDI calls for capitalists,” blared a recent headline in Oslo’s Aftenposten newspaper.

For-profits now care for about 90 percent of Norway’s refugees. A gold rush has commenced, and it’s also a bit of a circus. Just outside Oslo, a savvy entrepreneur named Ola Moe recently rented a vacant hospital for $10,000 a month, did minimal upgrades, and began charging the government $460,000 a month to house and feed 200 refugees. At a refugee center in Southern Norway, 50 resident asylum seekers went on a two-hour march in November to protest the poor food, prompting one politician, an Iranian Norwegian named Mazyar Keshvari, to proclaim, “These ungrateful people should immediately leave the country.”

Amid such controversy, the Adolfsens appear like poised professionals. In press photographs, they flash can-do smiles as they sit before gleaming conference tables in airy office towers. One Oslo paper, Dagens Naeringsliv, has called them “Norway’s least known billionaires.” Yet concerns remain. In their monetization of the refugee crisis, will the Adolfsens provide superior, more efficient havens, or will they cut corners and skimp on services to improve profits? And does their bottom-line approach threaten a depth of caring that transcends hard cash?

Kristian and Roger grew up in Northern Norway, a sparsely peopled region imbued with a provincial, gloomy, Southern Rock vibe. Moonshine is popular there, along with fishing and hunting, and the Adolfsen brothers pride themselves on speaking a northern dialect, which Kristian says “is filled with swear words—not bad ones, but you know, stuff like ‘devil hell.’ ” Their hometown of Andenes, population 3,500, situated on Andoya Island, is so windy there are almost no trees. Their father, Kolbjorn, an engineer, worked days at the Andoya Space Center, launching rockets to study the northern lights. In the evening, he ran a TV sales and repair shop. Eventually he built a hotel. “A lot of people in Norway have cabins,” says Kristian. “Our second home was the TV shop. That’s where we saw our father.”

When Kristian was 5, he began selling the local newspaper, the Andoya Avis. At 7, he got involved with the production of a Northern Norway ocean delicacy, cod tongue. It was his job each winter afternoon to jab hundreds of cod down onto a metal spike, one by one, before lopping off the fish’s tongues with a knife. “As soon as the last bell rang at school,” he says, “I began sprinting. You had to be the first on the pier. There were only so many fish.” He cut quickly, running behind his wheelbarrow in the 10F to 15F air to fetch loads of fish. After three hours, he’d spend three more selling cod tongues door to door. “But that wasn’t so bad,” he says, “because then you could wear gloves.”

Roger stayed out of the cod tongue industry (by the time he came of age, his mother was weary of living in a household smelling of fish), but he soon followed his brother into competitive running and cross-country skiing. The brothers served as delivery boys, Kristian carrying groceries on his sled and Roger baked goods. Both worked as salesmen in the TV shop, and during the late 1970s—as Norwegian conservative Kare Willoch rose to power, eventually becoming prime minister in 1981—the brothers grew infectiously excited over his staunch opposition to the social democratic state that took root in Norway after World War II.

Kristian and Roger ran for the Andenes City Council as teenagers. Both won seats and fought for the privatization of road services and garbage pickup in Andenes. “My first speech was about privatizing the road grading,” Kristian says. “I spent hours writing and correcting many times what I would say. I tried to memorize every word.”

When the Adolfsens made their first major business move in 1991, purchasing the 44-room Andrikken Hotel in Andenes, the gesture had an almost holy resonance: They were buying the very hotel their father had built. In 1981, Kolbjorn had lost the business to bankruptcy. But he kept its giant sign in his basement. It depicted a long-necked duck flying into the midnight sun. The brothers rehung it—then staffed the hotel with old friends from Andenes, establishing a tone. “We have a coast culture in our companies,” Kristian says. “We are professional but informal, and we base everything on trust. When you grow up in a small place, you can’t do anything wrong. You get a bad reputation.”

Over the next decade, the Adolfsens built Norlandia Hotel Group, which now manages about 30 establishments, many of them Best Westerns, throughout Norway and Sweden. As the Norwegian government started allowing private companies to make money on social welfare work, they ventured into nursing homes, then preschools. “We are like sportsmen,” Kristian says calmly and clinically, explaining his and Roger’s drive. “We set goals, and then we reach our goals, and then we have to set new goals. It is not about the money. It is about the excitement.”

Europe’s refugee crisis has been bubbling since the Arab Spring of 2011. When it boiled over last summer, many Norwegians traveled to Lesbos, Greece, on the edge of the Aegean Sea to help refugees land their boats in Europe. They set up tents, served food, and offered trauma counseling. Back in Norway, groups such as Refugees Welcome to Norway supplied the newcomers with clothes and toys as other volunteers taught them to knit. The Adolfsens, meanwhile, enlisted an aide to cast about Norway’s hinterlands for abandoned or little-used properties: defunct boarding schools, onetime rehab centers, hospitals, mountain hotels that go dead in autumn—any and all structures where refugees could be housed temporarily or permanently at a profit. As Roger tended to other aspects of the Adolfsens’ business, Kristian expanded the refugee services. “We see it as a niche in the health and care industry,” he says.

On Norway’s political left, the Adolfsens are regarded as distasteful and greedy, especially by Linn Herning, deputy director of Norway’s Campaign for the Welfare State and the author of a 2015 book, Velferdsprofitorene (The Welfare Profiteers), which traces the gradual expansion since the late 1990s of entrepreneurs in Norway’s preschools and nursing homes. The cover features detailed, anatomically correct drawings of creepy insects—parasites—and Herning devotes several pages to the Adolfsens, who, she says, are “the biggest players, the only welfare profiteers in every sector.” In early December, she helped Norway’s Socialist Party and Social Democratic Party call in Parliament for a study looking into the feasibility of banning profiteering in refugee care.

Still, Herning could point to only one specific example of the Adolfsens’ supposed treachery. In the small Norwegian city of Moss, an hour south of Oslo, Orkerod, a respected, publicly owned, 88-bed nursing home for dementia patients, went into tumult after the Adolfsens’ Norlandia Care Group began managing it in 2014. “The focus on specialized dementia care disappeared,” says Lorentz Nitter, the clinic’s lead doctor until he quit in June. “Such care is very expensive,” about $125,000 annually per person, he says, “and Norlandia didn’t want to pay for it.” When highly paid nurses trained in dementia work quit, Norlandia replaced them with cheaper nonspecialists. “They began treating all patients the same way,” Nitter says, and this was dangerous. About 30 percent of all dementia patients are “aggressive,” he says, “and they walk around causing many problems.”

In Orkerod’s first 12 months under Norlandia’s guidance, 19 nurses quit. In a recent op-ed in Moss Avis, Nitter joined two other Orkerod doctors in complaining that the clinic’s excellence, built over its first 13 years of operation, had been “torn down in a single year.”

Kristian denies that the quality of the service at Orkerod declined and argues that departed staffers were disgruntled simply because Norlandia shook them from long-standing work habits. “These were people who’d been there for many years,” he says. “They were used to doing things their way, and then we made changes. It’s a lot more demanding to work for a private company because we focus on providing better quality at lower prices.”

To read the full article, go to: 

Friday, January 8, 2016

The World Economy's Winners and Losers in 2015 (BusinessWeek)

The Celtic Tiger rises, China holds up, Brazil and Russian sink deeper

When the final numbers are tallied, 2015 will probably count as another disappointing year for global growth.

The muted performance came even as central banks continued to pump in liquidity, oil prices plunged again and inflation was moderate.

It was also a year of divergent performers. While tumbling commodity prices took the shine off big emerging markets Russia and Brazil, other emerging economies like India and Vietnam surprised on the upside. In the developed world, robust U.S. jobs growth prompted the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy for the first time since 2006, while the gloom around neighboring Canada deepened.

With the year drawing to a close, here's a look at some of the winners and losers:

Mixed performance:

In advanced economies, smaller European nations were among the best performers. Ireland's economy grew by 7 percent in the third quarter--faster than China--and well ahead of the euro area's 1.6 percent growth in the same period.

By contrast, the picture was more subdued in Finland. The northernmost euro member, which was among the most vocal critics of Greece during its crisis bailout negotiations, is suffering as key industries like paper making and consumer electronics struggle. Weak export demand from Russia is also hurting.

Honorary mention:

Japan gets a special mention for the recession that never was. A data revision meant that GDP expanded in the third quarter rather than contracting as previously thought, meaning  the world's third largest economy avoided a second recession in three years. Some economists say the performance shows Japan's economy is on an overall improving track, even if significant challenges remain.

Employment:

Away from the GDP numbers, employment data around the world paints a mixed picture.

The lowest jobless rates can be found in nations such as Japan and Switzerland, or Thailand and Singapore, but Western Europe remains stricken by high levels of joblessness. Double digit unemployment in places like Greece and Spain underscore the challenges ahead. 

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Why GM + Lyft Is About the End of Car Brands

Why GM + Lyft Is About the End of Car Brands
Who made the last airplane you flew on? Who manufactured the last bus or train you took? Unless you’re unusually curious or observant, it’s not only that you don’t remember — I bet it never occurred to you to ask.
But more likely than not, you do remember the brand(s) of the company(ies) thatoperated those vehicles and/or sold you your tickets. And that’s why GM invested in Lyft.

Why self-driving cars + ride sharing = the end of car manufacturers’ brands

 
Self-driving cars will push down prices for ride-sharing to insanely low levels. My car was stolen last year, and already, doing the math that everyone’s now doing, I’m saving money (and hassle) by not replacing it and taking Uber and Lyft everywhere (and Zipcar for longer drives). Given that today drivers take home 70% to 80% of UberX fares, the advent of self-driving cars could reduce the average ride-sharing fare to well below 50% of current rates.
When that happens, ride/car-sharing becomes more the norm, at least in urban areas. (Will buying a car one day be like buying a tractor?) Which means traveling in a car becomes more like traveling in an airplane or a bus — an on-demand experience that separates riders from manufacturers and their brands. In that world, the brands that matter most are the ones that sell you your tickets, operate the cars, and tell you how soon they will arrive.

GM’s Lyft investment is a play against intermediation

 
In the early days of the Internet, there was a lot of talk about disintermediation as the force of disruption. Manufacturers, for example, would be able to sell their goods directly, without going through expensive intermediaries. That has certainly played out (Warby Parker, Apple, etc.), but the more interesting phenomenon — and what’s happening now in the car industry — is intermediation.
The introduction of intermediaries into a supply chain usually removes value, which is why new intermediaries are rare. But when superior ways of buying and consumption emerge, a new intermediary can jump in and add value. That’s what Netflix did, and it now poses an existential threat to traditional programming networks.
In that context, GM investing in Lyft is a little like when those traditional networks invested in Hulu. (Or, as Jeff Fodor aptly points out, like when record labels invested in Spotify.) The result, at least initially, was that Hulu was constrained by its owners’ fear of cannibalization. It’ll be interesting to see if GM’s ownership similarly holds Lyft back, or if, conversely, Lyft can keep the GM brand relevant in a world in which, more and more, people won’t give much thought to who makes cars.

Monday, December 28, 2015

Bezos's Behind-the-Scenes Role in the Washington Post's Web Growth (BusinessWeek)

Every two weeks, Jeff Bezos holds an hour-long conference call with executives at the Washington Post. Twice a year, the managers fly to Seattle for day-long strategy sessions with the Amazon.com Inc. founder. And every so often, they find a reader complaint in their inbox forwarded without comment from Jeff@amazon.com.

More than two years after he bought the Post from the Graham family for $250 million, Bezos has shaped its digital transformation in ways big and small. His behind-the-scene influence has yielded a milestone: The newspaper has surpassed the New York Times in unique U.S. Web visitors two months running.

After Bezos acquired the Post -- as an individual buyer and not as part of e-commerce giant Amazon -- he said he had no formula for rescuing the declining newspaper industry, and promised an era of experimentation.

Jeff Bezos

“I didn’t know anything about the newspaper business,” Bezos said last year at a media conference. “But I did know something about the Internet. That, combined with the financial runway that I can provide, is the reason why I bought the Post.”

Bezos didn’t respond to a request for an interview.

Post executives say the newspaper’s digital growth -- from about 26 million unique visitors in August 2013 to about 72 million in November 2015 -- is the result of several initiatives. Most notably, it has widened its focus on national and international coverage and added 70 employees to the newsroom, including about 50 reporters and editors, lifting the headcount to about 700.

The digital gains can also be attributed to its relationship with Amazon and Bezos himself. While he hasn’t expressed opinions about the Post’s journalism and has only visited the newsroom a few times, Bezos has been hands-on with its technology and instrumental in making it a more data-driven company, said Shailesh Prakash, the Post’s chief information officer.

“He’s got his fingerprints in a lot of things,” Prakash said. “I send him links to try. He’s curious. He asks questions.”

In September, the newspaper said that Amazon Prime subscribers can get online access to the national edition free for six months, with an option to continue subscribing at 60 percent off. Late last year, the Post introduced an app that comes preinstalled on Amazon Kindle Fire tablets -- a project Bezos was deeply involved with, Prakash said.

The Post has hired some engineers from Amazon, and its data scientists talk regularly with their Amazon counterparts, getting tips on how to recommend stories better based on Amazon’s approach to recommending products to consumers, Prakash said.

Recruiting top engineers has become easier because the Post is owned by Bezos, Post executives said. “A number have come from some of the top places for an engineer to be and that’s in part because they have the opportunity to work with Bezos,” said Publisher Fred Ryan.

Frozen Pensions

Not all decisions have been popular. Under Bezos, the Post has frozen pensions for some current employees. Freddy Kunkle, a co-chair of the Post unit of the Washington-Baltimore News Guild, said the pension was already fully-funded and called the decision “very shocking.”

“There was no reason to do that,” Kunkle said. “It was just macho-capitalism.”
Some Post reporters have felt more pressure to ensure their work is generating high levels of Web traffic, Kunkle said.

Kris Coratti, a Post spokeswoman, said journalists at the paper aren’t measured by how much traffic their stories generate. She declined to comment on the pension decision.

And while the Post’s online traffic has almost tripled under Bezos, its print circulation, like many other newspapers, has continued to decline. As of the end of September, daily print circulation, excluding Sundays, is down down 18 percent to 340,381 since Bezos took over, according to the Alliance for Audited Media. As a private company, the Post doesn’t disclose revenue, profit or digital subscribers publicly, and Post executives declined to comment on those figures.

Still, Bezos has imbued some of the Post’s journalists with a sense of optimism after years of buyouts and cuts. Kevin Merida, a former managing editor who recently left to join ESPN, said Bezos’s arrival was like “all of a sudden Michael Jordan is coming to your team.” 
Reporter Carol D. Leonnig, who won a Pulitzer Prize this year for her series on the U.S. Secret Service, said the Post has hired more breaking news reporters, freeing up veteran journalists like herself to do more investigative reporting.

“There’s a lot of energy and excitement in the room to replace all the grim, dour, low morale that plagued the place before,” Leonnig said.

Inside the new newsroom in Washington, which opened this month, a large screen displays real-time traffic statistics of stories on its website. Less visibly, Bezos suggested measuring whether readers prefer the Post to its rivals. So engineers created a program that takes articles from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other publications, strips out their branding, then surveys readers on which articles they’d rather read. The 600 or so readers are paid a small fee for taking the survey and are asked to provide some basic demographic information.

‘Jeffisms’

Bezos’ influence is evident in small ways, too. Post executives have adopted some of his sayings, called “Jeffisms.” They talk about reducing “cognitive overhead” and “friction” that discourages readers from signing up for e-mail newsletters. Bezos calls ideas that could upset Post subscribers, like jamming too many ads on a Web page, “reader hostile.” As he’s done at Amazon, Bezos requires Post executives to write lengthy memos outlining their projects instead of using PowerPoint presentations, believing that narrative writing forces people to think more deeply.

Marty Baron, executive editor of the Post, says the model under the billionaire owner probably can’t be replicated at publicly-held newspaper companies that are pressured to meet the financial expectations of Wall Street.

“If you’re trying to improve your financial performance quarter to quarter, it would be very difficult to do this,” Baron said. “If you take the longer view and are willing to accept the market will take the longer view as well, or you don’t care, then you can make these kinds of investments.”


Monday, December 21, 2015

Why This Year’s Christmas Season Is So Angry (BusinessWeek)


Diane Farmer, 54, is a lifelong Democrat from the New York City area now living in Palm Beach County, Fla. She attended Catholic schools and later belonged to unions while working for a phone company and then in a court clerk’s office. She voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. But Farmer says she’s never been more excited about a candidate than she is this time. Her choice? Donald Trump.

The convert to Trumpism shared her enthusiasm while stopping by glitzy Trump Tower on New York’s Fifth Avenue to pick up her fifth “Make America Great Again” cap (free with every $30 campaign contribution). “What he’s saying is what everybody’s thinking,” she said. “Too many people are getting free stuff. We should send the illegals out of the country. I want them off welfare and food stamps. Go home, and come back again when you’re ready to work.” As for the Middle East: “We should have dropped the bomb and ended the issue. We need to annihilate that, uh ...,” she said, trailing off.

This holiday season, Trump’s glowing fireplace of fury is firing up people like Farmer who used to look to the left—as well as a surprisingly wide swath of the Republican Party—for answers. He’s scoring his highest numbers ever among Republican primary voters—35 percent, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Enthusiasm for him only grew after he called for a ban on Muslims entering the country. To some, he seems divisive, but not to Farmer. “I thought Obama would be a unifier since he’s black and white and Muslim [sic]. But he’s an antagonizer,” she said. “We need to try something different. We can’t live like this.”

Yup, it’s an angry Christmas, and it’s worth thinking about why. Something has changed to create such a shift in the public’s leanings, from taking a chance on Obama’s audacity of hope to delighting in Trump’s straight-up audacity. Fear of Islamic terrorism has something to do with it. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that achieved approximately nothing and the stunning rise of China as a rival power have also left many Americans feeling confused and vulnerable. But the most potent fuel for Trumpism is undoubtedly the sick economy. A long stretch of underperformance has seeded mistrust in the American Dream among millions of would-be breadwinners, especially people without college educations.

As everyone knows by now, a winner-take-all economy is producing big gains for a thin stratum at the top but little for anyone else. Bernie Sanders likes to point out that the top 10th of 1 percent of families control as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. The inflation-adjusted income of the median American household is lower now than in 2000. On average, young men are earning less after inflation than their fathers did at the same age. More than a fifth of American children live below the poverty line, according to Census Bureau data. Even though the unemployment rate is down to 5 percent and the last recession ended in 2009, 72 percent of Americans think the country is still in a recession, according to a Public Religion Research Institute survey released last month.

This isn’t good for business, which is getting targeted for blame: Eighty-six percent of respondents in the PRRI survey said corporate offshoring of jobs is somewhat or very responsible for America’s economic troubles, up from 74 percent in 2012.

Two kinds of populists come to the fore when anger over inequality and perceived injustice runs high, says Luigi Zingales. An Italian-born economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and author of the 2012 book A Capitalism for the People, Zingales says Theodore Roosevelt represents the best kind of populist: someone who fought corruption and broke up monopolies to give ordinary people a chance. Trump, says Zingales, is more about affixing blame than creating opportunity. He likens him to Silvio Berlusconi, the freewheeling media magnate who was elected prime minister of Italy four times but was ultimately convicted of tax fraud. Trump and Berlusconi, Zingales adds, “are both very good at talking to the stomach of the people.”

The erosion of trust that’s both reflected in and accelerated by the Trump phenomenon has real economic consequences. Business is hard to conduct in societies with low levels of trust. The share of people who agree that “most people can be trusted” varied from a high of 66 percent in the Netherlands to a low of 3 percent in Trinidad and Tobago in the World Values Survey, 2010-14. Government and commerce can grind to a halt when trust is absent.

The U.S., with 35 percent saying most people can be trusted, is in the top third of countries for societal trust, which helps explain why it is one of the world’s richest nations. That endowment of stability doesn’t come with a lifetime guarantee, however, and U.S. politics has lately taken on a spiteful cast. “While Americans are inclined to ‘hedge’ expressions of overt animosity toward racial minorities, immigrants, gays, or other marginalized groups, they enthusiastically voice hostility for the opposing party and its supporters,” according to Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization, a study by Stanford political scientist Shanto Iyengar and Princeton postdoctoral researcher Sean Westwood that was published this year in the American Journal of Political Science. In four experiments, the authors found that discrimination based on political affiliation “exceeds discrimination based on race.”

Marriages across party lines are down to below 10 percent from more than 30 percent in the 1960s, Iyengar says, citing others’ research. The fabric of society is fraying. “I don’t want to sound like I’m an alarmist, but I could see the possibility of violence, large-scale street movements which are politically motivated,” he says in an interview.

Congress isn’t helping matters, because it’s even more polarized than the society it’s supposed to represent. The result is debt-ceiling brinkmanship and repeated stalemates over legislation. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed with the votes of 73 percent of Democrats in the Senate and 94 percent of Republicans, a fairly narrow partisan gap. In contrast, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 passed with the support of 100 percent of Senate Democrats and zero percent of Republicans, notes Michael Cembalest, chair of market and investment strategy at JPMorgan Chase.

Trump complicates the polarization story because he draws support from some disaffected Democrats, like Farmer. But that might simply mean that the political parties themselves are realigning. The free-trade and open borders philosophy of pro-business Republicans is not, to say the least, on the rise.

Absent another Teddy Roosevelt riding into town, there’s no easy solution for what ails the country. The hard solution is to rebuild trust by fixing the economy so it works for everyone. But turning things around will require everyone working together. Which isn’t happening because, well, Americans no longer trust each other. There’s the dilemma in a nutshell. Happy New Year!