Inflation

The Hostile Takeover Of The Internet by Obama — More Taxes, More Regulation, More Control of Freedom of Speech, More Government Intervention into Business — Abolish The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — Do Not Mess With The Internet — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Crisis, Data, Economics, Education, External Hard Drives, Family, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Mobile Phones, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 3: The Hostile Takeover Of The Internet by Obama — More Taxes, More Regulation, More Control of Freedom of Speech, More Government Intervention into Business — Abolish The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — Do Not Mess With The Internet — Videos

Sen Ted Cruz (RTX) Warns Of “Obamacare For The Internet” – Net Neutrality – America’s Newsroom

Coming Soon: The Department of the Internet

The Negative Consequences of Net Neutrality Explained in 2 Minutes

Net Neutrality Neuters the Internet

The Truth About Net Neutrality

Advocates say that Net Neutrality means guaranteeing free speech on the Internet. Without it, big telecoms could control what you see and how you see it. But what is the truth about Net Neutrality?

2:00 – Brief Technical Introduction
9:20 – Major Concerns
14:53 – Monopoly History
35:57 – ISP Foul Play
48:05 – Event Timeline
1:02:08 – FCC Corruption
1:09:36 – Conclusions

Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/net-neutrality

 

Blackburn to Continue Fight Against FCC Net Neutrality in 114th Congress

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Net Neutrality (HBO)

Judge Napolitano: Orwellian ‘Net Neutrality’ Anything But Neutral

Mark Cuban: ‘Net Neutrality Is Dumbest Stuff Ever’ | CNBC

Net Neutrality: What’s the Libertarian Position?

[236] Henderson: ‘Net Neutrality won’t work’; Ebeling: ‘The Fed distorts resource allocation’

Obama’s Net Neutrality Plan: Techno Control Grid

What is Net Neutrality In 60 seconds

Net Neutrality as Fast As Possible

Net Neutrality – A Slow but Sure Assault to Takeover the Internet

Net Neutrality: Is the Internet a Public Utility? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?

NET NEUTRALITY: Blackburn Discusses on Glenn Beck Program

The Fallacy of Net Neutrality: Thomas Hazlett on the FCC & Consumer Protection

“I’m very confident a hundred years from now we won’t have an FCC,” says Thomas Hazlett, Reason contributor and George Mason economics professor.

Internet service providers are coming under scrutiny from both the FCC and net neutrality supporters who want to ensure unrestricted consumer access to the Web. However, Hazlett points out that the fear over ISPs limiting Web content is unfounded and government “has no idea what the optimal business model is” to effectively regulate.

Hazlett sat down with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie to discuss net neutrality, the Internet, and and his Encounters Broadside book “The Fallacy of Net Neutrality.”

Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes

On Net Neutrality, Time to Regulate the Regulators

by THE EDITORS

The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to effectively convert broadband Internet providers into regulated utility companies, stifling both technological innovation and consumer choice, is the latest example of the footrace dynamic that will dominate national domestic politics from now until January 2016: The Obama administration — or one of its purportedly independent enablers in the FCC and other federal agencies — announces sweeping and unilateral regulatory change, and the Republican-controlled legislative branch hustles to outmaneuver it. Given the respective timelines involved in executive fiat and lawmaking, the administration will almost always have a head start — but that should not stop Congress from catching up as quickly as possible.

At issue here is the question of “net neutrality,” an increasingly elastic term describing how an Internet service provider (ISP) treats any given packet of data moving through its network. On one side of the ideological divide, partisans of “neutrality” insist that every packet be treated in precisely the same way as every other packet, that none be given priority. On the other side is reality, in which the bandwidth demands of sending an e-mail from a home computer are different from those of streaming live video to a wireless device. That Netflix, for example, should be permitted to pay an Internet service provider to fast-lane its videos is, for the ideological neutralists, the first step toward another one of those science-fiction corporate dystopias that the anti-capitalists keep promising us, in this case one in which every Internet service provider becomes a “walled garden” in which consumers are hostage to the self-interested caprices of their ISPs, and therefore customers of an ISP that has an arrangement with Facebook might be relegated to pokey service when trying to use Instagram — or be blocked entirely from accessing certain Facebook competitors.

Internet users will notice that that hasn’t happened, and hasn’t shown any likelihood of happening, despite the absence of FCC regulations forbidding it. Even in the settings that most resemble “walled gardens” — for example, in-flight Internet services that do allow providers to enjoy absolute monopoly, for the duration of the flight at least — the trend has been in the opposite direction: When consumers made it clear that they were annoyed by Gogo’s unwillingness to support YouTube and streaming-video services, new products (notably services provided by the airlines themselves) came into the market to meet consumers’ demand for being able to while away that ORD–JFK segment watching funny cat videos.

The FCC’s move, then, is a typical federal regulatory enterprise: a non-solution to a non-problem.

While mainly motivated by a naïve ideological enthusiasm, net-neutrality activists fear, not without some reason, that the dominant operating model for ISPs will be something like that of cable-television providers. (Indeed, many cable-television providers are ISPs.) Specifically, they fear that ISPs will come to resemble cable companies circa 2010. The irony there is that it is the Internet itself — without any enabling regulation from the FCC — that has provided the beginnings of a solution to the problem of the general awfulness of the American cable company, with gleeful “cord-cutters” replacing their cable services with AppleTV, Hulu, and the like.

Neutrality as an operating principle has largely prevailed among ISPs in the absence of a federal mandate largely because consumers like it that way. But consumers may not always like it that way: For example, those who want faster service for downloading movies at the moment are largely restricted to paying for faster service across the board rather than paying for faster service when they want faster service — imagine the FAA’s insisting that if customers want to fly first-class on one trip, they have to fly first-class all the time. The FCC’s new rules are not aimed at preserving the effective neutrality that prevails today — they are ideologically informed measures aimed at preventing innovations in the marketplace that consumers might prefer to the current model.

To accomplish this, the FCC is reclassifying broadband providers as “telecommunication services” under Title II of the Communications Act . . . of 1934. The FCC’s recourse to a law passed during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt should give us all an idea about the sort of cutting-edge thinking that is at work here.

There is much that is unnecessary in these rules. For example, the regulation against blocking access to lawful websites addresses a situation that is largely unknown. (Some providers that serve customers of businesses open to the public do block pornographic sites, which does not seem unreasonable.) Likewise, the call for greater transparency in protocols speaks to a desirable end, though one that is hardly crying out for federal intervention.

On the other hand, the ban on creating “fast lanes” for services that would benefit from them forecloses what might be a fruitful avenue of innovation. More worrisome still is the vast, open-ended powers that federal regulators have granted themselves: The FCC has — with no congressional mandate — just given itself a mandate to forbid anything that it believes to be other than “reasonable,” or anything it judges will “harm consumers or edge providers.” (“Edge providers” essentially means those who create or distribute content.) And, of course, there is cronyism: As Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Fortune reports, Internet-based pay-television services of the sort being contemplated by Sony (and possibly by Apple) would be specifically exempt from the fast-lane rules.

As an Internet-based concern, National Review Online has a strong preference for an open, rambling, largely unregulated Internet. We believe that intense FCC oversight is as likely to undermine those freewheeling ways and “permissionless innovation” as to preserve them — look at any other industry in which the FCC stands athwart commerce. There are measures that can and should be taken to increase competition among ISPs, and, as Julian Sanchez of Cato points out, in the event of truly cumbrous and destructive collusions between ISPs and content providers, then the prudent response would be case-by-case intervention carried out by the Federal Trade Commission rather than preemptive blanket regulation by the FCC. It takes a certain kind of crackedness to believe that “free and open” and “under heavy federal regulation” are synonymous.

Congress has the authority to legally limit the FCC’s ambitions in this matter, and it should do so, even though such efforts would probably run into an Obama veto. That’s a fight worth having. It is high time to regulate the regulators and remind the bureaucrats who in this republic is in fact empowered to make law. Likewise, Jason Chaffetz’s initiation of an Oversight Committee investigation into whether the White House improperly colluded with the FCC in formulating these new rules is to be encouraged — if only for the potential amusement in learning whether improper collusion was instrumental in this crusade against improper collusion.

Far from being dysfunctional, the Internet is one of the critical aspects of life in these United States, one that is brilliantly functional and wonderfully innovative in no small part because of the laissez-faire approach that government has historically taken toward it. Why anybody would want to make it more like a utility company is a mystery — unless one appreciates that, for those suffering from a certain progressive inclination, federal regulation is thought to be desirable in and of itself, and that the freewheeling ways of the Internet are a standing rebuke to those who would regiment and regulate practically every aspect of life.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398227/net-neutrality-time-regulate-regulators-editors

Republican lawmakers investigate White House net neutrality push

Congressional Republicans are demanding to know how much the White House influenced the Federal Communications Commission while the agency crafted net neutrality rules.
The FCC has until Monday afternoon to produce unredacted email messages, focused on net neutrality rules, between FCC staff and officials with the Obama administration, U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz said in a letter to the FCC Friday. The Utah Republican is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Chaffetz’s committee is “investigating the potential involvement of the White House” in the creation of proposed net neutrality rules that the FCC is scheduled to vote on next Thursday, he said in the letter. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will propose regulations that would reclassify broadband as a regulated telecommunications service instead of a lightly regulated information service.

An FCC spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for a comment on Chaffetz’s letter.

Several congressional Republicans have accused the White House of improperly influencing the FCC net-neutrality rule-making process, after Obama called on the agency to reclassify broadband as a regulated public utility in November. Wheeler appeared to change his position and embrace that idea after the president urged the independent agency to do so, critics have said.
But U.S. presidential administrations have repeatedly weighed in on FCC proceedings during the past 30-plus years, net neutrality advocate Public Knowledge has noted.

Chaffetz’s letter to the FCC came just two days after Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee told Wheeler they were expanding an investigation into agency rule-making processes.

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s probe covers a wide range of FCC process concerns beyond net neutrality, but new reports detailing White House contact with the FCC on net neutrality raise “additional concerns about whether the commission is managing its affairs with the independence and openness required by its mandate,” committee leaders said in a Wednesday letter to Wheeler.

Republican concerns about Obama administration influence over the FCC were fueled by a Feb. 4 Wall Street Journal report saying the White House last year had set up a “parallel version of the FCC” to push for regulation of broadband providers.

Chaffetz’s letter asks for specific email messages sent by Obama administration officials to the FCC in April. On Friday, Vice.com published an exchange between administration officials and FCC staff that the website obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2886968/republican-lawmakers-investigate-white-house-net-neutrality-push.html

 

GOP, tech industry mostly out of step over net neutrality issue

By NOAH BIERMAN AND EVAN HALPER contact the reporters Politics and Government U.S. Congress Federal Communications Commission John Thune Ted Cruz Rand Paul

  • Silicon Valley executives and activists are increasingly irritated by the feeling the GOP is not on their side
  • GOP lawmakers argue that FCC net neutrality proposal amounts to a government takeover of the Web
  • GOP lawmakers in Congress are unified in opposition to the administration approach on net neutrality

Thee intensifying debate over how to keep the Internet open and ripe for innovation has heightened tensions between Republican congressional leaders and tech entrepreneurs they have been trying to woo.

As tech firms and cable companies prepare for a fight that each says will shape the future of the Internet, Silicon Valley executives and activists are growing increasingly irritated by the feeling that the GOP is not on their side.

Republican leaders have struggled to explain to their nascent allies in the Bay Area why they are working so hard to undermine a plan endorsed by the Obama administration to keep a level playing field in Internet innovation, enforcing what the administration and its allies call “net neutrality.”

FCC chief seeks to treat Web as public utility in net neutrality fight
Arguments from the GOP that the plan amounts to a government takeover of the Web — “Obamacare for the Internet,” as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called it — are falling flat with many tech innovators.

“This is one of the most prominent moments in Internet freedom,” said Julie Samuels, executive director of Engine, a nonpartisan advocacy group that brings policymakers together with tech start-ups. “I don’t think any party can afford to be on the wrong side of this conversation.”

But Republicans, she said, are on the wrong side.

The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote this month to adopt the net neutrality plan proposed last week by the panel’s chairman, Tom Wheeler. The plan would regulate Internet service providers, such as Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc., as public utilities and would ban them from offering high-speed lanes to companies that pay more.

Republicans have promised to push legislation to overturn any such move, but most high-tech companies support it.

The fight comes at a time when Republicans had been making gains in Silicon Valley, a constituency of well-heeled donors and coveted millennial-generation voters who have generally been loyal to Democrats.

Prominent Republicans, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), have taken members of Congress on listening tours of tech companies. Tech money has begun flowing into GOP campaign accounts. Presidential hopefuls, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have made an aggressive case that the GOP better understands the values of privacy and freedom in the digital world.

GOP leaders had hoped to build on those gains at an event in Washington called Reboot Congress, which started Wednesday evening, where top Republican lawmakers plan to join Silicon Valley business leaders to discuss the future of the Internet.

Republicans have hoped to seize on recent Democratic policy moves that riled tech companies, including a push for strict anti-piracy rules and the Obama administration’s continued backing of National Security Agency surveillance of Internet users.
The FCC makes a breakthrough on net neutrality–but the battle isn’t over
But the hot issue in Silicon Valley now is net neutrality. And on that issue, the GOP and the tech industry are mostly out of step.

Republicans argue that intervention by a big government agency is the wrong approach to leveling the playing field for companies that depend on the Internet. That’s especially true now, as conservatives accuse Obama of a broad pattern of regulatory overreach in healthcare, the environment and immigration.

“As is often the case in Washington, those who want more power create the specter of a false threat that is not occurring in the marketplace today,” Cruz said in an interview in which he warned that new regulations could lead to new taxes and put a chill on innovation. “The power of regulation is like a camel’s nose under the tent,” he said.

In Congress, GOP lawmakers are unified in opposition to the administration approach.

That includes tech-savvy California Republicans such as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who warns that the administration approach “will result in over-regulation and years of fruitless litigation.” McCarthy joined his House leadership colleagues in warning regulators that imposing net neutrality rules would “deter investment and stifle one of the brightest spots in our economy.”

Many Internet entrepreneurs disagree.

“The argument is a red herring,” said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which fights alongside GOP lawmakers on privacy and surveillance issues but is helping lead the attack against them on net neutrality.

“Nobody is talking about wanting the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet. That would be terrible,” McSherry said. “All they would be doing is putting in rules of the road for broadband providers.”

Republicans, she said, are essentially helping big corporations squeeze out innovation. “Politically, this is a real mistake,” she said.

It is unclear to what extent the issue will overshadow other Silicon Valley priorities. But it is certainly making the GOP a tougher sell.

“It is close to a litmus test,” said Paul Sieminski, a Republican who is the general counsel to Automattic, the company that operates Web-making tool WordPress.com.

“It’s such a fundamental issue for the Internet,” said Sieminski, who has been active in fighting for net neutrality. “I guess it is a proxy on where a candidate may stand on a lot of issues related to the Internet.”

The fight goes beyond wealthy entrepreneurs making or seeking their fortunes in start-up companies. Silicon Valley is adept at mobilizing consumers eager to protect what they see as a core value of the digital age.

The FCC received nearly 4 million comments on the net neutrality rules — most urging them to enforce stricter regulations — before Wheeler announced his proposal last week.

Groups such as Fight for the Future, whose donors include technology companies, said they have helped initiate tens of thousands of calls from their members to regulators and lawmakers using technology that bypasses switchboards.

Polls also showed overwhelming support for the concept that big carriers such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast should not be allowed to charge more to companies that want a fast lane.

That may have propelled a shift among some Republicans, who once questioned the need for any new regulations.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is proposing a bill that would let Congress, rather than regulators, set the terms for net neutrality. In establishing the concept, however, the measure also would take away the FCC’s authority to make any new regulations in the fast-changing broadband marketplace.

Thune and others frame their disagreement with Obama and federal regulators as one over process, asserting that Congress would better protect openness on the Internet yet avoid burdensome regulations.

“I worry that online innovators will be subject to the Mother-may-I system in which startups have to hire regulatory lawyers before they hire engineers,” Thune said Wednesday night as the Reboot conference began at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington.

Silicon Valley activists are unimpressed. They don’t trust the GOP-controlled Congress on this issue.

“They’re cynical attempts,” Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said of the legislative proposals, “last-ditch efforts by cable lobbyists who know they’ve been beat in the court of public opinion.”

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gop-tech-20150213-story.html#page=1

 

Net neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providersand governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4]

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. Debate over the issue of net neutrality predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessighave raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors[5]

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services[citation needed]. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[6] Prominent supporters of net neutrality include Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, and Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web.[7][8]

Examples of net neutrality violations include when the internet service provider Comcast intentionally slowed peer-to-peercommunications.[9] In 2007, one other company was using deep packet inspection to discriminate against peer-to-peer, file transfer protocol, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom value added services, and bundling.[10] Critics of net neutrality argue that data discrimination is desirable for reasons like guaranteeingquality of service. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, called the term net neutrality a slogan and opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[11] On 31 January 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.[12][13][14][15][16]Adoption of this notion would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications[17] and, according to Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality.[18][19] The Obama administration said that it would not let the public see its 332 page net neutrality plan until after the FCC voted on its implementation.[20]

Definition and related principle

Net neutrality

Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[21] According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is as a principle to be used when designing a network: that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, sites, and platforms are treated equally.[22] A more detailed proposed definition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of a service at a certain layer is not influenced by any data other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specification for that layer.[23]

Open Internet

The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software.[24]

Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[25] A closed Internet refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degradesome services, or explicitly filter out content.

Dumb pipe

Main article: Dumb pipe

The concept of a dumb network made up of dumb pipes has been around since at least the early 1990s. The idea of a dumb network is that the endpoints of a network are generally where the intelligence lies, and that the network itself generally leaves the management and operation of communication to the end users. In 2013 the software company MetroTech Net, Inc. (MTN) coined the term Dumb Wave which is the modern application of the Dumb Pipe concept to the ubiquitous wireless network. If wireless carriers do not provide unique and value added services, they will be relegated to the dumb pipe category where they can’t charge a premium or retain customers.

End-to-end principle

Main article: End-to-end principle

The end-to-end principle is a principle of network design, first laid out explicitly in the 1981 conference paper End-to-end arguments in system design by Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark. The principle states that, whenever possible, communications protocol operations should be defined to occur at the end-points of a communications system, or as close as possible to the resource being controlled. According to the end-to-end principle, protocol features are only justified in the lower layers of a system if they are a performance optimization, hence, TCP retransmission for reliability is still justified, but efforts to improve TCP reliability should stop after peak performance has been reached. They argued that reliable systems tend to require end-to-end processing to operate correctly, in addition to any processing in the intermediate system. They pointed out that most features in the lowest level of a communications system have costs for all higher-layer clients, even if those clients do not need the features, and are redundant if the clients have to re-implement the features on an end-to-end basis. This leads to the model of a minimal dumb network with smart terminals, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with dumb terminals. Because the end-to-end principle is one of the central design principles of the Internet, and because the practical means for implementing data discrimination violate the end-to-end principle, the principle often enters discussions about net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is closely related, and sometimes seen as a direct precursor to the principle of net neutrality.[26]

Traffic shaping

Main article: Traffic shaping

Traffic shaping is the control of computer network traffic in order to optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth by delaying packets that meet certain criteria.[27] More specifically, traffic shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a flow) which imposes additional delay on those packets such that they conform to some predetermined constraint (a contract or traffic profile).[28] Traffic shaping provides a means to control the volume of traffic being sent into a network in a specified period (bandwidth throttling), or the maximum rate at which the traffic is sent (rate limiting), or more complex criteria such as GCRA.

Over-provisioning

If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter at the edges, then good QoS can be obtained without policing. For example the telephone network employs admission control to limit user demand on the network core by refusing to create a circuit for the requested connection. Over-provisioning is a form of statistical multiplexing that makes liberal estimates of peak user demand. Over-provisioning is used in private networks such as WebEx and the Internet 2 Abilene Network, an American university network. David Isenberg believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less expense than QoS and deep packet inspection technologies.[29][30]

By issue

Discrimination by protocol

Favoring or blocking information based on the communications protocol that the computers are using to communicate.

On 1 August 2008, the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the United States, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said that the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview, Martin said, “We are preserving the open character of the Internet”. The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, a transfer protocol that is especially apt at distributing large files such as video, music, and software on the Internet.[31] Comcast admitted no wrongdoing[32] in its proposed settlement of up to US$16 dollars per share in December 2009.[33]

Discrimination by IP address

During the early decades of the Internet, creating a non-neutral Internet was technically infeasible.[34] Originally developed to filter malware, the Internet security company NetScreen Technologies released network firewalls in 2003 with so called deep packet inspection. Deep inspection helped make real-time discrimination between different kinds of data possible,[35] and is often used for internet censorship.

In a practice called zero-rating, companies will reimburse data use from certain addresses, favoring use of those services. Examples include Facebook Zero[36] and Google Free Zone, and are especially common in the developing world.[37]

Sometimes ISPs will charge some companies, but not others, for the traffic they cause on the ISP’s network. French telecoms operator Orange, complaining that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites consists of roughly 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, reached a deal with Google, in which they charge Google for the traffic incurred on the Orange network.[38] Some also thought that Orange’s rival ISP Free throttled YouTube traffic. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours.[39]

Favoring private networks

Favoring communications sent over the private networks run by individual organizations over information sent over the general Internet Protocol. Examples include Comcast’s deal with Xbox.[40]

Peering discrimination

See also: Peering

There is some disagreement about whether peering is a net neutrality issue.[41]

In the first quarter of 2014, streaming website Netflix reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its service to Netflix clients.[42] This arrangement was made in response to increasingly slow connection speeds through Comcast over the course of the 2013, where average speeds dropped by over 25% of their values a year before to an all time low. After the deal was struck in January 2014, the Netflix speed index recorded a 66% increase in connection.

Netflix agreed to a similar deal with Verizon in 2014 after Verizon DSL customers connection speed dropped to less than 1 Mbit/s early in the year. Netflix spoke out against this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds using the Netflix client.[43] This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that led to Verizon obtaining a cease and desist order on June 5, 2014 that forced Netflix to stop displaying this message.

Legal aspects

Main article: Net neutrality law

Legal enforcement of net neutrality principles takes a variety of forms, from provisions that outlaw anti-competitive blocking and throttling of Internet services, all the way to legal enforcement that prevents companies from subsidizing Internet use on particular sites.

Arguments for net neutrality

Proponents of net neutrality include consumer advocates, human rights organizations such as Article 19,[44] online companies and some technology companies.[45]Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality. Yahoo!, Vonage,[46] eBay, Amazon,[47] IAC/InterActiveCorp. Microsoft, along with many other companies, have also taken a stance in support of neutrality regulation.[48] Cogent Communications, an international Internet service provider, has made an announcement in favor of certain net neutrality policies.[49] In 2008, Google published a statement speaking out against letting broadband providers abuse their market power to affect access to competing applications or content. They further equated the situation to that of the telephony market, where telephone companies are not allowed to control who their customers call or what those customers are allowed to say.[4] However, Google’s support of net neutrality has recently been called into question.[50]

Individuals who support net neutrality include Tim Berners-Lee,[51] Vinton Cerf,[52][53] Lawrence Lessig, Robert W. McChesney,[6] Steve Wozniak, Susan P. Crawford, Ben Scott, David Reed,[54] and U.S. President Barack Obama.[55][56] On November 10, 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[57][58][59] On November 12, 2014, AT&T stopped build-out of their fiber network until it has “solid net neutrality rules to follow”.[60] On 31 January 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.[12][13][14][15][16]

Control of data

Supporters of network neutrality want to designate cable companies as common carriers, which would require them to allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines, the model used for dial-up Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without court order.[61] Common carrier status would give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality rules.[62]

SaveTheInternet.com accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of gatekeepers, being able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly, or don’t load at all. According to SaveTheInternet.com these companies want to charge content providers who require guaranteed speedy data delivery…to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services – and slowing access or blocking access to those of competitors.[63] Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and current vice president of Google argues that the Internet was designed without any authorities controlling access to new content or new services.[64] He concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to affect what people see and do online.[52]

Digital rights and freedoms

Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content.[6]

User intolerance for slow-loading sites

Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).[65] A “fast lane” in the Internet can irrevocably decrease the user’s tolerance to the relative slowness of the “slow lane”.

Proponents of net neutrality invoke the human psychological process of adaptation where when people get used to something better, they would not ever want to go back to something worse. In the context of the Internet, the proponents argue that a user who gets used to the “fast lane” on the Internet would find the “slow lane” intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any provider who is unable to pay for the “fast lane”. Video providers Netflix[66] and Vimeo[67] in their comments to FCC in favor of net neutrality use the research[65] of S.S. Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman that provides the first quantitative evidence of adaptation to speed among online video users. Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users who had a faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity. The results demonstrate how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectation of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay that occurs. Author Nicholas Carr[68] and other social commentators[69][70] have written about the habituation phenomenon by stating that a faster flow of information on the Internet can make people less patient.

Competition and innovation

Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create an exploitative business model based on the ISPs position as gatekeepers.[71] Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay.[6] According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to reserve bandwidth for their own television services, and charge companies a toll for priority service.[72]

Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service, would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services.[45] Tim Wu argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to one ruled by deal-making.[72] SaveTheInternet.com argues that net neutrality puts everyone on equal terms, which helps drive innovation. They claim it is a preservation of the way the internet has always operated, where the quality of websites and services determined whether they succeeded or failed, rather than deals with ISPs.[63] Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that eliminating net neutrality would lead to the Internet resembling the world of cable TV, so that access to and distribution of content would be managed by a handful of massive companies. These companies would then control what is seen as well as how much it costs to see it. Speedy and secure Internet use for such industries as health care, finance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large fees charged by these companies. They further explain that a majority of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garages, inspired by great ideas. This was possible because the protections of net neutrality ensured limited control by owners of the networks, maximal competition in this space, and permitted innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content was guaranteed a free and highly competitive space by the existence of net neutrality.[6]

Preserving Internet standards

Network neutrality advocates have sponsored legislation claiming that authorizing incumbent network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would signal the decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority. Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer’s designed flexibility.[73]

Preventing pseudo-services

Alok Bhardwaj argues that any violations to network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but rather payoffs for unnecessary and dubious services. He believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users faster. Rather, he believes that non-net neutrality will involve leveraging quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being slowed down.[74]

End-to-end principle

Main article: End-to-end principle

Some advocates say network neutrality is needed in order to maintain the end-to-end principle. According to Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney, all content must be treated the same and must move at the same speed in order for net neutrality to be true. They say that it is this simple but brilliant end-to-end aspect that has allowed the Internet to act as a powerful force for economic and social good.[6] Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. He states that the vision of an intelligent network is being replaced by a new network philosophy and architecture in which the network is designed for always-on use, not intermittence and scarcity. Rather than intelligence being designed into the network itself, the intelligence would be pushed out to the end-user’s device; and the network would be designed simply to deliver bits without fancy network routing or smart number translation. The data would be in control, telling the network where it should be sent. End-user devices would then be allowed to behave flexibly, as bits would essentially be free and there would be no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.[75]

Contrary to this idea, the research paper titled End-to-end arguments in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark[76] argues that network intelligence doesn’t relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for a wholesale removal of intelligence from the network core.

Arguments against net neutrality

Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute. Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries, including major telecommunications providers, such as Comcast and AT&T.[77]

A number of these opponents created a website called Hands Off The Internet[78] (which no longer exists) to promote their arguments against net neutrality. Principal financial support for the website came from AT&T, and members included technology firms and pro-market advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste.[79][80][81][82]

Network neutrality regulations are opposed by Internet engineers such as professor David Farber[83] and TCP inventor and Qualcomm Director[84] Bob Kahn.[11]Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. He says: “The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn’t exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer”.[85] Bob Kahn, another computer scientist and Director at Qualcomm,[84] has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.[11]

Farber has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz,Christopher Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an op-ed for the Washington Post strongly critical of network neutrality, essentially stating that while the Internet is in need of remodeling, congressional action aimed at protecting the best parts of the current Internet could interfere with efforts to build a replacement.[86]

Financing infrastructure improvements

Some opponents of net neutrality argue that prioritization of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on the Internet.[77] Telecommunications providers such as telephone and cable companies, and some technology companies that supply networking gear, argue telecom providers should have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of tiered services, for example by giving online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer their data packets faster than other Internet traffic. The added revenue from such services could be used to pay for the building of increased broadband access to more consumers.[45]

Conversely, opponents say that net neutrality regulation would make it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks.[87] John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon, a broadband and telecommunications company, has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.[77][88][89]

Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality

Those in favor of forms of non-neutral tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level playing field: large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by replicating servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Should prices drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, a change of this type would make Internet usage more neutral, with respect to the needs of those individuals and corporations specifically seeking differentiated tiers of service. Network expert[citation needed] Richard Bennett has written, “A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality.”[90]

Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral, because its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[91]

Prevent overuse of bandwidth

Since the early 1990s, Internet traffic has increased steadily. The arrival of picture-rich websites and MP3s led to a sharp increase in the mid-1990s followed by a subsequent sharp increase since 2003 as video streaming and Peer-to-peer file sharing became more common.[92][93] In reaction to companies including YouTube, as well as smaller companies starting to offer free video content, using substantial amounts of bandwidth, at least one Internet service provider (ISP), SBC Communications (now AT&T Inc.), has suggested that it should have the right to charge these companies for making their content available over the provider’s network.[94]

Bret Swanson of the Wall Street Journal wrote in 2007 that the popular websites of that time, including YouTube, MySpace, and blogs, were put at risk by net neutrality. He noted that, at the time, YouTube streamed as much data in three months as the world’s radio, cable and broadcast television channels did in one year, 75 petabytes. He argued that networks were not remotely prepared to handle the amount of data required to run these sites. He also argued that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation.[95]

One example of these concerns was the series of tubes analogy, which was presented by US senator Ted Stevens on the floor of the US senate in 2006.

Related issues

Data discrimination

Main article: Data discrimination

Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral as its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time-sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[96] Generally, a network which blocks some nodes or services for the customers of the network would normally be expected to be less useful to the customers than one that did not. Therefore, for a network to remain significantly non-neutral requires either that the customers not be concerned about the particular non-neutralities or the customers not have any meaningful choice of providers, otherwise they would presumably switch to another provider with fewer restrictions.[citation needed]

While the network neutrality debate continues, network providers often enter into peering arrangements among themselves. These agreements often stipulate how certain information flows should be treated. In addition, network providers often implement various policies such as blocking of port 25 to prevent insecure systems from serving as spam relays, or other ports commonly used by decentralized music search applications implementing peer-to-peer networking models. They also present terms of service that often include rules about the use of certain applications as part of their contracts with users.[citation needed]

Most consumer Internet providers implement policies like these. The MIT Mantid Port Blocking Measurement Project is a measurement effort to characterize Internet port blocking and potentially discriminatory practices. However, the effect of peering arrangements among network providers are only local to the peers that enter into the arrangements, and cannot affect traffic flow outside their scope.[citation needed]

Jon Peha from Carnegie Mellon University believes it is important to create policies that protect users from harmful traffic discrimination, while allowing beneficial discrimination. Peha discusses the technologies that enable traffic discrimination, examples of different types of discrimination, and potential impacts of regulation.[97]

Quality of service

Main article: Quality of service

Internet routers forward packets according to the diverse peering and transport agreements that exist between network operators. Many networks using Internet protocols now employ quality of service (QoS), and Network Service Providers frequently enter into Service Level Agreements with each other embracing some sort of QoS.

There is no single, uniform method of interconnecting networks using IP, and not all networks that use IP are part of the Internet. IPTV networks are isolated from the Internet, and are therefore not covered by network neutrality agreements.

The IP datagram includes a 3-bit wide Precedence field and a larger DiffServ Code Point that are used to request a level of service, consistent with the notion that protocols in a layered architecture offer services through Service Access Points. This field is sometimes ignored, especially if it requests a level of service outside the originating network’s contract with the receiving network. It is commonly used in private networks, especially those including Wi-Fi networks where priority is enforced. While there are several ways of communicating service levels across Internet connections, such as SIP, RSVP, IEEE 802.11e, and MPLS, the most common scheme combines SIP and DSCP. Router manufacturers now sell routers that have logic enabling them to route traffic for various Classes of Service at “wire-speed”.

With the emergence of multimedia, VoIP, IPTV, and other applications that benefit from low latency, various attempts to address the inability of some private networks to limit latency have arisen, including the proposition of offering tiered service levels that would shape Internet transmissions at the network layer based on application type. These efforts are ongoing, and are starting to yield results as wholesale Internet transport providers begin to amend service agreements to include service levels.[98]

Advocates of net neutrality have proposed several methods to implement a net neutral Internet that includes a notion of quality-of-service:

  • An approach offered by Tim Berners-Lee allows discrimination between different tiers, while enforcing strict neutrality of data sent at each tier: “If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality and quantity of service”.[3] “[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.”[99]
  • United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would now allow quality of service discrimination for certain services as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[100]

Alok Bhardwaj has argued that net neutrality preservation through legislation is consistent with implementing quality of service protocols. He argues legislation should ban the charging of fees for any quality of service, which would both allow networks to implement quality of service as well as remove any incentive to abuse net neutrality ideas. He argues that since implementing quality of service doesn’t require any additional costs versus a non-QoS network, there’s no reason implementing quality of service should entail any additional fees.[74] However, the core network hardware needed (with large number of queues, etc.) and the cost of designing and maintaining a QoS network are both much higher than for a non-QoS network.[citation needed]

Pricing models

Broadband Internet access has most often been sold to users based on Excess Information Rate or maximum available bandwidth. If Internet service providers(ISPs) can provide varying levels of service to websites at various prices, this may be a way to manage the costs of unused capacity by selling surplus bandwidth (or “leverage price discrimination to recoup costs of ‘consumer surplus‘”). However, purchasers of connectivity on the basis of Committed Information Rate or guaranteed bandwidth capacity must expect the capacity they purchase in order to meet their communications requirements.

Various studies have sought to provide network providers the necessary formulas for adequately pricing such a tiered service for their customer base. But while network neutrality is primarily focused on protocol based provisioning, most of the pricing models are based on bandwidth restrictions.[101]

Privacy concerns

Some opponents of net neutrality legislation point to concerns of privacy rights that could come about as a result, how those infringements of privacy can be exploited. While some believe it is hyperbole to suggest that ISPs will just transparently monitor transmitted content, or that ISPs will have to alter their content, there is the concern that ISPs may have profit motives to analyze what their subscribers are viewing, and be able to use such information to their financial advantage. For example, an ISP may be able to essentially replicate the “targeting” that has already been employed by companies like Google. To critics such as David Clark, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the proper question is “who has the right to observe everything you do”?[102]

Framing of debate

Former Washington Post columnist, and Fox News commentator, Jeffrey Birnbaum, who currently works for the BGR Group (a lobbying firm which is employed byComcast[103]) has called the debate “vague and misleading.”[104]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Tim Wu (2003). “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal on telecom and high tech law. Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
  2. Jump up^ Krämer, J; Wiewiorra, L. & Weinhardt,C. (2013): “Net Neutrality: A progress report”. Telecommunications Policy 37(9), 794–813.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Berners-Lee, Tim (21 June 2006). “Net Neutrality: This is serious”. timbl’s blog. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff. “A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users”. Google. Archived fromthe original on 1 September 2008. Retrieved 7 December 2008.
  5. Jump up^ Lessig, L. 1999. Cyberspace’s Architectural Constitution, draft 1.1, Text of lecture given at www9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney (8 June 2006). “No Tolls on The Internet”. Columns.
  7. Jump up^ Davidson, Alan (8 November 2005). “Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality”. Blogspot.com. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  8. Jump up^ “MIT.edu”. Dig.csail.mit.edu. 21 June 2006. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  9. Jump up^ Peter Svensson (19 October 2007). “Comcast Blocks some Subscriber Internet Traffic, AP Testing shows”. Associated Press. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  10. Jump up^ Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). “Deep packet inspection meets ‘Net neutrality, CALEA”. Ars Technica. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum (9 January 2007). An Evening with Robert Kahn (WMV). Computer History Museum. Retrieved 26 December 2008. Partial transcript: Hu-Berlin.de[dead link]
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). “In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility”. New York Times. Retrieved2 February 2015.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). “F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services”. New York Times. Retrieved 2 February 2015.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Flaherty, Anne (31 January 2015). “Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that”. AP News. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b Fung, Brian (2 January 2015). “Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff (2 January 2015). “FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules”. AP News. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  17. Jump up^ Lohr, Steve (4 February 2015). “F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet”. New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
  18. Jump up^ Wheeler, Tom (4 February 2015). “FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality”. Wired (magazine). Retrieved 5 February 2015.
  19. Jump up^ The Editorial Board (6 February 2015). “Courage and Good Sense at the F.C.C. – Net Neutrality’s Wise New Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
  20. Jump up^ FCC’s Pai: Net-neutrality proposal is secret Internet regulation plan, Los Angelese Times, February 10, 2015
  21. Jump up^ Honan, Matthew (12 February 2008). “Inside Net Neutrality: Is your ISP filtering content?”. MacWorld. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  22. Jump up^ Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality FAQ”. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  23. Jump up^ Hagai Bar-El (19 Aug 2014). “Protecting Network Neutrality: Both Important and Hard”. Retrieved 19 Aug 2014.
  24. Jump up^ Mathew Ingram (23 Mar 2012). “Open vs. closed: What kind of internet do we want?”. GigaOm. Retrieved 8 Jun 2014.
  25. Jump up^ “About the Open Internet”. European Commission. Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
  26. Jump up^ Alexis C. Madrigal and Adrienne LaFrance (25 Apr 2014). “Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History of) a Contested Idea”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 5 Jun 2014.This idea of net neutrality…[Lawrence Lessig] used to call the principle e2e, for end to end
  27. Jump up^ IETF RFC 2475 “An Architecture for Differentiated Services” section 2.3.3.3 – definition of “Shaper”
  28. Jump up^ tsbmail. “ITU-T I.371 : Traffic control and congestion control in B-ISDN”. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  29. Jump up^ Isenberg, David (2 July 2007). “Research on Costs of Net Neutrality”. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  30. Jump up^ Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). “Deep packet inspection meets ‘Net neutrality, CALEA”. Ars Technica. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  31. Jump up^ Hansell, Saul (2 August 2008). “F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage”. The New York Times.
  32. Jump up^ Duncan, Geoff (23 December 2009). “Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications”. Digital Trends. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  33. Jump up^ Cheng, Jacqui (22 December 2009). “Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million”. Ars Technica (Condé Nast). Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  34. Jump up^ M. Chris Riley and Ben Scott, Free Press (Mar 2009). “Deep Packet Inspection: The end of the Internet as we know it?”. Center for Internet and Society. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  35. Jump up^ Paul Roberts, IDG News Service (20 Oct 2003). “NetScreen announces deep inspection firewall”. Network World. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  36. Jump up^ Ben Gilbert (23 Dec 2013). “T-Mobile prepaid offering free data… but only to access Facebook”. Engadget. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  37. Jump up^ Lily Hay Newman (21 Jan 2014). “Net Neutrality Is Already in Trouble in the Developing World”. Slate. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  38. Jump up^ Robertson, Adi (2013-01-19). “French ISP Orange says it’s making Google pay to send traffic over its network”. The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  39. Jump up^ “ARCEP closes the administrative inquiry involving several companies, including Free and Google, on the technical and financial terms governing IP traffic routing.”. 19 July 2013. Retrieved 18 January 2014.
  40. Jump up^ Brendan Greeley (21 Jun 2012). “Comcast ‘Invents’ Its Own Private Internet”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  41. Jump up^ Joshua Brustein (24 Feb 2014). “Netflix’s Deal With Comcast Isn’t About Net Neutrality—Except That It Is”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  42. Jump up^ Waniata, Ryan. “Comcast Jumps up in Netflix Speed Rankings after Payola-style Agreement.” Digital Trends. N.p., 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
  43. Jump up^ Waniata, Ryan. “Netflix Calls Verizon out on the Big Red Screen [Update: Netflix Backs Off].” Digital Trends. N.p., 9 June 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
  44. Jump up^ “Four tenors: Call for Internet Speech Rights”. ARTICLE 19. Retrieved31 August 2012.
  45. ^ Jump up to:a b c Meza, Philip E. (20 March 2007). Coming Attractions?. Stanford University Press. p. 158. ISBN 9780804756600.
  46. Jump up^ Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). Plunkett’s Telecommunications Industry Almanac 2009. Plunkett Research. p. 208. ISBN 9781593921415.
  47. Jump up^ “Defeat for net neutrality backers”. BBC News. 9 June 2006. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  48. Jump up^ “Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce” (PDF). 1 March 2006. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  49. Jump up^ Cogent Communications, Inc. “Net Neutrality Policy Statement”. Retrieved21 April 2009.
  50. Jump up^ “Google’s Sordid History of Net Neutrality Hypocrisy”. Gizmodo. Retrieved14 September 2014.
  51. Jump up^ Tim Berners-Lee (18 November 2006). Humanity Lobotomy – what will the Internet look like in 10 years?. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  52. ^ Jump up to:a b Cerf, Vinton (7 February 2006). “The Testimony of Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google” (PDF). p. 1. Retrieved5 November 2012.
  53. Jump up^ Cerf, Vinton (July 2009). “The Open Network. What it is, and why it matters”.Telecommunications Journal of Australia 59 (2). doi:10.2104/tja09018/issn.1835-4270.
  54. Jump up^ Dynamic Platform Standards Project. “Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality”. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  55. Jump up^ Albanesius, Chloe (22 September 2009). “Obama Supports Net Neutrality Plan”. PC Magazine. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  56. Jump up^ Broache, Anne (29 October 2007). “Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president”. CNET. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  57. Jump up^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). “Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  58. Jump up^ NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). “Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation”. New York Times. RetrievedNovember 15, 2014.
  59. Jump up^ Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). “The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let’s Get It Right”. Wired (website). RetrievedJanuary 20, 2015.
  60. Jump up^ Hardawar, Devindra (12 November 2014). “AT&T halts fiber build-out until net neutrality rules are sorted”. http://www.engadget.com (Reuters). Retrieved12 November 2014.
  61. Jump up^ Phillips, Peter (2006). Censored 2007. Seven Stories Press. p. 34.ISBN 9781583227381.
  62. Jump up^ Robertson, Adi. “Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules”. The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  63. ^ Jump up to:a b “Frequently Asked Questions”. SaveTheInternet.com. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retrieved 7 December 2008.
  64. Jump up^ Davidson, Alan (8 November 2005). “Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality”.The Official Google Blog. Google.
  65. ^ Jump up to:a b “Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior, by Krishnan and Sitaraman, ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Nov 2012.”.
  66. Jump up^ “NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014″.
  67. Jump up^ “Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014″.
  68. Jump up^ “Patience is a Network Effect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov 2012″.
  69. Jump up^ “NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race, Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012″. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  70. Jump up^ “Boston Globe: Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient, Feb 2013″. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  71. Jump up^ “What Is Net Neutrality? 10 Aug 2010″.
  72. ^ Jump up to:a b Wu, Timothy (1 May 2006). “Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality”. Slate.
  73. Jump up^ Dynamic Platform Standards Project. “Internet Platform for Innovation Act”. Sec. 2.11. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  74. ^ Jump up to:a b “Against Fee-Based and other Pernicious Net Prejudice: An Explanation and Examination of the Net Neutrality Debate”. Scribd.com. 27 November 2007. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  75. Jump up^ Isenberg, David (1 August 1996). “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. Retrieved19 August 2006.
  76. Jump up^ J. H. Saltzer; D. P. Reed; D. D. Clark (November 1984). “End-to-end arguments in system design”. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2 (4): 277–288.doi:10.1145/357401.357402.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hart, Jonathan D. (2007). Internet Law. BNA Books. p. 750.ISBN 9781570186837.
  78. Jump up^ “Hands off the Internet”. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  79. Jump up^ Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle”, The Washington Post, 26 July 2006.
  80. Jump up^ “Hands Off the Internet, “Member Organizations,””. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 4 August 2006.
  81. Jump up^ Anne Veigle, “Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neutrality Ads, Study Finds”, Communications Daily, 20 July 2006.
  82. Jump up^ SaveTheInternet.com, “One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet”, at Savetheinternet.com (last visited 4 August 2006).
  83. Jump up^ Farber, David (2 June 2006). “Common sense about network neutrality”.Interesting-People (Mailing list). Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  84. ^ Jump up to:a b “Robert Kahn, Forbes”. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  85. Jump up^ Pepper, Robert (14 March 2007). “Network Neutrality: Avoiding a Net Loss”.TechNewsWorld. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  86. Jump up^ David Farber; Michael Katz (19 January 2007). “Hold Off On Net Neutrality”.The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  87. Jump up^ “FTC to Host Workshop on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy”. Federal trade Commission. December 2006.
  88. Jump up^ Mohammed, Arshad (February 2007). “Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google’s ‘Free Lunch'”. The Washington Post.
  89. Jump up^ Crowcroft, Jon (2007). Net Neutrality: The Technical Side of the Debate: A White Paper (PDF). University of Cambridge. p. 5. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
  90. Jump up^ “Google’s political Head-fake”. SFGate. 9 July 2008. Retrieved 14 September2014.
  91. Jump up^ “Network neutrality, broadband discrimination by Tim Wu” (PDF). Retrieved23 June 2011.
  92. Jump up^ “Google and cable firms warn of risks from Web TV”. USA Today. 2 July 2007. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
  93. Jump up^ Kelly, Spencer (15 June 2007). “Warning of ‘Internet overload'”. BBC Click.
  94. Jump up^ Banks, Theodore L. (24 May 2002). Corporate Legal Compliance Handbook. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 70. ISBN 9780735533424.
  95. Jump up^ Swanson, Bret (20 January 2007). “The Coming Exaflood”. The Wall Street Journal.
  96. Jump up^ Wu, Tim (2003). “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2: 141. doi:10.2139/ssrn.388863.SSRN 388863.
  97. Jump up^ Jon Peha. “The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality, and the Quest for a Balanced Policy”. Retrieved 1 January 2007.
  98. Jump up^ Sullivan, Mark (14 August 2006). “Carriers Seek IP QOS Peers”. Light Reading. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  99. Jump up^ Berners-Lee, Tim (2 May 2006). “Neutrality of the Net”. timbl’s blog. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  100. Jump up^ A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality, S. 215
  101. Jump up^ “NCSU.edu” (PDF). Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  102. Jump up^ Joch, Alan (October 2009). “Debating Net Neutrality”. Communications of the ACM 52 (10): 14–15. doi:10.1145/1562764.1562773.
  103. Jump up^ Washington Post, Lobbyists find mixed reception running for office, but a few have won elections, By Holly Yeager, Published: 19 May,http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lobbyists-find-mixed-reception-running-for-office-but-a-few-have-won-elections/2014/05/18/2d0343de-db74-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html
  104. Jump up^ Bimbaum, Jeffrey (26 June 2006). “No Neutral Ground In This Battle”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 December 2006.

External links

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Ukraine Ceasefire Is A Failure — Will NATO Be Forced To Intervene? — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Ammunition, Articles, Blogroll, British History, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Computers, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Missiles, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Rifles, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 2: The Ukraine Ceasefire Is A Failure — Will NATO Be Forced To Intervene? — Videos

ceasefire-cartooncartoon ceasefire ukraine160085_600

_80980240_ukraine_ceasefire_lines_12.02.2015_624map2015-02-15_wor_7022384_I132-Russian-Tanks-Enter-Ukraine-600x399 easternukraineIslamic-States-Libya-affiliate-beheads-21-Coptic-Christians-from-Egyptukraine-ceaseFire-2-2-15-WEBukraine-maprussian_language_map_ukraine_73363841_ukraine_crimea_russia_map3_624easternukraineships-russia-s-black-sea-fleet-during-naval-parade-sevastopol-crimea-july-2014-photodpa_6-russia-will-add-80-new-warships-to-black-sea-fleetSoviet_and_Russian_Black_Sea_Fleet

eu-gas Europe_SourcesOfGas_ByCountry_2009_2012.png_web europe-russia-gas gas russian dependence Gas-graphic-1 map new routes russia_pipelines_416_1 russia_ukraine_belarus_baltic_republics_pipelines_map ukraine pipelines UKRAINEgasMAP

BBC News Ukraine crisis BBC meets last few Donetsk residents

Kerry says arming Ukrainian forces has not been ruled out

Conversation: Arming Ukraine with Lethal Weapons has Risks

Former U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Yalowitz discusses Ukraine ceasefire

Ceasefire appears to be failing in Ukraine

Ceasefire appears to be failing in Ukraine. Pro-Russian rebels now control key town

Shaky ceasefire in Ukraine

East Ukraine Opinion: Soldiers and residents in Artemivsk doubt ceasefire will last

Ukraine: Fighting continues despite truce

Fierce fighting is said to be continuing in the key Ukrainian town of Debaltseve, as the new ceasefire appears to be failing.

Rebels say they have taken most of the town, but the government says it is still in its control.

Gas Pipeline Blast Caught On Video, Hit By Shell In Eastern Ukraine

Ukraine and Natural Gas

Ukraine promised not to steal Russian gas from Europe

Russia halts plans for natural gas pipleine to Europe

Russia Expands Its Natural Gas Infrastructure (Agenda)

Caspian pipeline politics of Europe, Russia and China

Russia supplies more then 25 percent of Europe’s hydrocarbon needs. Ever since the natural gas cutoffs in 2006 and 2009, the European countries have been searched for ways to reduce their dependency on Russian oil and natural gas. In this context, the crisis in Ukraine has sparked a new drive for the search for alternative sources of energy. One project that is of particular interest, but underappreciated in the media, is the Trans-Caspian pipeline. If realized it would significantly change the energy map of Europe in the long term.

Fulcrium – Like it or not, Russian natural gas is here to stay – panel on European Energy Security

The LBS GES Energy Security panel addressed geo-political issues and challenges decision-makers face in the pursuit of European energy supply security in the wake of the Ukraine Crisis. Bottom line: The EU will remain dependent on Russian natural gas for decades to come irrespective of sanctions, source of supply diversification, and renewables agendas ! Likewise Moscow is dependent on the EU for 60% of Gazprom’s revenues. Like it or not, the EU and Russia are highly co-dependent as far as Russian natural gas is concerned.

Days after this debate took place, Russian President Vladimir Putin shelved the $40bn South Stream project designed to bypass Ukraine as the key transit state for Russian gas to Europe. And in a further twist, on 16 December 2014, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged Bulgaria to enter into dialogue with Moscow to revive the South Stream project. Perhaps this is a signal of a softening EU stance in order to rebuild economic ties with Russia, more out of a necessity to safeguard Germany’s and Bulgaria’s interests. Other countries which stood to gain from South Stream, including Serbia and Hungary, also want to rescue the project. Russia supplies about 25 percent of EU gas needs; half of that flows via Ukrainian transit pipelines. The EU’s most powerful economy, Germany, is still highly dependent on Russian natural gas, importing 30% of it’s annual gas consumption from Russia.

Panel Chair: Raju Patel, Chief Executive, Fulcrium

Panellists:

Vladimir Drebentsov, Vice President, BP Russia / Head of Russia & CIS Economics, BP Plc

Dr Tatiana Mitrova, Head of Oil and Gas Department in the Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ERI RAS), Board Director – E.ON Russia

Andrew Risk, Senior Associate – Political Risk, GPW + Co

David Buchan, Senior Research Fellow, The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies

Impact on world energy markets of Ukraine Crisis

The Effect of the Ukrainian Crisis on the Economy | Made in Germany

Psaki. Minsk Ceasefire. 19 Feb 2015 (Ukraine)

Ukraine: EU says ceasefire agreement not a failure

Military Forces Pull Out Of Besieged Ukrainian Town – Feb 19, 2015

Putin Tells Kiev to Let Troops Surrender as Ukraine Ceasefire Unravels

NATO Slams Russian Role in Ukraine Conflict: Stoltenberg says Kremlin must end insurgent support

Will the Ukraine-Russia deal stick?

WW3 NEWS UPDATE: The Strategic Role of UKRAINE in WW3

The Road to World War 3: Oil Prices, Ukraine, Russia, America, Collapse U.S. Dollar

Gen. Odierno Discusses Ukraine, NATO at Forum

The Role of Russia and NATO in Ukraine’s Civil War

Paul Craig Roberts: The Real Story Behind Oil Prices

The Road to World War 3: Ukraine, Russia and American Imperialism

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France Negotiate Ceasefire To Begin Sunday — World War 3 Averted? — Did Putin Blink or Bluff? — Videos

Posted on February 13, 2015. Filed under: American History, Ammunition, Blogroll, Communications, Crisis, Documentary, Economics, Education, European History, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Missiles, Money, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Rifles, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 1: Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France Negotiate Ceasefire To Begin Sunday — World War 3 Averted? — Did Putin Blink or Bluff? — Videos

Civil-War-In-Ukrainemap ukraineRussian_language_map_Ukraineukraine-map

Will the Ukraine-Russia deal stick?

A previous cease-fire last year between Ukraine and the Russian-backed rebels barely took hold, eventually collapsing altogether. What are the chances the new agreement will last? Gwen Ifill talks to Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.

Can Russia-Ukraine Cease-Fire Hold Without U.S. Help?

Ukraine Russia ceasefire agreed

Minsk Deal Reaction: Participants emerge after night-long peace talks

Minsk deal provides hope for peace in eastern Ukraine but leaders warn ‘major obstacles’ remain

How This Cease-Fire Between Russia And Ukraine Is Different

New Ukraine Peace Deal Met With Distrust

Skepticism in Ukraine, after a peace deal is hammered out between Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany. Under the agreement Ukraine will trade broad autonomy for the east to get back control of its Russian border by the end of 2015. (Feb. 12)

Putin briefs press after marathon Minsk talks on Ukraine peace deal

Russian president Vladimir Putin is giving a press conference after 14-hour talks with the leaders of Germany, France and Ukraine on the Ukrainian crisis in Minsk, Belarus

Russia vs Ukraine – War & Peace 2015

The European Union may impose further sanctions if a ceasefire deal sealed in Minsk between Ukraine and Russian-backed rebels is not fully implemented, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande said after an EU summit in Brussels tonight.

Fresh from brokering a deal in Minsk between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Ms Merkel told a news conference that EU leaders had asked the European Commission to prepare further sanctions in case the ceasefire did not hold.

“We hold open the possibility, if these new agreements are not implemented, that we must take further measures,” she said, adding that existing sanctions could only be lifted when the grounds that led to them are removed.The leaders of Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia had committed to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, according to a joint declaration distributed by the Kremlin.

“The main thing which has been achieved is that from Saturday into Sunday there should be declared without any conditions at all, a general ceasefire,” Mr Poroshenko told journalists.

Ms Merkel and Mr Hollande had joined Mr Poroshenko and Mr Putin for a marathon negotiating session that began early on yesterday evening and continued into this morning. As the fighting escalated, the US began openly talking of arming Ukraine to defend itself from “Russian aggression”, raising the prospect of a proxy war in the heart of Europe between Cold War foes.

US President Barack Obama said he has yet to make up his mind on the question of sending weapons.

He spoke by phone to Mr Putin on Tuesday, and the White House said he warned the Russian leader that the costs would rise if Russia kept aiding the separatists.

The White House released a statement today welcoming the ceasefire, saying that the move represents a “potentially significant step toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict and the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty”.

As the French and German leaders’ peace initiative was announced, pro-Russian rebels appeared determined to drive home their advantage ahead of a deal.

Armoured columns of Russian-speaking soldiers with no insignia have been advancing for days around Debaltseve, which has seen heavy fighting in recent days.

On the Russian side of the border, Russia has begun military exercises in 12 regions involving more than 30 missile regiments, RIA news agency reported this morning, citing a Defence Ministry official.

World War 3 : The Beast to arm Ukraine as the Russian Bear mobilizes 100,000 troops (Feb 02, 2015)

US ‘should send Ukraine arms’

Ukraine Conflict Reignites U.S. Considers Sending Arms | NBC Nightly News

The Ukraine Crisis: Withstand and Deter Russian Aggression

Obama on Ukraine: A diplomatic path for now

Last Hope for Minsk Peace Talks: Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France leaders to meet in Belarus

Russia cuts off gas supply via Ukraine

Published on Jan 19, 2015

Europe plunged into energy crisis as Russia cuts off gas supply via Ukraine Gas prices rise in London Bulgaria reaches ‘crisis’ point

Russia cut gas exports to Europe by 60 per cent today, plunging the continent into an energy crisis ‘within hours’ as a dispute with Ukraine escalated.

This morning, gas companies in Ukraine said that Russia had completely cut off their supply.

Six countries reported a complete shut-off of Russian gas shipped via Ukraine today, in a sharp escalation of a struggle over energy that threatens Europe as winter sets in.

Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Croatia and Turkey all reported a halt in gas shipments from Russia through Ukraine.

Gas Battle: Ukraine Vs Russia – An Animated History

WW3 RUSSIA Set To CUT OFF All GAS SUPPLIES to UKRAINE

 

‘Ukraine gas poker with Russia not over’

Published on Oct 31, 2014

Moscow and Kiev have sealed a gas agreement after several hours of tense talks in Brussels. Previous rounds in recent weeks had failed. The deal on supplies and transit to Europe has allayed EU fears of staying in the cold this winter. Geopolitical analyst William Enghdal says the deal won’t solve anything in the longterm.

 

 

Marathon talks produce Ukraine peace deal; cease-fire Sunday

The peace deal reached Thursday for Ukraine, if it holds, would be a partial win for both Moscow and Kiev: Ukraine retains the separatist eastern regions and regains control of its border with Russia, while Russia holds strong leverage to keep Ukraine from ever becoming part of NATO.

But neither side came away from the marathon talks unscathed.

There’s no sign Russia will soon escape the Western sanctions that have driven its economy down sharply, and Kiev’s price for regaining control of the border with Russia is to grant significant new power to the east.

But the complicated calculus of whether any side came out truly ahead can’t be determined unless a single, straightforward term is fulfilled: halting the shooting and artillery salvos that have killed more than 5,300 people since April. That is supposed to happen on Sunday, at one minute after midnight.

A cease-fire called in September never fully took hold and fighting escalated sharply in the past month. Questions remain about whether either side possesses the will or discipline to ensure a truce this time.

The cease-fire is to be monitored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s observer mission in Ukraine.

But that “will probably go nowhere if there isn’t a huge political will to beef up the OSCE, pull in many more monitors, give them clear support,” said analyst Judy Dempsey, an associate of the Carnegie Europe think-tank.

The OSCE mission head, Ertugrul Apakan, said Thursday that he expected it would expand by the end of the month to about 500 observers, up from about 310 currently, the Interfax news agency reported.

Under the terms of the deal reached after 16 hours of talks between the presidents of Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France, the next step is to form a sizeable buffer zone between Ukrainian forces and Russia-backed rebels. Each side is to pull heavy weaponry back from the front line, creating a zone roughly 30-85 miles (50-140 kilometers) wide, depending on the weapon caliber.

Then come the knotty and volatile political questions.

While Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters the deal envisages special status for Ukraine’s separatist regions, Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, maintained there was no consensus on any sort of autonomy or federalization for eastern Ukraine.

In addition, the agreement foresees the regions being able to form their own police forces and to trade freely with Russia, both of which would bring a degree of division and uncertainty within Ukraine that could be leverage to keep the country out of NATO.

Those measures would require constitutional reform, certain to be a highly fraught process.

“Anything that has to go through the Ukrainian parliament has a huge question mark attached to it,” said Eugene Rumer of the Carnegie center. “It is going to be the subject of a huge and very fierce debate in Kiev.”

Only after such reform is passed would Ukraine’s full control over its border with Russia be restored, according to the pact.

Aside from the political resolution of the east’s status, Ukraine also faces severe challenges with its troubled economy, which is close to bankruptcy. On Thursday, the International Monetary Fund agreed to give Ukraine a new bailout deal worth $17.5 billion (15.5 billion euros). The World Bank, meanwhile, announced it was ready to commit up to $2 billion to help Ukraine with reforms, to fight corruption and for other purposes.

Despite the uncertainties, the agreement’s initiators saw it as a step forward.

“We now have a glimmer of hope,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who brokered the talks in the Belarusian capital of Minsk together with French President Francois Hollande.

“But the concrete steps, of course, have to be taken. And we will still face major obstacles. But, on balance, I can say what we have achieved gives significantly more hope than if we had achieved nothing.”

As for Putin, he told reporters: “It was not the best night of my life.”

“But the morning, I think, is good, because we have managed to agree on the main things despite all the difficulties of the negotiations,” the Russian leader said.

Battles continued Thursday even as the talks went on, and Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said Russia sent 50 tanks and a dozen heavy weapons overnight into Ukraine.

In the rebel stronghold of Donetsk, residents who have seen their city pounded daily by artillery since late May were skeptical of the deal.

“We will see whether there will be a cease-fire or not,” said resident Tatyana Griedzheva. “You have seen it with your own eyes, the kind of cease-fire that we have already had.”

A previous cease-fire in September was violated repeatedly as Ukrainian forces and the rebels both tried to gain more ground.

Poroshenko stressed that the pact contains “a clear commitment to withdraw all foreign troops, all mercenaries from the territory of Ukraine,” a reference to the Russian soldiers and weapons that Ukraine and the West say Russia has sent into eastern Ukraine to back the rebels.

Moscow has denied the accusations, saying any Russian fighters were volunteers, but the sheer number of sophisticated heavy weapons in the rebels’ possession belies that.

Still, Merkel said, in the end, Putin exerted pressure on the separatists to get them to agree to the cease-fire.

“I have no illusions. We have no illusions. A great, great deal of work is still necessary. But there is a real chance to make things better,” she said.

In Brussels, European Union President Donald Tusk said the test of the Minsk agreement will be whether the weekend cease-fire holds in eastern Ukraine.

The French-German diplomatic offensive came as President Barack Obama considered sending U.S. lethal weapons to Ukraine, a move that European nations feared would only widen the hostilities.

“The true test of today’s accord will be in its full and unambiguous implementation, including the durable end of hostilities and the restoration of Ukrainian control over its border with Russia,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said.

The urgency felt by all sides was underlined by the extraordinary length of the talks, which began Wednesday evening and continued uninterrupted through the night as crowds of reporters waited anxiously in a marble-floored, chandeliered convention hall in Minsk.

While the four leaders hailed the agreement, Russia and Ukraine still disagreed on how to end the fighting around Debaltseve, a key transport hub between the rebels’ two main cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Putin said the rebels consider the Ukrainian forces there surrounded and expect them to surrender, while Ukraine says its troops have not been blocked.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/leaders-minsk-crucial-ukraine-peace-talks-28908311

 

 

Russia–Ukraine gas disputes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural gas pipelines from Russia to Europe

The Russia–Ukraine gas disputes refer to a number of disputes between Ukrainian oil and gas company Naftohaz Ukrayiny and Russian gas supplier Gazprom over natural gas supplies, prices, and debts. These disputes have grown beyond simple business disputes into transnational political issues—involving political leaders from several countries—that threaten natural gas supplies in numerous European countries dependent on natural gas imports from Russian suppliers, which are transported through Ukraine. Russia provides approximately a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union; approximately 80% of those exports travel through pipelines across Ukrainian soil prior to arriving in the EU.[1]

A serious dispute began in March 2005 over the price of natural gas supplied and the cost of transit. During this conflict, Russia claimed Ukraine was not paying for gas, but diverting that which was intended to be exported to the EU from the pipelines. Ukrainian officials at first denied the accusation,[2][3] but later Naftohaz admitted that natural gas intended for other European countries was retained and used for domestic needs. The dispute reached a crescendo on 1 January 2006, when Russia cut off all gas supplies passing through Ukrainian territory.[4] On 4 January 2006, a preliminary agreement between Russia and Ukraine was achieved, and the supply was restored. The situation calmed until October 2007 when new disputes began over Ukrainian gas debts. This led to reduction of gas supplies in March 2008. During the last months of 2008, relations once again became tense when Ukraine and Russia could not agree on the debts owed by Ukraine.[5]

In January 2009, this disagreement resulted in supply disruptions in many European nations, with eighteen European countries reporting major drops in or complete cut-offs of their gas supplies transported through Ukraine from Russia.[6][7] In September 2009 officials from both countries stated they felt the situation was under control and that there would be no more conflicts over the topic,[8][9] at least until the Ukrainian 2010 presidential elections.[10] However, in October 2009, another disagreement arose about the amount of gas Ukraine would import from Russia in 2010. Ukraine intended to import less gas in 2010 as a result of reduced industry needs because of its economic recession; however, Gazprom insisted that Ukraine fulfill its contractual obligations and purchase the previously agreed upon quantities of gas.[11]

On June 8, 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo, aSwiss-based company in which Gazprom controls a 50% stake. Russia accused Ukrainian side of siphoning gas from pipelines passing through Ukraine in 2009.[12][13] Several high-ranking Ukrainian officials stated the return “would not be quick”.[14]

Russia plans to completely abandon gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine after 2018.[15][16]

Historical background

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, oil import prices to Ukraine reached world market levels in 1993. However, gas import prices and transit fees remained below European levels for Russian exports to Europe through pipelines in Ukraine; these were set in bilateral negotiations.[17] At the same time Ukraine remained the main transit corridor for Russia’s gas export. In 2004–2005, 80% of Russian gas exports to the European Union were made through Ukrainian Territory.[18][19]Two-thirds of Gazprom’s revenue comes from the sale of gas that crosses Ukraine.[20]

Ukraine’s own annual gas consumption in 2004–2005 was around 80 billion cubic metres (2.8 trillion cubic feet), of which around 20 billion cubic metres (710 billion cubic feet) were produced domestically, 36 billion cubic metres (1.3 trillion cubic feet) were bought from Turkmenistan, and 17 billion cubic metres (600 billion cubic feet) were received from Russia in exchange for transport of Russian natural gas. The remaining 8 billion cubic metres (280 billion cubic feet) were purchased from Russia.[21] The gas trading system differed substantially from the gas sale to the European Union and caused problems in the form of large-scale deliveries of relatively cheap Russian gas causing an increase of energy-intensive industries and supporting Ukraine’s status as one of the world’s least energy-efficientcountries and largest gas importers, the accumulation of Ukrainian debts and non-payment of same, unsanctioned diversion of gas and alleged theft from the transit system, and Russian pressure on Ukraine to hand over infrastructure in return for relief of debts accumulated over natural gas transactions.[17]

Gas trading was conducted under a framework of bilateral intergovernmental agreements which provided for sales, transit volumes, gas prices, gas storage, and other issues such as the establishment of production joint ventures.[citation needed] Commercial agreements were negotiated between the relevant companies within the guidelines and dictates of that framework and supplemented by annual agreements specifying exact prices and volumes for the following year.[citation needed] Gas sales prices and transit tariffs were determined in relationship to each other.[17] Commercial agreements and trade relations have been non-transparent and trade has been conducted via intermediaries such as Itera, EuralTransGaz, and RosUkrEnergo. RosUkrEnergo’s involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian gas trade has been controversial. There are allegations that the company is controlled by Semion Mogilevich and its beneficiaries include strategically placed officials in the Russian and Ukrainian gas industries and governmental structures related to the energy sector.[20][22] Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has made accusations that RosUkrEnergo is owned by a business ally of Ukraine’s ex-president, Viktor Yushchenko.[23] The Ukrainian investigation into RosUkrEnergo, during Yulia Tymoshenko‘s first term as Prime Minister, was closed after she was fired by Yushchenko in September 2005.[24]

According to a contract between Gazprom and Naftohaz signed on 21 June 2002, payment for the transfer of Russian natural gas through the Ukrainian pipelinesystem had been made in exchange for no more than 15% of the gas pumped through Ukrainian territory to be taken in lieu of cash.[citation needed] This contract was supposed to be valid until the end of 2013.[citation needed] On 9 August 2004, the two companies signed an addendum to the contract, according to which the amount of gas given as a payment was calculated based on a tariff of US$1.09 for the transportation of 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas over a distance of 100 kilometres (62 mi); the addendum further stated the price of the natural gas supplied to Ukraine was to be $50 per 1,000 cubic meters (approximately $1.40 per million Btu).[25]This price was constant notwithstanding the gas prices in the European markets.[26] According to the addendum the price was not subject to change until the end of 2009.[25] Gazprom argued that this addendum was only applicable provided that the two countries sign an annual intergovernmental protocol that has higher legal status for specifying the terms of gas transit.[27] According to Gazprom, the addendum becomes void as the annual protocol had not been signed for 2006 under the required terms.[28] Russia claimed that Gazprom’s subsidies to the Ukrainian economy amounted to billions of dollars.[29]

According to the agreement of 2006, RosUkrEnergo was to receive no more than 20 percent of the total delivered gas, which in 2007 was 15 billion cubic metres (530 billion cubic feet) of 73 billion cubic metres (2.6 trillion cubic feet).[citation needed]

Disputes of the 1990s

Initial disputes concerning gas debts and non-payment appeared immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union.[citation needed] As a result of disputes over non-payments by Ukraine, Russia suspended natural gas exports several times between 1992 and 1994. This led to the illicit diversion of Russian natural gas exports from transit pipelines by Ukrainian companies and institutions in September 1993 and November 1994.[citation needed] The siphoning of gas was acknowledged by Ukraine, while accusations of other diversions were disputed.[17] In September 1993, at a summit conference in Massandra, Crimea, Russian President Boris Yeltsin offered to Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk to forgive Ukrainian debts in return for control of the Black Sea Fleet and Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal.[30][citation needed]After a strong negative reaction from politicians in Kiev, the idea was abandoned.[17] An intergovernmental agreement was drafted on gas issues, including a clause stating Ukraine would permit Gazprom to participate in the privatization of Ukrainian enterprises in gas and other sectors.[citation needed] In March 1994, a Ukrainian deputy prime minister agreed with Russia that Gazprom could acquire a 51% stake in the pipeline system. In early 1995, Russia and Ukraine agreed to create a joint company, Gaztransit, to operate Ukraine’s natural gas transit infrastructure in exchange for the cancellation of a substantial portion of Ukraine’s debts to Russia. These agreements were never implemented, and in November 1995, the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, adopted a law prohibiting the privatization of oil and gas assets.[17]

In 1998, Gazprom and Naftohaz made a contract under which Gazprom would pay for the transit of volumes of gas, which established a link between gas prices and transit tariffs,[citation needed] but this contract did not resolve the issue of already incurred gas debts.[17] In 1998, Gazprom alleged that Ukraine had illegally diverted gas meant for export to other European countries and suspended exports of oil and electricity to Ukraine in 1999.[citation needed] Gazprom also claimed that Ukraine’s gas debt had reached $2.8 billion.[18] In 2001, Deputy Prime Minister Oleh Dubyna acknowledged that in 2000 alone 8–7 billion cubic metres (280–250 billion cubic feet) of Russian natural gas had been siphoned off from export pipelines.[17] The debt issue was settled on 4 October 2001, by the signing of an intergovernmental agreement on Additional Measures Regarding the Provision of Transit of Russian Natural Gas on the Territory of Ukraine (the 2001 Transit Agreement).[18]

Dispute of 2005–2006

Then President of Russia Vladimir Putin at a meeting on 29 December 2005, with Alexei Kudrin (Russian Finance Minister), Viktor Khristenko(Russian Energy Minister), Alexander Medvedev (Deputy Chairman of the Gazprom board), Ivan Plachkov(Ukrainian Energy Minister) and Alexey Ivchenko (CEO of Naftohaz), in which the dispute was discussed.

In 2005, negotiations over gas prices for 2006 started. Gazprom insisted on a new price of $160 per 1,000 cubic meters.[citation needed] The Government of Ukraine agreed, with the stipulation that price increases were to be gradual, in return for increased gas transit fees and changing the method of payment for transit from payment in kind to cash.[31][verification needed] In May 2005, it was revealed that 7.8 billion cubic metres (280 billion cubic feet) of gas which Gazprom had deposited in Ukrainian storage reservoirs during the previous winter had not been made available to the company.[citation needed] It remained unclear if the gas was missing, had disappeared due to technical problems, or had been stolen.[32] This issue was resolved in July 2005 by agreement between Gazprom, Naftohaz and RosUkrEnergo, according to which Naftohaz received 2.55 billion cubic metres (90 billion cubic feet) of gas as partial settlement of the Russian gas transit over 2005 services and 5.25 billion cubic metres (185 billion cubic feet) was sold by Gazprom to RosUkrEnergo who has to receive it from Naftohaz.[33] However, the negotiations between Gazprom and Naftohaz over gas prices and a new gas supply agreement failed.[34] On 1 January 2006, Gazprom started reducing the pressure in the pipelines from Russia to Ukraine.[34]

Although Russia cut off supplies only to Ukraine, a number of European countries saw a drop in their supplies as well.[3] TheEuropean Commissioner for Energy Andris Piebalgs and several affected member states warned that blocking of gas deliveries was unacceptable.[citation needed] Pascal Lamy, director general of the World Trade Organisation, expressed the opinion that all Post-Soviet states should pay market prices for their energy needs in order to improve the efficiency of their economies.[35]

The supply was restored on 4 January 2006, after the preliminary agreement between Ukraine and Gazprom was settled.[36] The five-year contract was signed, although with prices set for only six months. According to the contract, the gas was sold not directly to Naftohaz, but to the intermediary Russian-Swiss company RosUkrEnergo. The price of natural gas sold by Gazprom to RosUkrEnergo rose to $230 per 1,000 cubic metres, which, after mixing it in a proportion of one-third Russian gas to two-thirds cheaper supplies from Central Asia, was resold to Ukraine at a price of $95 per 1,000 cubic metres.[37][38] The parties also agreed to raise the tariff for transit from US$1.09 to US$1.60 per 1,000 cubic meters per 100 km; this applied not only to the transit of Russian gas to Europe, but also Turkmen gas through Russia to Ukraine.[citation needed] On 11 January 2006, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Viktor Yushchenko confirmed that the conflict had been concluded.[citation needed]

One possible reason for this conflict is the more pro-NATO and European Union-style approach of the new “orange” government of Ukraine.[citation needed] Russia disagreed, stating they did not want to subsidize former Soviet republics.[39]

Dispute of 2007–2008

Then President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko at a meeting of the Russian–Ukrainian Intergovernmental Commission at the Kremlin on 12 February 2008, at which the gas dispute was discussed.

On 2 October 2007, Gazprom threatened to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine because of unpaid debt of $1.3 billion.[40] This dispute appeared to be settled on 8 October 2007.[41] On 5 January 2008, Gazprom warned Ukraine that it would reduce its gas supplies on 11 January if $1.5 billion in gas debts were not paid.[42] Presidents Putin and Yushchenko announced on 12 February 2008, an agreement on the gas issue.[43] Ukraine would begin paying off its debts for natural gas consumed in November–December 2007 and the price of $179.5 would be preserved in 2008.[44][44] The presidents also decided to replace RosUkrEnergo and UkrGazEnergo with two new intermediaries, creating them as joint ventures of Gazprom and Naftohaz.[45]

At the end of February 2008, Gazprom threatened to reduce the supply of natural gas to Ukraine beginning on 3 March 2008, unless the pre-payment for 2008 was paid.[46][47] The Ukrainian government said it paid for the natural gas which was consumed in 2007, but refused to pay the bill for 2008.[48] A Gazprom spokesman claimed that the bill for 1.9 billion cubic metres (67 billion cubic feet) of gas deliveries to Ukraine valued around $600 million remained unpaid. Ukraine disagreed as that debt accumulated in recent months when Russia used its own gas to make up for a shortfall in less expensive Central Asian gas.[49] On 3 March, Gazprom cut its shipments to Ukraine by 25% and an additional 25% the next day, claiming that the $1.5 billion debt still was not paid, although Ukrainian officials stated it had indeed been paid.[50] Gas supplies were restored on 5 March after Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller and Naftohaz CEO Oleh Dubyna agreed during negotiations by phone on a settlement. On 6 March, the Ukrainian cabinet refused to execute the gas agreements made by presidents Yushchenko and Putin. The Ukrainian cabinet did not want to pay in advance for 2008, and it opposed the creation of a Naftohaz–Gazprom venture that would sell gas in Ukraine.[51] Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko stated that Ukraine did not need any additional joint ventures, and as of 1 March 2008, UkrGazEnergo is no longer operating in Ukraine’s domestic gas market.[52]

Dispute of 2008–2009

Vladimir Putin and Viktor Yushchenko (12 February 2008)

The gas crisis of 2009 began with a failure to reach an agreement on gas prices and supplies for 2009. Ukraine owed a debt of $2.4 billion to Gazprom for gas already consumed, and Gazprom requested payment before the commencement of a new supply contract.[53] In December 2008, despite Ukraine’s repayment of more than $1 billion of its debt, Gazprom maintained its position, intending to cut the supply of natural gas to Ukraine on 1 January 2009, if Ukraine did not fully repay the remainder of $1.67 billion debt in natural gas supplies and an additional $450 million in fines levied by Gazprom.[54][55][56] On 30 December, Naftohaz paid $1.522 billion,[57] of the outstanding debt, but the two parties were not able to agree on the price for 2009. Ukraine proposed a price of $201, and later increased their proposed price to $235, while Gazprom demanded $250 per 1,000 cubic meters.[58] Negotiations between Gazprom and Naftohaz were interrupted on 31 December.[59]

On 1 January 2009, exports to Ukraine of 90 million cubic meters of natural gas per day were halted completely at 10:00 MSK. Exports intended for transhipment to the EU continued at a volume of 300 million cubic meters per day.[60] President Yushchenko requested that the European Union become involved in the settlement of this dispute in a letter to the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso.[61] A Ukrainian delegation including Fuel and Energy Minister Yuriy Prodan, Deputy Foreign Minister Konstantin Yeliseyev, the President’s Representative for Energy Issues Bohdan Sokolovsky, and Deputy Head of Naftohaz Vadym Chuprun visited the Czech Republic as the first stop on a tour of a number EU member states to hold consultations on the gas crisis.[62][63]

On 2 January 2009, Hungary, Romania, and Poland reported that pressure in their pipelines had dropped. Bulgaria also reported that their natural gas supply was dropping, affecting the shipment of natural gas to Turkey, Greece, andMacedonia. Furthermore, the United Kingdom Government announced that it was preparing to enter its gas reserves after gas pressure had dropped from the continent.[64][65][66] On 4 January 2009, both RosUkrEnergo and Gazprom filed lawsuits against Ukraine and Naftohaz respectively with the Stockholm Tribunal of the Arbitration Institute.[67][68] Ukraine also filed lawsuits with the tribunal.[69] According to Naftohaz, RosUkrEnergo owes the company $40 million for services in transportation of natural gas.[70] On 5 January 2009, Kiev’s economic court banned Naftohaz from transshipping Russian natural gas in 2009 at the price of $1.60 per 1,600 cubic meters per 100 kilometers. The court declared contracts made by Naftohaz for the transit of natural gas through Ukraine void because the contracts were signed by Naftohaz without authorization from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.[71] On 30 March 2010, the Stockholm tribunal ordered Naftohaz to pay RosUkrEnergo around $200 million as a penalty for various breaches of supply, transit, and storage contracts.[72] On 8 June 2010, the tribunal ordered Naftohaz to return 11 billion cubic metres (390 billion cubic feet) of natural gas to RosUkrEnergo. The tribunal further ordered that RosUkrEnergo would receive from Naftohaz a further 1.1 billion cubic metres (39 billion cubic feet) of natural gas in lieu of RosUkrEnergo’s damages for breach of contract.[72][73]

On 5 January 2009 Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instructed Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller to reduce natural gas exports to Europe via transshipment through Ukraine by quantities equivalent to the amounts of gas which Ukraine had allegedly siphoned from the pipelines since deliveries ended on 1 January 2009.[74] On 7 January, all Russian natural gas exports via Ukraine were halted amid accusations between the two parties.[75][76][77] Several countries reported a major fall in supplies of Russian gas starting on 7 January; Bulgaria, Moldova, and Slovakia were among the most affected by these supply drops.[6][78][79]

Talks between Naftohaz and Gazprom resumed overnight on 8 January 2009.[75][80][81] Ukraine agreed to guarantee the unfettered transport of natural gas on the condition that Gazprom would guarantee and supply technical gas for Ukraine’s gas transit system to function; this was denied by Russia.[82] The supplies to Europe were not restored although the European Union, Ukraine, and Russia agreed to the deployment of an international monitoring group to the gas metering stations between Russia and Ukraine.[83][84][85][86] Naftohaz blocked the transit of gas, blaming a lack of pressure in the pipeline system and saying the design of the Soviet-built pipeline meant it could not ship gas entering through the Sudzha metering station governing gas leaving through the Orlivka metering station without cutting off the Donetsk region, Luhansk region, and portions of the Dnipropetrovsk region of Ukraine.[87][88][89] Naftohaz suggested a technically more feasible alternative through the Valuyki and Pisarevka metering stations but was refused.[90][91][92]

Signing of the deal reached at theMoscow summit on 19 January 2009, byOleh Dubyna and Alexei Miller (with Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin standing in the background)

On 17 January 2009, Russia held an international gas conference in Moscow. The EU was represented by the Presidency, the Czech Minister of Industry and Trade Martin Říman, and the EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, so that the European Union could speak with one voice.[93][94][95] Ukraine was represented by the Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.[96] The conference did not achieve any solution to the crisis, and the negotiations continued bilaterally between Prime Ministers Putin and Tymoshenko. Early on 18 January 2009, after five hours of talks, Putin and Tymoshenko reached a deal to restore gas supplies to Europe and Ukraine.[97][98] Both parties agreed that Ukraine would start paying European prices for its natural gas, less a 20% discount for 2009, and that Ukraine would pay the full European market price starting in 2010. In return for the discounts for 2009, Ukraine agreed to keep its transit fee for Russian gas unchanged in 2009. The two sides also agreed not to use intermediaries.[99][99] On 19 January 2009,Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller and the head of Naftohaz Oleh Dubyna signed an agreement on natural gas supply to Ukraine for the period of 2009-2019.[100][101][102] Gas supplies restarted on 20 January 2009, and were fully restored on 21 January.[103]

According to the EU Commission and Presidency, the Russia–Ukraine gas disputes caused irreparable and irreversible damage to customers’ confidence in Russia and Ukraine, causing Russia and Ukraine to no longer be regarded as reliable partners.[89][91][95] According to reports, due to the gas crisis Gazprom lost more than $1.1 billion in revenue for the unsupplied gas.[104] Ukraine also incurred losses as a result of the temporary closure of its steel and chemical industries due to the lack of gas. Ukraine also lost $100 million of potential revenue in transit fees from natural gas.[104]

There were also accusations of illegal siphoning of natural gas by Ukraine; however, these accusations were not confirmed.[105][106] The issue of technical gas used to fuel compressor stations and to maintain gas pressure in the pipeline network remained unclear.[107][108] Some sources asserted that the responsibility for providing the technical gas falls to Ukraine,[109] while others say that this is the responsibility of Gazprom.[110]

There were several theories as to alleged political motives behind the gas disputes, including Russia exerting pressure on Ukrainian politicians or attempting to subvert EU and NATO expansions to include Ukraine.[111][112][113] Others suggested that Ukraine’s actions were being orchestrated by the United States.[86] Both sides tried to win sympathy for their arguments fighting a PR war.[114][115]

In August 2009, it was agreed that loans worth $1.7 billion would be given to Ukraine to help it provide stable supplies of Russian gas to Europe by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in return for reforms in Ukraine’s gas sector.[1]

On 28 December 2009, the Slovakian government announced that Russia warned it would stop oil supplies to Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic over a transit price dispute with Ukraine.[116] However, the next day, Ukraine’s Naftohaz issued a statement confirming that Russia agreed to a 30% increase in the transit fees through Ukraine. The alleged rise in the tariff would be from $7.8 to $9.50 (or €6.6) per tonne of oil going through Ukraine in 2010. Additionally, unlike previous payments, new payments would be made in Euros as this was one of Ukraine’s demands. Russia and Ukraine also agreed on the volume of oil to be transported through Ukraine. The overall amount of oil to be transported to Slovakia, Czech Republic, and Hungary through Ukraine in 2010 will be 15 million tonnes—a decrease from 17.1 million tonnes in 2008.[117]

2010 natural gas agreement

Prologue

After meeting her Russian counterpart Putin, Ukrainian Prime Minister Tymoshenko declared on 3 September 2009, “Both sides, Russia and Ukraine, have agreed that at Christmas, there won’t be [any halt in gas supplies], as usually happens when there are crises in the gas sector. Everything will be quite calm on the basis of the current agreements”.[118] Tymoshenko also said that the Ukrainian and Russian premiers had agreed that sanctions would not be imposed on Ukraine for the country buying less gas than expected and that the price of Russian gas transit across Ukraine may grow 65% till 70% in 2010.[119] A week before Gazprom had said it expected gas transit fees via Ukraine to rise by up to 59% in 2010.[8]

On 8 October 2009 Tymoshenko announced that Ukrainian 2010 natural gas imports will be significantly less than in previous years “because we have less need for natural gas”. Because of its economic recession the industries require far less gas. In response to Tymoshenko Gazprom Chief Executive Alexey Miller stated that Ukraine should stick to the January (2009) contract for 2010.[11]

On 16 November 2009 Commissioner for Energy at the European Commission Andris Piebalgs stated that Russia and the European Union do not expect another gas conflict with Ukraine. According to him there were no gas price negotiations or questions other than that of gas payments.[120]

On 20 November 2009, the gas deal of 18 January 2009, was altered after a meeting between Tymoshenko and Putin in Yalta; meaning Ukraine would not be fined for buying less gas then the old contract stipulated, this was done in view of the 2008–2009 Ukrainian financial crisis.[121] On 24 November 2009 Gazprom and Naftohaz signed these supplements to the contract of 19 January 2009 on the purchase and sale of natural gas; according to the supplements, the annual contracted amount of gas to be supplied to Ukraine in 2010 has been set at 33.75 billion cubic metres (1.192 trillion cubic feet), instead of the 52 billion cubic metres (1.8 trillion cubic feet) contracted earlier. The documents signed by the sides also stipulated that there will be no fines related to the amount of gas consumed by Naftohaz in 2009.[122] Over the first ten months of 2009 Naftohaz has purchased 18.85 billion cubic metres (666 billion cubic feet) of gas with the contracted volume being 31.7 billion cubic metres (1.12 trillion cubic feet).[123]

On 15 December 2009, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko stated he expects no problems with Ukraine over gas supplies at New Year.[124]

Agreement

Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov and Energy Minister Yuriy Boyko were in Moscow late March 2010 to negotiate lower gas prices; neither clearly explained what Ukraine was prepared to offer in return.[125] Following these talks Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated that Russia was prepared to discuss the revision of the price for natural gas it sells to Ukraine.[126]

Signing of the deal reached at the Kharkivsummit on 21 April 2010 by Dimitry Medvedev and Viktor Yanukovych

On 21 April 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement[127] in which Russia agreed to a 30 percent drop in the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine. Russia agreed to this in exchange for permission to extend Russia’s lease of a major naval base in the Ukrainian Black Sea port ofSevastopol for an additional 25 years with an additional five-year renewal option (to 2042-47).[128] As of June 2010 Ukraine pays Gazprom around $234/mcm (thousand cubic meter).[129]

This agreement was subject to approval by both the Russian and Ukrainian parliaments.[128] They did ratify the agreement on 27 April 2010.[130] The Ukrainian parliament ratified it after several eggs were thrown towards thespeaker, Volodymyr Lytvyn, by deputies and other incidents.[131][132][133] Opposition members in Ukraine and Russia expressed doubts the agreement would be fulfilled by the Ukrainian side.[130][134]

Yanukovych has defended the agreement as a tool to help stabilise the state budget.[135] Opposition members in Ukraine described the agreement as a sell out of national interests.[135]

Dispute of 2013–2014

Crimean crises

Further information: 2014 Crimean crisis

In February 2014, Ukraine’s state-owned oil and gas company Naftogaz sued Chornomornaftogaz for delayed debt payments of 11.614 billion UAH (almost €1 billion) in the Economic Court of the Crimean Autonomous Republic.[136]

In March 2014, Crimean authorities announced that they would nationalize the company.[137] Crimean deputy prime minister Rustam Temirgaliev said that Russia’sGazprom would be its new owner.[138] A group of Gazprom representatives, including its head of business development, has been working at the Chornomornaftogaz head office since mid-March 2014.[139] On April 1, Russia’s energy minister Alexander Novak said that Gazprom would finance an undersea gas pipeline to Crimea.[140]

On 11 April 2014 the U.S. Treasury‘s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that it had added Chornomornaftagaz to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List as part of the third round of U.S. sanctions.[141] Reuters quoted an anonymous U.S. official who explained that the United States wanted to make it impossible for Gazprom to “have dealings with Chornomorneftegaz”, and if that were to happen, Gazprom itself could face sanctions.[140]

The European Union followed suit on May 13, 2014, the first time its sanctions list has included a company (in addition to Chornomorneftegaz, a Crimean oil supplier called Feodosia was also included).[142][143]

June 2014 gas supplies to Ukraine cut off

In an attempt at energy independence, Naftogaz signed a pipeline access deal with Slovakia‘s Eustream on April 28, 2014. Eustream and its Ukrainian counterpart Ukrtransgaz, owned by Naftogaz, agreed to allow Ukraine to use a never used (but aging, at 20 years old) pipeline on Slovakia’s eastern border with Uzhhorod inwestern Ukraine. The deal would provide Ukraine with 3 billion cubic meters of natural gas beginning in autumn of 2014 with the aim of increasing that amount to 10 billion cubic meters in 2015.[142]

On 1 April 2014 Gazprom cancelled Ukraine’s natural gas discount as agreed in the 17 December 2013 Ukrainian–Russian action plan because its debt to the company had risen to $1.7 billion since 2013.[144][145] Later that month the price “automatically” jumped to $485 per 1,000 cubic meters because the Russian government annulled an export-duty exemption for Gazprom in place since the 2010 Kharkiv Pact (this agreement was denounced by Russia on 31 March 2014[146]).[147][148] On 16 June 2014 Gazprom stated that Ukraine’s debt to the company was $4.5 billion.[147] On 30 May 2014 Ukraine paid $786 million to Gazprom.[149]

After intermediary (that had started in May 2014[147]) trilateral talks between EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, Ukraine and Russia failed on 15 June 2014 the latter halted (after a deadline of 10 a.m. Moscow time passed without it receiving payment[147]) its natural gas supplies to Ukraine the next day.[144]Unilaterally Gazprom decided that Ukraine had to pay upfront for its natural gas.[150] The company assured that its supplies to other European countries would continue.[150] Ukraine vowed to “provide reliable supply of gas to consumers in Ukraine and we will provide reliable transit to the European Union”.[147] At the time about 15 percent of European Union’s demand depended on Russian natural gas piped through Ukraine.[147]

After trilateral months of talks between the European Union, Ukraine and Russia a deal was reached on 30 October 2014 in which Ukraine agreed to pay (in advance) $378 per 1,000 cubic metres to the end of 2014, and $365 in the first quarter (ending on 31 March) of 2015.[151] Of its debts to Gazprom Ukraine agreed to pay of $1.45bn immediately, and $1.65bn by the end of 2014.[151] It was agreed that the European Union will be acting as guarantor for Ukraine’s gas purchases from Russia and would help to meet outstanding debts (using funds from existing accords with the European Union and IMF).[151] The total package was worth $4.6bn.[151] According to European Union officials the deal secured that there would be no natural gas supply disruptions in other European countries.[151]

See also

Part of a series on the
History of Ukraine
Coat of arms of Ukraine
Ukraine portal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-416

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Alan Greenspan — The Map and The Territory 2.0: Risk, Human Nature, and The Future of Forecasting — Videos

Posted on February 9, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Alan_Greenspanthe map and terroritory 2.0Alan Greenspan The Map and The Territoryalan greenspan

Alan Greenspan: “I’m afraid (the US is) going to run into some form of political crisis

Greece Will Eventually Leave the Euro – Alan Greenspan Head of US Central Bank Eurozone Crisis

Alan Greenspan: Structure of the Oil Market Has Changed

Alan Greenspan on what’s wrong with the world economy – Newsnight

Alan Greenspan on Central Banks, Stagnation, and Gold

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, joins Gillian Tett, U.S. managing editor at the Financial Times, to discuss current trends in the global economy and solutions for addressing the financial crisis.

Alan Greenspan on Central Banks, Stagnation, and Gold

Alan Greenspan on Gold and The Federal Reserves inability to stop QE

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Department of Labor Revised Job Numbers in November of 414,000 and December of 329,000 Plus 257,000 in January — Wages Increase 12 Cents Per Hour — Solid Jobs Report — U-3 Unemployment Rate Increased From 5.6% to 5.7% and 9 Million Unemployed — 1 Million Additional Americans Looking For Jobs — Spread The Message of Liberty — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Faith, Family, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 1: Department of Labor Revised Job Numbers in November of 414,000  and December of 329,000 Plus 257,000 in January — Wages Increase 12 Cents Per Hour — Solid Jobs Report — U-3 Unemployment Rate Increased From 5.6% to 5.7% and 9 Million Unemployed — 1 Million Additional Americans Looking For Jobs — Spread The Message of Liberty — Videos

gdp_large

sgs-emp

united-states-inflation-rateAverage-Inflation-in-United-States-by-Year-TableUS-Consumer-Price-Index-Annual-August-2013

Gallup CEO: Labor Department Numbers Are Misleading

Are monthly jobs numbers misleading

Gallup CEO Jim Clifton The “Real” Unemployment Rate In America @ 11.2% Double What Obama Says

Gallup discovers Obama may not be truthful on unemployment (Limbaugh)

 

Latest Jobs Report Sparking Questions About The Quality Of Jobs Being Created – Cavuto

Ep 51: Despite Slowing Economy, Job Growth Speeds Up

Investor Jim Rogers Gives Warning to Investor

US Job Market Improves

US jobs market booms as recovery accelerates

Nightly Business Report — February 6, 2015

February 6, 2015 Financial News – Business News – Stock Exchange – NYSE – Market News

The H1-B visa scam

Bill Gates Asks Senate For Infinite Number Of H 1B Visas

Peter Schiff Inflation Deterring Economic Growth

Taylor at CFR: Rethinking the Fed’s Dual Mandate

Uncommon Knowledge with John B. Taylor

A Discussion of the Fed’s Dual Mandate Responsibilities

The Federal Reserve’s Stanley Fischer on Inflation and Financial Stability

Sessions Calls On All Colleagues To Block President’s Planned Amnesty & Work Permits

Please Spread The Message of Liberty

liberty_bell1

Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants.”

Let Freedom Ring

Gallup CEO Jim Clifton told CNBC he might “suddenly disappear” for telling the truth about the Obama unemployment rate.

The real Obama unemployment rate has never recovered and is still above 10%.
unemployment obama

Wall Street on Parade reported:

Years of unending news stories on U.S. government programs ofsurveillance,rendition and torture have apparently chilled the speech of even top business executives in the United States.

Yesterday, Jim Clifton, the Chairman and CEO of Gallup, an iconic U.S. company dating back to 1935, told CNBC that he was worried he might “suddenly disappear” and not make it home that evening if he disputed the accuracy of what the U.S. government is reporting as unemployed Americans.

The CNBC interview came one day after Clifton had penned a gutsy opinion piece on Gallup’s web site, defiantly calling the government’s 5.6 percent unemployment figure “The Big Lie” in the article’s headline. His appearance on CNBC was apparently to walk back the “lie” part of the title and reframe the jobs data as just hopelessly deceptive.

Clifton stated the following on CNBC:

“I think that the number that comes out of BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the Department of Labor is very, very accurate. I need to make that very, very clear so that I don’t suddenly disappear. I need to make it home tonight.”

After getting that out of the way, Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/gallup-ceo-i-may-suddenly-disappear-for-telling-the-truth-about-obama-unemployment-rate-video/

Civilian Labor Force

157,180,000

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

civilian labor force level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153484(1) 153694 153954 154622 154091 153616 153691 154086 153975 153635 154125 153650
2011 153314(1) 153227 153377 153566 153492 153350 153276 153746 154085 153935 154089 153961
2012 154445(1) 154739 154765 154589 154899 155088 154927 154726 155060 155491 155305 155553
2013 155825(1) 155396 155026 155401 155562 155761 155632 155529 155548 154615 155304 155047
2014 155486(1) 155688 156180 155420 155629 155700 156048 156018 155845 156243 156402 156129
2015 157180(1)

Civilian Labor Participation Rate

62.9%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Labor Participation Rate

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.7 63.6 63.7
2013 63.7 63.5 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0 62.8
2014 63.0 63.0 63.2 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.7
2015 62.9

Employment Level

148,201,000

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

employment level

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438(1) 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139267(1) 139400 139649 139610 139639 139392 139520 139940 140156 140336 140780 140890
2012 141633(1) 141911 142069 141953 142231 142400 142270 142277 142953 143350 143279 143280
2013 143328(1) 143429 143374 143665 143890 144025 144275 144288 144297 143453 144490 144671
2014 145206(1) 145301 145796 145724 145868 146247 146401 146451 146607 147260 147331 147442
2015 148201(1)
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Employment Population Ratio

59.3 %

Series Id:           LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status:  Employment-population ratio
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

employment population ratio

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.6 58.6
2012 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.6 58.8 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.2 58.6 58.6
2014 58.8 58.8 59.0 58.9 58.9 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 59.2 59.2 59.2
2015 59.3

Unemployment Level

8,979,000

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

 

unemployment_level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 15046 15113 15202 15325 14849 14474 14512 14648 14579 14516 15081 14348
2011 14046 13828 13728 13956 13853 13958 13756 13806 13929 13599 13309 13071
2012 12812 12828 12696 12636 12668 12688 12657 12449 12106 12141 12026 12272
2013 12497 11967 11653 11735 11671 11736 11357 11241 11251 11161 10814 10376
2014 10280 10387 10384 9696 9761 9453 9648 9568 9237 8983 9071 8688
2015 8979

Unemployment Rate

5.7%

unemployment_rate

 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.8 9.3
2011 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9
2013 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6
2015 5.7

 

Teenage 16-19 Years Unemployment Rate

18.8%

Series Id:           LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 to 19 years

 

teenage unemployment

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.3 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.2 26.9 26.7
2010 26.1 25.6 26.2 25.4 26.5 25.9 25.9 25.5 25.8 27.2 24.8 25.3
2011 25.7 24.1 24.4 24.6 23.9 24.6 24.7 25.0 24.4 24.2 24.2 23.3
2012 23.7 23.8 25.0 24.8 24.3 23.4 23.6 24.3 23.7 23.9 24.0 24.1
2013 23.9 25.2 24.1 24.1 24.2 23.3 23.2 22.5 21.1 22.2 20.9 20.4
2014 20.8 21.3 20.9 19.1 19.2 20.7 20.0 19.4 19.8 18.7 17.5 16.8
2015 18.8

U-6 Unemployment Rate

11.3%

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

U-6 Total Unemployed

 

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                 USDL-15-0158
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, February 6, 2015

Technical information: 
 Household data:     (202) 691-6378  •  cpsinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data: (202) 691-6555  •  cesinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:	(202) 691-5902  •  PressOffice@bls.gov


                       THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JANUARY 2015


  NOTE: This news release was reissued on February 6, 2015, to correct data
  in table C for the employed (Dec.-Jan. change, after removing the population
  control effect). No other data were affected.


Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 257,000 in January, and the unemployment rate
was little changed at 5.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
Job gains occurred in retail trade, construction, health care, financial activities,
and manufacturing.

    ____________________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                            |
   |                  Changes to The Employment Situation Data                  |
   |                                                                            |
   |Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual       |
   |benchmarking process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors. Also, |
   |household survey data for January 2015 reflect updated population estimates.|
   |See the notes at the end of this news release for more information about    |
   |these changes.                                                              |
   |____________________________________________________________________________|


Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate, at 5.7 percent, changed little in January and has shown no net
change since October. The number of unemployed persons, at 9.0 million, was little
changed in January. (See table A-1. See the note at the end of this news release and
tables B and C for information about annual population adjustments to the household
survey estimates.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for teenagers (18.8 percent)
increased in January. The jobless rates for adult men (5.3 percent), adult women
(5.1 percent), whites (4.9 percent), blacks (10.3 percent), Asians (4.0 percent),
and Hispanics (6.7 percent) showed little or no change. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)

In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was essentially unchanged at 2.8 million. These individuals accounted for 31.5 percent
of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed is down
by 828,000. (See table A-12.)

After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the civilian
labor force rose by 703,000 in January. The labor force participation rate rose by
0.2 percentage point to 62.9 percent, following a decline of equal magnitude in the
prior month. Total employment, as measured by the household survey, increased by
435,000 in January, and the employment-population ratio was little changed at
59.3 percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the effects of the
population adjustments, see table C.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged in January at 6.8 million.
These individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part
time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a
full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In January, 2.2 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
358,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a
job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 682,000 discouraged workers in January, down
by 155,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged
workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are
available for them. The remaining 1.6 million persons marginally attached to the labor
force in January had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or
family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 257,000 in January. Job gains occurred in
retail trade, construction, health care, financial activities, and manufacturing.
After incorporating revisions for November and December (which include the impact of
the annual benchmark process), monthly job gains averaged 336,000 over the past
3 months. (See table B-1 and summary table B. See the note at the end of this news
release and table A for information about the annual benchmark process.)

Employment in retail trade rose by 46,000 in January. Three industries accounted
for half of the jobs added--sporting goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+9,000);
motor vehicle and parts dealers (+8,000); and nonstore retailers (+6,000). 

Construction continued to add jobs in January (+39,000). Employment increased in
both residential and nonresidential building (+13,000 and +7,000, respectively).
Employment continued to trend up in specialty trade contactors (+13,000). Over the
prior 12 months, construction had added an average of 28,000 jobs per month. 

In January, health care employment increased by 38,000. Job gains occurred in
offices of physicians (+13,000), hospitals (+10,000), and nursing and residential
care facilities (+7,000). Health care added an average of 26,000 jobs per month 
in 2014.

Employment in financial activities rose by 26,000 in January, with insurance 
carriers and related activities (+14,000) and securities, commodity contracts,
and investments (+5,000) contributing to the gain. Financial activities has added
159,000 jobs over the past 12 months. 

Manufacturing employment increased by 22,000 over the month, including job gains
in motor vehicles and parts (+7,000) and wood products (+4,000). Over the past
12 months, manufacturing has added 228,000 jobs. 

Professional and technical services added 33,000 jobs in January, including
increases in computer systems design (+8,000) and architectural and engineering
services (+8,000).

In January, employment in food services and drinking places continued to trend
up (+35,000). In 2014, the industry added an average of 33,000 jobs per month.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, wholesale
trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and government, showed little
change over the month.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged
at 34.6 hours in January. The manufacturing workweek edged up by 0.1 hour to 41.0
hours, and factory overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average
workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged down by 0.1 hour to 33.8 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
increased by 12 cents to $24.75, following a decrease of 5 cents in December. Over
the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 2.2 percent. In January, average
hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased
by 7 cents to $20.80. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised from +353,000
to +423,000, and the change for December was revised from +252,000 to +329,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in November and December were 147,000 higher than
previously reported. Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from
businesses since the last published estimates and the monthly recalculation of
seasonal factors. The annual benchmark process also contributed to these revisions.

_____________
The Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday,
March 6, 2015, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).



                       Revisions to Establishment Survey Data


In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have
been benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2014. These 
counts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW),
which enumerates jobs covered by the unemployment insurance tax system. The benchmark
process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2013 forward.
Seasonally adjusted data from January 2010 forward are subject to revision. In addition,
data for some series prior to 2010, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate
revisions.

The total nonfarm employment level for March 2014 was revised upward by 91,000 (+67,000
on a not seasonally adjusted basis, or less than 0.05 percent). The average benchmark
revision over the past 10 years was plus or minus 0.3 percent. Table A presents revised
total nonfarm employment data on a seasonally adjusted basis for January through
December 2014.

An article that discusses the benchmark and post-benchmark revisions and other technical
issues can be accessed through the BLS website at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.pdf.
Information on the data released today also may be obtained by calling (202) 691-6555.


Table A. Revisions in total nonfarm employment, January-December 2014, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)

__________________________________________________________________________________________
                    |                                    |                                
                    |                Level               |      Over-the-month change     
                    |____________________________________|________________________________
    Year and month  |    As     |           |            |    As    |         |           
                    |previously |    As     | Difference |previously|   As    | Difference
                    |published  |  revised  |            |published | revised |           
____________________|___________|___________|____________|__________|_________|___________
                    |           |           |            |          |         |           
          2014      |           |           |            |          |         |           
                    |           |           |            |          |         |           
 January............|  137,539  |  137,642  |     103    |    144   |    166  |      22   
 February...........|  137,761  |  137,830  |      69    |    222   |    188  |     -34   
 March..............|  137,964  |  138,055  |      91    |    203   |    225  |      22   
 April..............|  138,268  |  138,385  |     117    |    304   |    330  |      26   
 May................|  138,497  |  138,621  |     124    |    229   |    236  |       7   
 June...............|  138,764  |  138,907  |     143    |    267   |    286  |      19   
 July...............|  139,007  |  139,156  |     149    |    243   |    249  |       6   
 August.............|  139,210  |  139,369  |     159    |    203   |    213  |      10   
 September..........|  139,481  |  139,619  |     138    |    271   |    250  |     -21   
 October............|  139,742  |  139,840  |      98    |    261   |    221  |     -40   
 November...........|  140,095  |  140,263  |     168    |    353   |    423  |      70   
 December (p).......|  140,347  |  140,592  |     245    |    252   |    329  |      77   
____________________|___________|___________|____________|__________|_________|___________

    p = preliminary


               Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey

Effective with data for January 2015, updated population estimates have been used in the
household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the
U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new
information and assumptions about the growth of the population since the previous
decennial census. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results
from adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics and other
information, and some methodological changes in the estimation process.

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey
estimates for December 2014 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population
adjustments, however, differences in selected December 2014 labor force series based on
the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.

The adjustments increased the estimated size of the civilian noninstitutional population
in December by 528,000, the civilian labor force by 348,000, employment by 324,000, and
unemployment by 24,000. The number of persons not in the labor force was increased by
179,000. The total unemployment rate, employment-population ratio, and labor force
participation rate were unaffected.

Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments can affect the
comparability of household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the
introduction of new population estimates on the comparison of selected labor force
measures between December 2014 and January 2015. Additional information on the 
population adjustments and their effect on national labor force estimates is
available at www.bls.gov/cps/cps15adj.pdf.


Table B. Effect of the updated population controls on December 2014 estimates by sex,
race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, not seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)

_______________________________________________________________________________________
                              |      |     |      |       |        |       |           
                              |      |     |      |       |  Black |       |           
                              |      |     |      |       |    or  |       |  Hispanic 
            Category          |Total | Men | Women| White | African| Asian | or Latino 
                              |      |     |      |       |American|       | ethnicity 
                              |      |     |      |       |        |       |           
______________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|___________
                              |      |     |      |       |        |       |           
  Civilian noninstitutional   |      |     |      |       |        |       |           
   population.................|  528 | 173 |  354 |  139  |  114   |  243  |     243   
    Civilian labor force......|  348 | 131 |  218 |  101  |   81   |  144  |     141   
      Participation rate......|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |   .0  |   .0   |  -.1  |      .0   
     Employed.................|  324 | 120 |  204 |   94  |   72   |  138  |     133   
      Employment-population   |      |     |      |                        |           
       ratio..................|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |   .0  |   .0   |  -.1  |      .0   
     Unemployed...............|   24 |  10 |   14 |    7  |    9   |    7  |       7   
      Unemployment rate.......|   .0 |  .0 |   .0 |   .0  |   .0   |   .0  |      .0   
    Not in labor force........|  179 |  42 |  137 |   38  |   33   |   99  |     102   
______________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|_______|___________

   NOTE:  Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above race
groups (white, black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because data
are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or
Latino may be of any race.


Table C. December 2014-January 2015 changes in selected labor force measures,
with adjustments for population control effects
(Numbers in thousands)

______________________________________________________________________________
                                       |           |            |             
                                       |           |            |  Dec.-Jan.  
                                       | Dec.-Jan. |    2015    |   change,   
                                       |  change,  | population |  after re-  
                Category               |    as     |   control  |  moving the 
                                       | published |   effect   |  population 
                                       |           |            |   control   
                                       |           |            |  effect (1) 
_______________________________________|___________|____________|_____________
                                       |           |            |             
  Civilian noninstitutional population.|    696    |     528    |     168     
    Civilian labor force...............|  1,051    |     348    |     703     
      Participation rate...............|     .2    |      .0    |      .2     
     Employed..........................|    759    |     324    |     435(c)     
      Employment-population ratio......|     .1    |      .0    |      .1     
     Unemployed........................|    291    |      24    |     267     
      Unemployment rate................|     .1    |      .0    |      .1     
    Not in labor force.................|   -354    |     179    |    -533     
_______________________________________|___________|____________|_____________
                                                                              
   c = corrected.
   1 This Dec.-Jan. change is calculated by subtracting the population 
control effect from the over-the-month change in the published seasonally
adjusted estimates.
   NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.


    ___________________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                           |
   |              Changes to The Employment Situation News Release             |
   |                                                                           |
   |Effective with this release, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics introduced|
   |several changes to The Employment Situation news release tables.           |
   |                                                                           |
   |Household survey table A-2 introduced seasonally adjusted series on the    |
   |labor force characteristics of Asians. These series appear in addition to  |
   |the not seasonally adjusted data for Asians displayed in the table. Also,  |
   |in summary table A, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for Asians   |
   |replaced the not seasonally adjusted series that was previously displayed  |
   |for the group.                                                             |
   |                                                                           |
   |Household survey table A-3 introduced seasonally adjusted series on the    |
   |labor force characteristics of Hispanic men age 20 and over, Hispanic women|
   |age 20 and over, and Hispanic teenagers age 16 to 19. The not seasonally   |
   |adjusted series for these groups continue to be displayed in the table.    |
   |                                                                           |
   |The establishment survey introduced two data series: (1) total nonfarm     |
   |employment, 3-month average change and (2) total private employment,       |
   |3-month average change. These new series have been added to establishment  |
   |survey summary table B. Additionally, in the employment section of summary |
   |table B, the list of industries has been expanded to include utilities     |
   |(also published in table B-1). Also, hours and earnings of production and  |
   |nonsupervisory employees were removed from summary table B, although these |
   |series continue to be published in establishment survey tables B-7 and B-8.|
   |___________________________________________________________________________|



 

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]

CategoryJan.
2014Nov.
2014Dec.
2014Jan.
2015Change from:
Dec.
2014-
Jan.
2015

Employment status

 

Civilian noninstitutional population

246,915248,844249,027249,723-

Civilian labor force

155,486156,402156,129157,180-

Participation rate

63.062.962.762.9-

Employed

145,206147,331147,442148,201-

Employment-population ratio

58.859.259.259.3-

Unemployed

10,2809,0718,6888,979-

Unemployment rate

6.65.85.65.7-

Not in labor force

91,42992,44292,89892,544-

Unemployment rates

 

Total, 16 years and over

6.65.85.65.7-

Adult men (20 years and over)

6.35.45.35.3-

Adult women (20 years and over)

5.95.25.05.1-

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

20.817.516.818.8-

White

5.74.94.84.9-

Black or African American

12.111.010.410.3-

Asian

4.84.74.24.0-

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

8.36.66.56.7-

Total, 25 years and over

5.34.74.54.6-

Less than a high school diploma

9.68.58.68.5-

High school graduates, no college

6.55.65.35.4-

Some college or associate degree

5.94.94.95.2-

Bachelor’s degree and higher

3.33.22.92.8-

Reason for unemployment

 

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

5,3544,4804,3254,242-

Job leavers

815835798851-

Reentrants

2,9112,7612,7012,829-

New entrants

1,1811,0459711,033-

Duration of unemployment

 

Less than 5 weeks

2,4492,5052,3752,383-

5 to 14 weeks

2,4282,3782,2932,318-

15 to 26 weeks

1,6991,4031,2741,380-

27 weeks and over

3,6282,8222,7852,800-

Employed persons at work part time

 

Part time for economic reasons

7,2746,8516,7906,810-

Slack work or business conditions

4,4194,0684,0614,012-

Could only find part-time work

2,5922,4472,4322,460-

Part time for noneconomic reasons

19,31719,97119,73019,822-

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

 

Marginally attached to the labor force

2,5922,1092,2602,234-

Discouraged workers

837698740682-

- December – January changes in household data are not shown due to the introduction of updated population controls.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

 

 

 

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Jan.
2014
Nov.
2014
Dec.
2014(p)
Jan.
2015(p)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

166 423 329 257

Total private

183 414 320 267

Goods-producing

90 76 73 58

Mining and logging

5 1 3 -3

Construction

69 30 44 39

Manufacturing

16 45 26 22

Durable goods(1)

4 28 21 18

Motor vehicles and parts

-6.1 9.3 6.2 6.7

Nondurable goods

12 17 5 4

Private service-providing

93 338 247 209

Wholesale trade

17.5 8.0 11.3 12.7

Retail trade

-16.5 61.2 7.2 45.9

Transportation and warehousing

-2.7 25.9 33.8 -8.6

Utilities

-1.8 2.8 1.9 0.5

Information

0 7 4 6

Financial activities

4 28 9 26

Professional and business services(1)

36 96 80 39

Temporary help services

-5.2 30.8 25.0 -4.1

Education and health services(1)

19 51 48 46

Health care and social assistance

14.5 61.9 47.2 49.7

Leisure and hospitality

28 42 47 37

Other services

10 16 5 4

Government

-17 9 9 -10

(3-month average change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

197 298 324 336

Total private

203 289 317 334

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)

Total nonfarm women employees

49.4 49.3 49.3 49.3

Total private women employees

47.9 47.9 47.9 47.8

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.6 82.5 82.5 82.5

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.4 34.6 34.6 34.6

Average hourly earnings

$24.22 $24.68 $24.63 $24.75

Average weekly earnings

$833.17 $853.93 $852.20 $856.35

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

99.6 102.4 102.7 102.9

Over-the-month percent change

0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

115.1 120.6 120.7 121.5

Over-the-month percent change

0.6 0.8 0.1 0.7

DIFFUSION INDEX
(Over 1-month span)(5)

Total private (263 industries)

62.4 75.3 69.0 62.4

Manufacturing (80 industries)

57.5 76.3 64.4 58.1

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2014 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

US gains strong 257K jobs, pay jumps; jobless rate 5.7 pct.


By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER


 U.S. employers added a vigorous 257,000 jobs in January, and wages jumped by the most in six years — evidence that the job market is accelerating closer to full health.

The surprisingly robust report the government issued Friday also showed that hiring was far stronger in November and December than it had previously estimated. Employers added 414,000 jobs in November — the most in 17 years. Job growth in December was revised sharply up to 329,000 from 252,000.

Average hourly wages soared 12 cents in January to $24.75, the sharpest gain since 2008. Over the past 12 months, hourly pay, which has long been stagnant, has now risen 2.2 percent. That is ahead of inflation, which rose just 0.7 percent in 2014.

The unemployment rate last month rose to 5.7 percent from 5.6 percent. But that occurred for a good reason: More than 1 million Americans — the most since January 2000 — began looking for jobs, though not all of them found work, and their numbers swelled the number of people counted as unemployed. An influx of job hunters suggests that Americans have grown more confident about their prospects.

“For the average American, it’s certainly good news — 2015 is going to be the year of the American consumer,” said Russell Price, senior economist at the financial services firm Ameriprise. “With job growth being strong, we’re going to see a pickup in wages and salaries.”

Investors immediately responded to the better-than-expected jobs figures by selling ultra-safe U.S. Treasurys, sending yields up. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note rose to 1.88 percent from 1.81 percent shortly before the jobs report was released.

Stock market index futures also edged higher in pre-market trading. Futures that track the Standard & Poor’s 500 index and the Dow Jones industrial average each rose about 0.4 percent.

A sharp drop in gas prices has held down inflation and boosted Americans’ spending power. Strong hiring also tends to lift pay as employers compete for fewer workers. A big question is whether last month’s jump in wages can be sustained.

Job gains have now averaged 336,000 for the past three months, the best three-month pace in 17 years. Just a year ago, the three-month average was only 197,000.

“The labor market was about the last thing to recover from the Great Recession, and in the last six months it has picked up steam,” said Bill Hampel, chief economist at the Credit Union National Association. “The benefits for the middle class are now solidifying.”

The stepped-up hiring in January occurred across nearly all industries. Construction firms added 39,000 jobs and manufacturers 22,000. Retail jobs jumped by nearly 46,000. Hotels and restaurants added 37,100, health care 38,000.

The Federal Reserve is closely monitoring wages and other job market data as it considers when to begin raising the short-term interest rate it controls from a record low near zero. The Fed has kept rates at record lows for more than six years to help stimulate growth. Most economists think the central bank will start boosting rates as early as June.

Steady economic growth has encouraged companies to keep hiring. The economy expanded at a 4.8 percent annual rate during spring and summer, the fastest six-month pace in a decade, before slowing to a still-decent 2.6 percent pace in the final three months of 2014.

There are now 3.2 million more Americans earning paychecks than there were 12 months ago. That tends to boost consumer spending, which drives about 70 percent of economic growth.

More hiring, along with sharply lower gasoline prices, has boosted Americans’ confidence and spending power. Consumer confidence jumped in January to its highest level in a decade, according to a survey by the University of Michigan. And Americans increased their spending during the final three months of last year at the fastest pace in nearly nine years.

A more confident, free-spending consumer could lend a spark that’s been missing for most of the 5½bd}-year-old economic recovery. Americans have been largely holding the line on spending and trying to shrink their debt loads. Signs that they are poised to spend more have boosted optimism that the economy will expand more than 3 percent this year for the first time in a decade.

One sector that has benefited from consumers’ increased willingness to spend has been the auto industry. Auto sales jumped 14 percent in January from the previous year, according to Autodata Corp. Last month was the best January for sales in nine years.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150206/us–economy-5c2022abd1.html

 

NET U.S. JOB GAINS SINCE THE RECESSION HAVE GONE TO FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS

 

In the months and years since the recession began in December 2007, foreign-born workers have experienced a net increase in employment, while native-born Americans have experienced a net loss.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released updated employment data Friday.

The new BLS figures reveal that since the start of the recession in 2007 — which is said to have ended in June 2009 — the number of foreign workers employed in the United States rose by 1.7 million.

In December 2007 the number of foreign-born workers was 22,810,000 by January 2009 the number has increased to 24,553,000.

Meanwhile the number of American-born workers employed decreased by 1.5 million, from 123,524,000 to 121,999,000.

While the foreign-born and American-born population experienced different statistical employment fates, both categories of adults experienced net growth.

The numbers come as Congress continues to debate a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill that would defund President Obama’s executive amnesty, which has opened the door for millions of illegal immigrants to legally work in the United States.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Immigration Subcommittee Chairman, has been one of the most vocal opponents of the president’s actions and the administration’s immigration policies, which he argues harms American workers.

Friday, his office highlighted the employment discrepancies between native- and foreign- born employment.

“There are two jobs narratives: the one from the Administration, and the one lived and experienced by American workers. Fewer American workers are employed today than when the recession began.  The President’s policies have profited the corporate immigration lobby and no-borders contingent, but have been only deleterious for wage-earners,” Session’s spokesman Stephen Miller emailed Breitbart News.

Miller highlighted that in addition to the annual flow of over 1.7 million permanent legal immigrants and nonimmigrant workers, as the Center for Immigration Studies recently exposed,  since 2009 the administration has also provided another 5.5 million immigrants with employment authorization documents (EAD).

“What we are seeing in the BLS stats is the human fallout from the President’s actions,” Miller continued. “Figures such as these should be leading the nightly news. One of the first questions posited ought to be: will Minority Leader [Harry] Reid’s (D-NV) caucus continue to shield the issuance of 5 million more EADs for those illegally here?”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/06/net-u-s-job-gains-since-the-recession-have-gone-to-foreign-born-workers/

The Federal Reserve’s Dual Mandate

What Is the Dual Mandate?

In 1977, Congress amended The Federal Reserve Act, stating the monetary policy objectives of the Federal Reserve as:

 

“The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy’s long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.”

 

This is often called the “dual mandate” and guides the Fed’s decision-making in conducting monetary policy. On January 25, 2012, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) released the principles regarding its longer-run goals and monetary policy strategy.

The statement notes that:

 

“The FOMC is firmly committed to fulfilling its statutory mandate from the Congress of promoting maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. The Committee seeks to explain its monetary policy decisions to the public as clearly as possible. Such clarity facilitates well-informed decision making by households and businesses, reduces economic and financial uncertainty, increases the effectiveness of monetary policy, and enhances transparency and accountability, which are essential in a democratic society.

 

Inflation, employment, and long-term interest rates fluctuate over time in response to economic and financial disturbances. Moreover, monetary policy actions tend to influence economic activity and prices with a lag. Therefore, the Committee’s policy decisions reflect its longer-run goals, its medium-term outlook, and its assessments of the balance of risks, including risks to the financial system that could impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals.

 

The inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy, and hence the Committee has the ability to specify a longer-run goal for inflation. The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s statutory mandate. Communicating this inflation goal clearly to the public helps keep longer-term inflation expectations firmly anchored, thereby fostering price stability and moderate long-term interest rates and enhancing the Committee’s ability to promote maximum employment in the face of significant economic disturbances.

 

The maximum level of employment is largely determined by nonmonetary factors that affect the structure and dynamics of the labor market. These factors may change over time and may not be directly measurable. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to specify a fixed goal for employment; rather, the Committee’s policy decisions must be informed by assessments of the maximum level of employment, recognizing that such assessments are necessarily uncertain and subject to revision. The Committee considers a wide range of indicators in making these assessments. Information about Committee participants’ estimates of the longer-run normal rates of output growth and unemployment is published four times per year in the FOMC’s Summary of Economic Projections. For example, in the most recent projections, FOMC participants’ estimates of the longer-run normal rate of unemployment had a central tendency of 5.2 percent to 6.0 percent, roughly unchanged from last January but substantially higher than the corresponding interval several years earlier.”

 

Effective communications of the Committee’s objectives and economic forecasts increases the transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of policy decisions. To this end, the FOMC publishes the participants’ projections for the key economic variables and their estimates of the longer-run normal rates of output growth and unemployment four times a year in the Summary of Economic Projections. The projections are made by all FOMC participants, irrespective of whether they are voting members or not. The projections are prepared ahead of the FOMC meetings and do not necessarily reflect the discussions at the meetings that inform the FOMC’s decisions.

https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/speeches/our-dual-mandate-background

What Are the Dual Mandate Projections?

Inflation and Unemployment

Chart of inflation

 

Chart of unemployment rate

 

These charts plot the current rates of inflation and unemployment, as well as the FOMC participants’ most recent projections over the next three years and in the longer run. The dots show the median forecasts for the next three years and the dashed lines give the upper and lower ranges of the central tendency of the long-run projections.

 

 

Policy

Chart of fed funds rate

This chart plots the federal funds rate and the rate after adjusting for the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy prices. Read more…

 

 

Federal Reserve Balance Sheet

Charts of assets and liabilitiesDuring the financial crisis and in the period since the fed funds rate neared the zero lower bound, the FOMC has employed unconventional tools to improve the functioning of financial markets and to provide additional policy accommodation.

Federal Reserve Balance Sheet

ChartDuring the financial crisis and in the period since the fed funds rate neared the zero lower bound, the FOMC has employed unconventional tools to improve the functioning of financial markets and to provide additional policy accommodation. As seen in the chart above, the use of these tools has increased the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and altered its composition. At the same, the increase in assets has been accompanied by an increase in liabilities of a similar magnitude, driven primarily by an increase in the reserve balances of depository institutions held at the Federal Reserve.

 

 

Federal Funds Rate Projections

Chart of target fed funds rate

In addition to its interest rate and balance sheet policies, the FOMC has enhanced its communications and increased transparency regarding its outlook, objectives and policy strategy. The dots represent individual policymakers’ projections of the appropriate federal funds rate target at the end of each of the next several years and in the longer run. It should be noted that these projections reflect the views of all the participants, irrespective of whether they are a voting member or not.

Federal Funds Rate Projections

ChartIn addition to its interest rate and balance sheet policies, the FOMC has enhanced its communications and increased transparency regarding its outlook, objectives and policy strategy. Forward guidance regarding the likely future path of policy is one such communications tool. In its March 2009 statement, the FOMC stated that it anticipates rates to remain at low levels for an extended period. At its August 2011meeting, the Committee elaborated further by stating that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low rates “at least through mid-2013.” In the January 2012 statement, in response to changes in current and expected economic conditions, the Committee altered its forward guidance regarding the period of exceptionally low rates to “at least through late-2014.” To further enhance its communications, the FOMC also published the participants’ projections for the federal funds rate in January 2012. In this chart, the dots represent individual policymakers’ projections of the appropriate federal funds rate target at the end of each of the next several years and in the longer run. It should be noted that these projections reflect the views of all the participants, irrespective of whether they are a voting member or not. Moreover, the projections are made in advance of the FOMC meetings and do not reflect how the participants’ views are enhanced from the discussions at the meetings. The statements released after each FOMC meeting reflect the policy decision of the voting members of the FOMC and their consensus view regarding the likely path of the federal funds rate in the future.

https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/speeches/our-dual-mandate

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-412

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Federal Reserve Opposes More Congressional Oversight and Audit Proposed By Senator Rand Paul — Audit The Fed and Then End The Fed — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Homes, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Raves, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 1: The Federal Reserve Opposes More Congressional Oversight and Audit Proposed By Senator Rand Paul — Audit The Fed and Then End The Fed — Videos

rand Paul

janet-yellen

Fed-Funds 03_Fed Balance SheetCentral-bank-balance-sheetsfed_funds_rate_qe_1_2_3Fed-AssetsFed-Balance-sheetFed-Balance-Sheet-SP500-010815 Fed-Balance-Sheet-VS-SP500-112013Federal-Reserve-Asset-Composition-QE (1)
gold federal balance sheet Mortgage-Backed-Securities-held-by-the-Federal-Reserve-All-Maturities.1 peter-catranis-fed-funds1 sp federal balance sheet

Rand Paul – Audit the Fed!

Major Move! House Passes Bill to Audit Federal Reserve!

Senator Vitter (R-LA) asks Janet Yellen about Audit the Fed (S.209)

Rand Paul on Janet Yellen, Transparency At The Fed, And Nsa Spying Bloomberg

Rand Paul: ‘Audit the Fed’ – CNBC 5/22/2013

Audit the Fed. by Ron Paul. Harry Reid gets slammed -

Fed fires back at Rand Paul

The Federal Reserve is lashing out at Sen. Rand Paul’s plan to give Congress more oversight over the central bank, a proposal that could gain traction in the new Republican-led Congress.

The Kentucky Republican reintroduced his “Audit the Fed” legislation last month with 30 co-sponsors, including other potential 2016 GOP hopefuls, Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

The proposal — once championed by his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) —would subject the central bank to an audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Regional bank presidents from around the country are decrying the plan, which they argue could damage the economy.

“Who in their right mind would ask the Congress of the United States — who can’t cobble together a fiscal policy — to assume control of monetary policy?” Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said during an interview with The Hill.

Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen has already vowed to fight the legislation, and President Obama would likely veto it.

Still, Fed watchers note that Paul has become emboldened by the new Republican majority in Congress. And he possesses an ever louder national microphone, as he moves closer to a 2016 presidential run.

Together, those factors could elevate the issue in the coming months, a prospect that has spurred strong words from bank officials.

Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser told The Hill that financial auditing “already exists” for the Fed, and warned that Paul’s plan would empower Congress “to audit and question monetary policy decisions in real time.”

“This runs the risk of monetary policy decisions being based on short-term political considerations instead of the longer-term health of the economy,” Plosser said.

Paul pushed back against the criticism, saying Fed officials “will say and do anything to keep their business hidden from the American people.”

For Paul, the legislation allows him to burnish his Republican-libertarian credentials.

And he appears to want to make it part of his early presidential campaigning. On Friday, Paul will hold an Audit the Fed rally in Des Moines, Iowa, as part of a weekend trip to the early presidential caucus state.

The issue could give Paul an opening to tap into the public’s mistrust of the government, more than six years after the federal bailouts that followed the 2008 economic crisis.

“This secretive government-run bureaucracy promotes policies that have impacted the lives of all Americans,” Paul said. “Citizens have the right to know why the Fed’s policies have resulted in a stagnant economy and record numbers of people dropping out of the workforce.”

Fisher said lawmakers are looking to shift blame, having proven “unable to get together with their own colleagues on a working fiscal policy or construct a regulatory regime that incentivizes investment and job creation.”

“So they simply find it convenient to create a boogeyman out of an entity that does its job efficiently — the Federal Reserve,” Fisher said. “To some outsiders the Fed appears to be some kind of combination of Hogwarts, the Death Star, and Ebenezer Scrooge — especially to those who don’t take the time to read the copious amounts of reports and speeches and explanations we emit.”

The twelve presidents of the Fed’s regional banks are well connected, their boards of directors stacked with influential business leaders. They are likely to intensify their opposition to Paul’s proposal.

On Wednesday, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester criticized the legislation as “misguided” during public remarks in Columbus, Ohio.

“They really are about allowing political considerations to influence monetary policy decisions,” Mester said in her speech. “This would be a tremendous mistake, because it would ultimately lead to poorer economic performance.”

Yellen, who met with Senate Democrats last week on Capitol Hill, is scheduled to testify before Congress later this month. The appearance will be her first since Republicans seized control of the Senate, and she will likely face questions on the legislation.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), whose panel has jurisdiction on the bill, has also said he is interested in holding hearings on the issue.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/231822-fed-fires-back

Rand Paul Slams Federal Reserve’s Secrecy, Reintroduces Bill to ‘Audit the Fed’

Sen. Rand Paul is reviving his push to audit the Federal Reserve.

The Kentucky Republican and presumptive 2016 presidential candidate said he wants to bring several of the Fed’s monetary activities under congressional oversight.

In a statement released Monday, Paul said it was time to end the secrecy behind the Fed. He believes an audit is the best way to do it.

“[An] audit of the Fed will finally allow the American people to know exactly how their money is being spent by Washington.” Paul said.
He slammed the Fed’s current operating practices, saying it works “under a cloak of secrecy and it has gone on for too long.”

Paul concluded that “the American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nation’s money supply.”

>>> Much More to Friedman Than Rule-Based Monetary Policy

Calls for a Fed audit increased after the 2008 financial crisis. The ensuing collapse in the housing market and financial industry sparked an ongoing effort to bring more sunlight to the agency.

Norbert Michel, a research fellow in financial regulations at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal he agreed with the senator.

“There is no justification for secrecy,” Michel said. “They should have a full policy audit and the Federal Open Market Committee’s full transcript, not just the minutes, should be released.”

Although the main goal of Paul’s legislation is to have a full audit of the Fed, completed within six months, there are several other reforms he’d like to implement. They include eliminating restrictions on the Government Accountability Office’s ability to conduct oversight and giving Congress oversight of Fed policies like quantitative easing.

>>> House Republicans Attempt to Lift ‘Veil of Secrecy’ From Federal Reserve

The bill has already gained popularity in the Republican caucus with 30 co-sponsors, including Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., potential presidential rivals in 2016.

“The Fed has expanded its balance sheet fivefold, yet economic growth is still tepid, businesses are sitting on cash, and median income and household wealth are depressed,” Cruz noted in a statement.

Cruz also slammed the Fed for its secrecy.

“Enough is enough,” Cruz said. “The Federal Reserve needs to fully open its books so Congress and the American people can see what has been going on. This is a crucial first step to getting back to a more stable dollar and a healthy economy for the long term.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/29/rand-paul-slams-federal-reserves-secrecy-reintroduces-bill-audit-fed/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-411

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Jim Clifton Head of Gallup Discovers The U-3 Unemployment Rate is Misleading Then Discovers the U-6 Total Unemployment Rate — Actually There Used To Be 7 Unemployment Rates — Politicians of Both Parties Have Been Misleading The American People For Years — The Labor Participation Rate Is The Key — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Corruption, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 1: Jim Clifton Head of Gallup Discovers The U-3 Unemployment Rate is Misleading Then Discovers the U-6 Total Unemployment Rate — Actually There Used To Be 7 Unemployment Rates — Politicians of Both Parties Have Been Misleading The American People For Years — The Labor Participation Rate Is The Key — Videos

 sgs-emp

Unemployment Game Show – Are you Officially Unemployed? | Mint Personal Finance Software

Gallup CEO: Labor Department Numbers Are Misleading

Gallup CEO Jim Clifton The “Real” Unemployment Rate In America @ 11.2% Double What Obama Says

Gallup discovers Obama may not be truthful on unemployment (Limbaugh)

Word of the Day: Unemployment (U3 and U6)

Unemployment Statistics – John Williams on Economics 101

010 Unemployment Rate Primer

U.S. Labor Participation Rate – Graph of Reagan vs obama

Labor Force Participation Rate

Labor participation rate is down to unprecedented levels

Labor Secretary Dismisses Historical Drop in Labor Participation Rate

Decline in the Labor Force Participation Mostly Structural in Nature

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

[Percent]
Measure Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
Dec.
2013
Nov.
2014
Dec.
2014
Dec.
2013
Aug.
2014
Sept.
2014
Oct.
2014
Nov.
2014
Dec.
2014

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

3.5 2.7 2.5 3.6 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.6

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

3.5 2.7 2.8 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)

6.5 5.5 5.4 6.7 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

7.0 5.9 5.8 7.2 6.6 6.3 6.2 6.2 6.0

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

7.9 6.8 6.7 8.1 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.1 6.9

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force

13.0 11.0 11.1 13.1 12.0 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.2

NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Table of Contents

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.2 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 15.9 16.1 16.3 15.8 15.5 15.2
2012 15.2 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.7 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.5 14.3 13.8 14.0 13.8 14.2 13.8 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.6 12.6 12.3 12.1 12.0 12.2 12.0 11.7 11.5 11.4 11.2

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Here’s something that many Americans — including some of the smartest and most educated among us — don’t know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.

Right now, we’re hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is “down” to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.

None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.

There’s another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.

There’s no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it’s a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual’s primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity — it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen’s talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Gallup defines a good job as 30+ hours per week for an organization that provides a regular paycheck. Right now, the U.S. is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44%, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older. We need that to be 50% and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America’s middle class.

I hear all the time that “unemployment is greatly reduced, but the people aren’t feeling it.” When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth — the percent of Americans in good jobs; jobs that are full time and real – then we will quit wondering why Americans aren’t “feeling” something that doesn’t remotely reflect the reality in their lives. And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class.

Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO at Gallup.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-409

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Murray Rothbard — Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Friends, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Video, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

murray_boardStrictly Confidential

Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard

Murray Rothbard is widely known for his vast literary output, but a great deal of his work has never been published until now. During the late 1950s and early 60s he worked for the William Volker Fund, one of the few organizations willing to fund classical liberal scholars at the time. In that capacity, he wrote memos and reviews that offer insights on history, economics, foreign policy, and political theory.

Rothbard’s view and understanding of world events was unique and prescient. Strictly Confidential is an illuminating commentary on the feisty early years of the libertarian movement, and the fledgling intellectual base that became the root of today’s libertarianism.

No one tells it like it is better than Rothbard.

http://mises.org/library/strictly-confidential-private-volker-fund-memos-murray-n-rothbardmurray rothbard keynesian

rothbardMurray_Rothbard

How Murray Rothbard Became a Libertarian

A prolific author and Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard promoted a form of free market anarchism he called “anarcho-capitalism.”

In this talk, given at the 1981 National Libertarian Party Convention, Rothbard tells the story of how he came to learn about economics and libertarianism as he grew up in the Bronx and attended Columbia University in the 1930s and 40s. He reminisces about meeting Frank Chodorov, Baldy Harper, George Stigler and Ludwig von Mises, and takes a number of audience questions.

The Future of Austrian Economics | Murray N. Rothbard

This is the famous speech by Murray Rothbard given in the days following the collapse of the Soviet empire. His exuberance is palpable has he explains the meaning of it all for the place of liberty in the history of civilization.
A brilliant scholar and passionate defender of Liberty, Professor Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was dean of the Austrian School of economics, holder of the S.J. Hall Chair at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Academic Vice President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The author of 17 books and thousands of articles, the foremost Misesian economist, the father of modern freedom theory, and the most delightful personality in the profession, this great teacher here spellbinds an audience of students, faculty, and business leaders in the “Future of Austrian Economics,” at the 1990 Mises University at Stanford.

Only Austrian economics, Rothbard shows, can explain the collapse of socialism/communism and tell us what should replace it: laissez-faire capitalism. There is a lesson here as well, he shows, for dealing with the Leviathan in Washington, D.C.

The Founding of the Federal Reserve | Murray N. Rothbard

Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard

Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement

Murray Rothbard – The Government Is Not Us

The Gold Standard Before the Civil War | Murray N. Rothbard

Rothbard on the ‘best’ US president

Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain? | Murray N. Rothbard

415. Murray Rothbard: Who He Was and Why He’s Important

Gene Epstein: Murray Rothbard’s Mixed Legacy

How Murray Rothbard Changed my Mind on War | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Murray Rothbard as Academic Role Model | Gary North

The Worldview of Murray Rothbard | Gerard Casey

Two Roads, One Truth | Gerard Casey

inflation

 

For A New Liberty For A New Liberty 2America's Great DepressionLThe Case Against The FedRothbard-MESstateMurray_Rothbard (1)

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

John B. Taylor — First Principles: Five Keys To Restoring America’s Prosperity — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

john-taylor-economisatFirstPrinciplesjohn taylor

Uncommon Knowledge with John B. Taylor

5 Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity: John B. Taylor

Steine Lecture Series with John B. Taylor

getting off track

Crisis Management with John Taylor

global_financial_warrios

John B Taylor – Policy Options to Restore Prosperity – 26 June 2014

John Taylor: Economic Freedom, Wealth and the Alleviation of Poverty

John Taylor Receives the Bradley Prize — 2010

John B. Taylor, the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution, is perhaps best known for formulating an equation on setting interest rates that has become known as the Taylor rule. The economist has also, however, been recognized throughout his career for his contributions to teaching, research, and public service, in addition to policy making. On June 16, 2010, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation awarded one of its four 2010 Bradley Prizes to Taylor. The Bradley Prizes, awarded annually, are given to prominent scholars and engaged citizens for outstanding achievement in their fields of endeavor.

John B. Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named John Taylor, see John Taylor (disambiguation).
John B. Taylor
JohnBTaylor.jpg

John B. Taylor
Born December 8, 1946(age 68)
Yonkers, New York
Nationality United States
Institution Stanford University
Field Monetary economics
School or tradition
New Keynesian economics
Alma mater Shady Side Academy
Stanford University
Princeton University
Influences Milton Friedman
John Maynard Keynes
Paul Volcker
E. Philip Howrey
Contributions Taylor rule
Information at IDEAS / RePEc

John Brian Taylor (born December 8, 1946) is the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University, and the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.[1]

Born in Yonkers, New York, he graduated from Shady Side Academy[2] and earned his A.B. from Princeton University in 1968 and Ph.D. from Stanford in 1973, both ineconomics. He taught at Columbia University from 1973–1980 and the Woodrow Wilson School and Economics Department of Princeton University from 1980–1984 before returning to Stanford. He has received several teaching prizes and teaches Stanford’s introductory economics course as well as Ph.D. courses in monetary economics.[3]

In research published in 1979 and 1980 he developed a model of price and wage setting—called the staggered contract model—which served as an underpinning of a new class of empirical models with rational expectations and sticky prices—sometimes called new Keynesian models.[4] [5] In a 1993 paper he proposed the Taylor rule,[6]intended as a recommendation about how nominal interest rates should be determined, which then became a rough summary of how central banks actually do set them. He has been active in public policy, serving as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during the first term of the George W. Bush Administration. His book Global Financial Warriors chronicles this period.[7] He was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors during the George H. W. Bush Administration and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisors during the Ford and Carter Administrations.

In 2012 he was included in the 50 Most Influential list of Bloomberg Markets Magazine. Thomson Reuters lists Taylor among the ‘citation laureates’ who are likely future winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics.[8]

Academic contributions

Taylor’s research—including the staggered contract model, the Taylor rule, and the construction of a policy tradeoff (Taylor) curve[9] employing empirical rational expectations models[10]–has had a major impact on economic theory and policy.[11] Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that Taylor’s “influence on monetary theory and policy has been profound,”[12] and Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen has noted that Taylor’s work “has affected the way policymakers and economists analyze the economy and approach monetary policy.”[13]

Taylor contributed to the development of mathematical methods for solving macroeconomic models under the assumption of rational expectations, including in a 1975Journal of Political Economy paper, in which he showed how gradual learning could be incorporated in models with rational expectations; a 1979 Econometrica paper in which he presented one of the first econometric models with overlapping price setting and rational expectations, which he later expanded into a large multicountry model in a 1993 book Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy; and a 1982 Econometrica paper,[14] in which he developed with Ray Fair the first algorithm to solve large-scale dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models which became part of popular solution programs such as Dynare and EViews.[15]

In 1977, Taylor and Edmund Phelps, simultaneously with Stanley Fischer, showed that monetary policy is useful for stabilizing the economy if prices or wages are sticky, even when all workers and firms have rational expectations.[16] This demonstrated that some of the earlier insights of Keynesian economics remained true under rational expectations. This was important because Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace had argued that rational expectations would make macroeconomic policy useless for stabilization;[17] the results of Taylor, Phelps, and Fischer showed that Sargent and Wallace’s crucial assumption was not rational expectations, but perfectly flexible prices.[18]

Taylor then developed the staggered contract model of overlapping wage and price setting, which became one of the building blocks of the New Keynesian macroeconomics that rebuilt much of the traditional macromodel on rational expectations microfoundations.[19] [20]

Taylor’s research on monetary policy rules traces back to his undergraduate studies at Princeton.[21][22] He went on in the 1970s and 1980s to explore what types of monetary policy rules would most effectively reduce the social costs of inflation and business cycle fluctuations: should central banks try to control the money supply, the price level, or the interest rate; and should these instruments react to changes in output, unemployment, asset prices, or inflation rates? He showed[23] that there was a tradeoff—later called the Taylor curve[24]—between the volatility of inflation and that of output. Taylor’s 1993 paper in the Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy proposed that a simple and effective central bank policy would manipulate short-term interest rates, raising rates to cool the economy whenever inflation or output growth becomes excessive, and lowering rates when either one falls too low. Taylor’s interest rate equation has come to be known as the Taylor rule, and it is now widely accepted as an effective formula for monetary decision making.[25]

A key stipulation of the Taylor rule, sometimes called the Taylor principle,[26] is that the nominal interest rate should increase by more than one percentage point for each one-percent rise in inflation. Some empirical estimates indicate that many central banks today act approximately as the Taylor rule prescribes, but violated the Taylor principle during the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.[27]

Recent research

Taylor’s recent research has been on the financial crisis that began in 2007 and the world economic recession. He finds that the crisis was primarily caused by flawed macroeconomic policies from the U.S. government and other governments. Particularly, he focuses on the Federal Reserve which, under Alan Greenspan, a personal friend of Taylor, created “monetary excesses” in which interest rates were kept too low for too long, which then directly led to the housing boom in his opinion.[28] He also believes that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spurred on the boom and that the crisis was misdiagnosed as a liquidity rather than a credit risk problem.[29] He wrote that, “government actions and interventions, not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy, caused, prolonged, and worsened the crisis.”[30]

Taylor’s research has also examined the impact of fiscal policy in the recent recession. In November 2008, writing for The Wall Street Journal opinion section, he recommended four measures to fight the economic downturn: (a) permanently keeping all income tax rates the same, (b) permanently creating a worker’s tax credit equal to 6.2 percent of wages up to $8,000, (c) incorporating “automatic stabilizers” as part of overall fiscal plans, and (d) enacting a short-term stimulus plan that also meets long term objectives against waste and inefficiency. He stated that merely temporary tax cuts would not serve as a good policy tool.[31]His research[32] with John Cogan, Tobias Cwik, and Volcker Wieland showed that the multiplier is much smaller in new Keynesian than in old Keynesian models, a result that was confirmed by researchers at central banks.[33] He evaluated the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages and argued that they were not effective in stimulating the economy.[34]

In a June 2011 interview on Bloomberg Television, Taylor stressed the importance of long term fiscal reform that sets the U.S. federal budget on a path towards being balanced. He cautioned that the Fed should move away from quantitative easing measures and keep to a more static, stable monetary policy. He also criticized fellow economist Paul Krugman‘s advocacy of additional stimulus programs from Congress, which Taylor said will not help in the long run.[35] In his 2012 book First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, he endeavors to explain why these reforms are part of a broader set of principles of economic freedom.

Selected publications

  • Taylor, John B. (1975), ‘Monetary Policy During a Transition to Rational Expectations.’ Journal of Political Economy 83 (5), pp. 1009–1021.
  • Phelps, Edmund S., and John B. Taylor (1977), ‘Stabilizing powers of monetary policy under rational expectations.’ Journal of Political Economy 85 (1), pp. 163–90.
  • Taylor, John B. (1979), ‘Staggered wage setting in a macro model’. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 69 (2), pp. 108–13. Reprinted in N.G. Mankiw and D. Romer, eds., (1991), New Keynesian Economics, MIT Press.
  • Taylor, John B. (1979), ‘Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations’. Econometrica 47 (5), pp. 1267–86.
  • Taylor, John B. (1986), ‘New econometric approaches to stabilization policy in stochastic models of macroeconomic fluctuations’. Ch. 34 of Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 3, Z. Griliches and M.D. Intriligator, eds. Elsevier Science Publishers.
  • Taylor, John B. (1993), ‘Discretion versus policy rules in practice’. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39, pp. 195–214.
  • Taylor, John B. (1999), ‘An historical analysis of monetary policy rules’. Ch. 7 of John B. Taylor, ed., Monetary Policy Rules, University of Chicago Press. Paperback edition (2001): ISBN 0-226-79125-4.
  • Taylor, John B. (2007) Global Financial Warriors, WW Norton, N.Y.
  • Taylor, John B. (2007), “Housing and Monetary Policy,” in Jackson Hole Symposium on Housing, Housing Finance, and Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
  • Taylor, John B. (2008), “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Response: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong,” Festschrift in Honor of David Dodge’s Contributions to Canadian Public Policy, Bank of Canada, Nov., pp. 1–18.
  • Taylor, John B. (2009), “Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis,” Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-4971-2
  • Scott, Kenneth E., George P. Shultz, and John B. Taylor (2010), “Ending Government Bailouts as We Know Them,” Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-1124-3
  • Taylor, John B. (2012), “First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity,” W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-07339-4

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ “Hoover Institution Senior Fellow: Biography”. Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2011-10-27.
  2. Jump up^ Shady Side Academy list of notable alumni
  3. Jump up^ Curriculum vitae, John B. Taylorhttp://www.stanford.edu/~johntayl/cv/TaylorCV-Jan-2012.pdf
  4. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1979) “Staggered Wage Setting in a Macro Model,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 69 (2), May, pp. 108–113, Reprinted in N. Gregory Mankiw and David Romer (Eds.) New Keynesian Economics, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991.
  5. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1980) “Aggregate Dynamics and Staggered Contracts,” Journal of Political Economy, 88 (1), February, pp. 1–23.
  6. Jump up^ Taylor. John B. (1993) “Discretion Versus Policy Rules in Practice,” Carnegie-Rochester Series on Public Policy, North-Holland, 39, pp. 195–214.
  7. Jump up^ Taylor, John B, (2007) Global Financial Warriors: The Untold Story of International Finance in the Post- 9/11 World, W.W. Norton.
  8. Jump up^ Thomson-Reuters list of ‘citation laureates’ in economics
  9. Jump up^ Taylor, John B, (1979) “Estimation and Control of a Macroeconomic Model with Rational Expectations,” Econometrica, 47 (5), September, pp. 1267–1286. Reprinted in R.E. Lucas and T.J. Sargent (Eds.) Rational Expectations and Econometric Practice, University of Minnesota Press, 1981
  10. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1993) Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy: From Econometric Design to Practical Operation, W.W. Norton
  11. Jump up^ Ben Bernanke refers to the “three concepts named after John that are central to understanding our macroeconomic experience of the past three decades—the Taylor curve, the Taylor rule, and the Taylor principle.” in “Opening Remarks,” Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy
  12. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2007), “Opening Remarks”, Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  13. Jump up^ Yellen, Janet (2007), “Policymaker Roundtable”, Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
  14. Jump up^ Fair, Ray C. and John B. Taylor (1983) “Solution and Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Dynamic Nonlinear Rational Expectations Models,” Econometrica, 51 (4), July, pp. 1169–1185
  15. Jump up^ Kenneth Judd, Felix Kubler, and Karl Schmedders “Computational Methods for Dynamic Equilibria with Heterogeneous Agents,” In Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications, Vol 3. Mathias Dewatripont, Lars Peter Hansen, Stephen J. Turnovsky, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 247, and “Eviews Users Guide II.”
  16. Jump up^ Phelps, Edmund and John B. Taylor (1977), “Stabilizing Powers of Monetary Policy under Rational Expectations”, Journal of Political Economy, 85 (1), February, pp. 163–190.
  17. Jump up^ Sargent, Thomas and Wallace, Neil (1975), “‘Rational’ Expectations, the Optimal Monetary Instrument, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule,” Journal of Political Economy 83 (2): 241–254.
  18. Jump up^ Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, 2nd ed., Ch. 28, p. 543. Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-013306-X.
  19. Jump up^ . King, Robert G. and Alexander Wolman (1999), “What Should the Monetary Authority Do When Prices are Sticky?” in Taylor, John B. (1999), Monetary Policy Rules, University of Chicago Press
  20. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1999). “Staggered Price and Wage Setting in Macroeconomics” in John B. Taylor and Michael Woodford (Eds.) Handbook of Macroeconomics, North-Holland, Elsevier, pp. 1009–1050.
  21. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1968) “Fiscal and Monetary Stabilization Policies in a Model of Cyclical Growth,” (1968), Undergraduate Thesis, Princeton University, April
  22. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1968). “Fiscal and Monetary Stabilization Policies in a Model of Endogenous Cyclical Growth”. Research Memorandum No. 104 (Econometric Research Program, Princeton University, October).
  23. Jump up^ Taylor, John B, (1979) “Estimation and Control of a Macroeconomic Model with Rational Expectations,” Econometrica, 47 (5), September, pp. 1267–1286.
  24. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2004), “The Great Moderation”, Remarks at the meeting of the Eastern Economic Association.
  25. Jump up^ A. Orphanides, Athanasios (2007), ‘Taylor rules‘, Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2007–18, Federal Reserve Board.
  26. Jump up^ Davig, Troy and Eric Leeper (2005) “Generalizing the Taylor Principle,” NBER Working Paper 11874.
  27. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Mark Gertler; and Jordi Galí (2000), “Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: theory and some evidence.”Quarterly Journal of Economics 115. pp. 147–180.
  28. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2007), “Housing and Monetary Policy,” in Housing, Housing Finance, and Monetary Policy, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, September, pp. 463–476.
  29. Jump up^ Taylor (2007), “Housing and Monetary Policy” in Taylor, John B. (2008), “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Response: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong” in Festschrift in Honour of David Dodge’s Contributions to Canadian Public Policy, Bank of Canada, November, pp. 1–18.
  30. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009), “How Government Created the Financial Crisis,” Wall Street Journal, Feb. 9, 2009, p. A19.
  31. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (November 25, 2008). “Why Permanent Tax Cuts Are the Best Stimulus”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 30,2011.
  32. Jump up^ Cogan, John F., Tobias Cwik, John B Taylor and Volker Wieland (2010), “New Keynesian versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 34 (3), March, pp. 281–295.
  33. Jump up^ Guenter Coenen, et al. (2012), “Effects of Fiscal Stimulus in Structural Models,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, Vol. 4, No. 1, January, pp. 22–68.
  34. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2011), “An Empirical Analysis of the Revival of Fiscal Activism in the 2000s,” Journal of Economic Literature, 49 (3), September, pp. 686–702.
  35. Jump up^ “Taylor Says U.S. Needs `Sound’ Monetary, Fiscal Policies”.Bloomberg Television thru Washington Post. June 27, 2011. RetrievedJune 30, 2011.

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Taylor

 

John B. Taylor

Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University
George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at the Hoover Institution and Chair of Working Group on Economic Policy

Contact Information   One-Page Bio   Curriculum Vitae   Photo   Other Pictures

Blog Economics One EconomicsOne.com

Twitter @EconomicsOne

 

Recent Books

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, New Paperback Edition  (with new introduction), 2013, Hardcover or Kindle Edition, 2012

Bankruptcy Not Bailout: A Special Chapter 14, with Kenneth Scott (Eds.) Hoover Press, 2012, Hardcover on Amazon or Kindle version

Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery, with L. Ohanian and I. Wright, (Eds.), Hoover Press, 2012, Hardcover on Amazon or  Kindle version 

Ending Government Bailouts as We Know Them with Kenneth Scott and George Shultz (Eds.) 2010, Hardcover or Kindle or Download Chapters in PDF Formats

The Road Ahead for the Fed with John Ciorciari (Eds.) 2009 Hardcover or Kindle or Download Chapters in PDF Formats

Getting Off Track  How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis Kindle edition ($2.40), February 2009.

GlobalFinancialWarriors.com The Untold Story of International Finance in the Post-9/11 World Paperback Edition, 2008

Principles of Economics, Macroeconomics, and Microeconomics: Seventh Edition introductory economics text, 2012 Kindle version

 

Interviews and Biographical

Game Changers Interview, MONEY Magazine, August 2012

Interview on Research on Policy and the Response to the Crisis, Region Focus, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, First Quarter 2012, pp,29-33.

Interview on Economic Policy, Citadel Conversation, June 2012

Fiscal Follies, Monetary Mischief, Barron’s Interview with Gene Epstein, April 2012

Interview on Teaching Economics with Simon Bowmaker, in The Heart of Teaching Economics: Lessons from Leading Minds, 2011

Bradley Prize Recipient 2010, YouTube of Award Ceremony at John F. Kennedy Center, Written version of acceptance remarks

One Economist’s Solution for Financial Reform and Government Policy and the Recovery, Interviews with Motley Fool, March 2010

The Quest for Rules, Interview in Finance and Development, International Monetary Fund, March 2008

Adam Smith Award, National Association of Business Economics, September 2007

NZZ Profile on Monetary Policy, Translation, Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Zurich, September 2007

Back to the World of Ideas Article about returning to research and teaching after Washington, February 2007

Interview on Global Imbalances and Monetary Policy Rules, Special Report, Citigroup Global Economic and Market Analysis, 2006

Interview on Monetary Research and Policy, From The Region, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, June 2006

Shorter Interview on Monetary Research and Policy, From Hoover Digest, Fall 2006, adapted from The Region

Profile on International Policy Making, From The Washington Diplomat, December 2005

Interview about Research in the 1990s, From Conversations with Leading Economists, 1999

Profile on Teaching, From Stanford Today, 1998

 

Books and Collections of Articles on Monetary Policy and International Finance

The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy, Even Koenig, Robert Leeson, and George Kahn (Eds.), Stanford: Hoover Press, 2012

Contributions to Macroeconomics in Honor of John Taylor, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 55, Pages S1-S126, October 2008.

Dallas Fed Conference on “John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy,” October 2007

Policies in International Finance 2001-2005: Speeches and testimony given as Treasury Under Secretary with short background pieces, 2005

Monetary Policy Rules Home Page

Conference Recognizing 10th Anniversary of the Taylor Rule (Nov 2002) Conference Volume, Journal of Monetary Economics Vol. 50, No. 5
Monetary Policy Rules, (Editor), University of Chicago Press, 1999

Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy also available on line  WW Norton

Inflation, Unemployment, and Monetary Policy, (with Robert Solow), MIT Press

Handbook of Macroeconomics, (Editor with Michael Woodford)

 

Recent Papers

 

Using Hybrid Macro-Econometric Models to Design and Evaluate Fiscal Consolidation Strategies , presented at AEA Annual Meetings, January 5, 2015

Inflation Targeting in Emerging Markets: the Global Experience, Keynote Address at the Conference on Fourteen Years of Inflation Targeting in South Africa and The Challenge of a Changing Mandate, South African Reserve Bank Conference Centre, Pretoria, South Africa, October 30, 2014

Introduction to Frameworks for Central Banking in the Next Century, with Michael Bordo, A Special Issue of the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, forthcoming

Foreword to Sovereign Debt Management , Rosa M. Lastra and Lee Buchheit (Eds,) Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2014, pp. vii-ix

Re-Normalize, Don’t New-Normalize Monetary Policy, October 2014

The Federal Reserve in a Globalized World Economy, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, September 19, 2014

Rapid Growth or Stagnation: An Economic Policy Choice, Journal of Policy Modeling, May/June 2014

The Role of Policy in the Great Recession and the Weak Recovery, American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 2014

Causes of the Financial Crisis and the Slow Recovery: A 10-Year Perspective, Prepared for the October 1, 2013 Brookings/Hoover Financial Crisis Conference, December 2013

International Monetary Policy Coordination: Past, Present and Furture, Prepared for the 12th BIS Conference, June 21, 2013

Simple Rules for Financial Stability, Dinner Keynote Address at the Financial Markets Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Stone Mountain, Georgia, April 9, 2013

Fiscal Consolidation Strategy: An Update for the Budget Reform Proposal of March 2013, with John F. Cogan, Volker Wieland, Maik Wolters, SIEPR Discussion Paper, 2013

Remarks on Monetary Policy Challenges, Bank of England Conference on “Challenges to Central Banks in the 21st Century” in Honor of Mervyn King, March 26, 2013

International Monetary Coordination and the Great Deviation, Journal of Policy Modeling, March 2013, Wkg Paper, presented at the AEA Annual Meetings, January 5, 2013

The Effectiveness of Central Bank Independence Versus Policy Rules, Business Economics, Vol 48, No 3, Wkg Paper, presented at AEA Annual Meetings, January 4, 2013

Monetary Policy During the Past 30 Years With Lessons for the Next 30 Years, Presented at Cato Institute’s 30th Annual Monetary Conference on Money, Markets and Government: The Next 30 Years, November 15, 2012

Questions about Recent Monetary Policy, Presented at the Centennial Celebration of Milton Friedman and the Power of Ideas, University of Chicago, November 9, 2012

Fiscal Consolidation Strategy, with John F. Cogan, Volker Wieland, and Maik Wolters, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, February 2013 (Sept 21, 2012 version posted)

Monetary Policy Rules Work and Discretion Doesn’t: A Tale of Two Eras, Journal of Money Credit and Banking, September 2012

Surprising Comparative Properties of Monetary Models: Results from a New Monetary Model Database with Volker Wieland, Review of Economics and Statistics, August 2012

Estimated Impact of the Federal Reserve’s  Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program with Johannes C. Stroebel, International Journal of Central Banking June 2012

Commentary on Capital Flows and the Risk-Taking Channel of Monetary Policy, Discussion at BIS conference, June 2012

Why We Still Need To Read Hayek, The Hayek Prize Lecture (with introduction by Paul Gigot), May 31, 2012

A Comparison of Government Regulation of Risk  in the Financial Services and Nuclear Power Industries with F.A. Wolak, The Nuclear Enterprise, S. Drell and G. Shultz (Eds.) Hoover Press, Stanford, 2012

Towards an Exit Strategy: Discretion or Rules? Published in English and Italian with introduction by Alberto Mingardi and Andrea Battista, 2012, e-book on Kindle

Falling Behind the Curve: A Positive Analysis of Stop-Start Monetary Policies and the Great Inflation, (with Andrew Levin), in Michael Bordo and Athanasios Orphanides. (Eds.) The Great Inflation University of Chicago Press, 2012

What the Government Purchases Multiplier Actually Multiplied in the 2009 Stimulus Package, (with John F. Cogan), in Government Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery, Lee Ohanian, John B. Taylor, Ian Wright (Eds,) Hoover Press, Stanford, 2012

Swings in the Rules-Discretion Balance, In Rethinking Expectations: The Way Forward for Macroeconomics, Roman Frydman and Edmunds Phelps, (eds.), Princeton University Press, 2012.

 

Less Recent Papers

1968-2011

 

Recent Congressional Testimony

Requirements for Policy Rules for the Fed, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, July 10, 2014

After Unconventionnal Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, March 26, 2014

Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, February 11, 2014

Too Big to Fail, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and Bankruptcy Reform, Testimony Before The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, May 15, 2013

A Steadier Course for Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, April 18, 2013

A Review of Recent Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade Committee on Financial Services US House of Representatives, March 5, 2013

Government Regulatory Policies and the Delayed Economic Recovery, Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, September 20, 2012

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy of the Committee on Financial Services at the Hearing on “Improving the Federal Reserve System: Examining Legislation to Reform the Fed and Other Alternatives,” May 8, 2012

A Regulatory Moratorium as Part of a Comprehensive Economic Strategy, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee on the Judiciary, February 27, 2012

Testimony before the Joint Economic Committee at the Hearing on “Monetary Policy Going Forward: Why a Sound Dollar Boosts Growth and Employment,” March 27, 2012

The Need for a Comprehensive Economic Strategy, Testimony before the Committee on Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth, U.S. Senate, September 13, 2011

An Assessment of the President’s Proposal to Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs, Testimony Before the Committee on Oversight and Goverment Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending, U.S. House of Representatives, September 13, 2011

Why a Credible Budget Strategy Will Reduce Unemployment and Increase Economic Growth Testimony Before the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress of the U.S., June 21, 2011
Slides to Accompany Why a Credible Budget Strategy Will Reduce Unemployment and Increase Economic Growth Testimony, June 21, 2011

Evaluating the TARP, Senate Banking Committee Written Testimony, March 17, 2011

The 2009 Stimulus Package: Two Years Later, Testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, February 16, 2011

Economic Growth and Job Creation: The Road Forward, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, January 26, 2011

Assessing the Federal Policy Response to the Economic Crisis, Testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, September 22, 2010

Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, July 1, 2010

An Exit Rule for Monetary Policy, Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, March 25, 2010

Response to Questions from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, November 2009

Testimony, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, U.S. House of Representatives, October 22, 2009

Monetary Policy and Systemic Risk Regulation, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representative, July 9, 2009

Monetary Policy and the Recent Extraordinary Measures Taken by the Federal Reserve, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 26, 2009

The State of the Economy and Principles for Fiscal Stimulus, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Nov. 19, 2008

Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 26, 2008

 

Papers on the Long Boom and the Great Moderation

Monetary Policy and the Long Boom

Remarks on “Recent Changes in Trend and Cycle”

The Long Boom: Sosa, McGwire, and Greenspan (slides)

 

Op-Eds and Articles

A New Twist in Online Learning at Stanford, Wall Street Journal, September 1, 2014

The Fed’s Ad Hoc Departures from Rule-Based Monetary Policy Has Hurt the Economy, Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2014

How to Spark Another ‘Great Moderation’, Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2014

The Fed Needs to Return to Monetary Rules, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2014

Obama and the IMF Are Unhappy With Congress? Good, Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2014

The Economic Hokum of ‘Secular Stagnation’, Wall Street Journal, January 1, 2014

Economic Failure Causes Political Polarization, Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2013

The Weak Recovery Explains Rising Inequality, Not Vice Versa, Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2013

Once Again, the Fed Shies Away From the Exit Door, Wall Street Journal, July 12, 2013

Please Be Sure to Share Your Thoughts, Mr Governor, Financial Times, July 2, 2013

How to Let Too-Big-To-Fail Banks Fail (with Kenneth E. Scott), Wall Street Journal, May 15, 2013

A Better Strategy for Faster Growth (with George P. Shultz, Gary S. Becker, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer), Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2013

How the House Budget Would Boost the Economy, Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2013

Sequester Impact Small, Says Stanford Professor: Chart, Bloomberg, March 1, 2013

Fed Policy Is a Drag on the Economy, Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2013

Raw Deal, A critique of Michael Grunwald’s review of the stimulus, Foreign Policy, November 2012

Intro to Romneynomics, Defining Ideas, October 29, 2012

The Romney Cure for Obama-Induced Economic Ills, Wall Street Journal, October 4, 2012

The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In (with George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer), Wall Street Journal, September 17, 2012

The Hidden Costs of Monetary Easing (with Phil Gramm), Wall Street Journal,September 12, 2012

When Volcker Ruled, Wall Street Journal,September 8, 2012

The Road to Recovery, City Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, Summer 2012

Monetary Policy and the Next Crisis, Wall Street Journal, July 5, 2012

Slowing Foreclosures Will Harm Housing Market, San Francisco Chronicle (with Doug Holtz-Eakin), July 2, 2012

Rules for America’s Road to Recovery, Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2012

The Dangers of an Interventionist Fed, Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2012

A Better Grecian Bailout, Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2012

Economics for the Long Run, Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2012

Less recent op-eds and articles

 

Videos of Interviews and Talks

Fed’s Policy ‘Disappointing’ CNBC Squawk Box, September 10, 2014

Revolutionizing Higher Education CNBC Squawk Box, September 10, 2014

Nice-Squared Bretton Woods Conference , September 2, 2014

Legislation to Reform the Federal Reserve on Its 100-year Anniversary Testimony before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, July 10, 2014

Time to Reform the Fed CNBC Squawk Box, July 10, 2014

Sudden Interest Rate Hike Could Shake Markets: Pro CNBC Squawk Pretrade, June 25, 2014

John Taylor’s Growth Outlook CNBC’s Street Signs, May 29, 2014

Fed policy Under Fire CNBC’s Santelli Exchange, April 30, 2014

Fed policy hasn’t worked well: Expert CNBC’s Santelli Exchange, March 21, 2014 (2:34)

Federal Reserve Announces Pull Back on Stimulus as Bernanke Nears End of Tenure PBS NewsHour, December 18, 2013 (12:37)

Interview with Rick Santelli on the Fed (after his auction report) CNBC’s Santelli Exchange, December 18, 2013 (3:41)

Debate with Alan Greenspan and John Taylor (1) The Kudlow Report, December 10, 2013 (4:27)

Debate with Alan Greenspan and John Taylor (2) The Kudlow Report, December 10, 2013 (4:23)

After 100 years, What’s Next for the Fed Chart Cast from Hoover Retreat, November 12, 2013 (26:25)

John Taylor Urges Fed Return to Predictable Policy, Bloomberg’s Market Makers November 1, 2013 (6:04)

Yellen to return to old Fed policies? Fox Business, November 1, 2013 (3:59)

A Climate Change in Economic Policy Speech at Dallas Fed, October 3, 2013 (12:54)

Summers out, Yellen in? CNBC’s Kudlow Report, September 17, 2013 (11:28)

Is Janet Yellen the likely pick for Fed? Fox Business, September 16, 2013 (6:20)

The Debt Limit Showdown CNBC’s Rise Above, August 27, 2013 (7:22)

Fed Should Be Deliberative on Tapering, Taylor Says Bloomberg’s Street Smart , August 23, 2013 (7:57)

The 5 Principles to Restoring the U.S. Economy Fox Business , August 22, 2013 (5:56)

Will We See the Fed Begin to Taper in September? Bloomberg TV, Bottom Line, July 31, 2013 (5:39)

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity Book TV , July 29, 2013 (19:19)

Taper Talk & the Fed Debate on the Kudlow Report , June 14, 2013 (8:30)

Introduction to Yang Jisheng, author of Tombstone 2013 Hayek Prize winner, May 29, 2013 (7:14)

Worst Recovery We’ve Seen in Years CNBC, April 30, 2013 (4:24)

Complete US Growth Likely 3 Percent in First Quarter Bloomberg TV, April 22, 2013 (6:27)

Bulging Budget Bothers Market Master CNBC’s, Squawk Box, April 12, 2013 (4:31)

Slowest Recovery in History  Wall Street Journal, Uncommon Knowledge, April 2013 (2:29)

Is There Anything We Can Do? Wall Street Journal, Uncommon Knowledge. April, 2013 (1:46)

Complete Interview on the Economic Recovery Wall Street Journal, Uncommon Knowledge, April 2013 (34:32)

Economic Freedom, Wealth, and the Alleviation of Poverty, Lecture in Stanford’s Ethics of Wealth Series, March 14, 2013 (1:23:51)

Beyond the Cuts, CNBC, March 5, 2013 (3:59)

How Uncertainty is Hurting the Economy, CNBC’s Squawk Box, February 7, 2013 (2:38)

Why the Economy is Stuck in Neutral, CNBC’s Squawk Box, February 7, 2013 (5:09)

John Taylor on Spending Cuts, Fox Business, February 7, 2013 (3:42)

Where’s the Inflation?, Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal, February 7, 2013 (4:50)

John Taylor on Fed’s Dual Mandate, Bloomberg’s Bottom Line, February 7, 2013 (5:37)

Slow Growth Is Biggest Economic Challenge Facing Incoming President, (with Austan Goolsbee), PBS NewsHour November 2, 2012 (11:39)

Our Unemployment Number is a Tragedy, Bloomberg’s in the Loop, November 2, 2012, (4:24)

We Could Be Doing Better, CNN, November 2, 2012 (2:56)

Recovery Would Have Been Better Without Quantitative Easing, Fox Business News, October 26, 2012

Part II of Recovery Would Have Been Better…, Fox Business News, October 26, 2012

Taylor: Romney Did a Terrific Job on Economy October 4, 2012, Bloomberg’s In the Loop (2:35)

Discussion-Debate with Kenneth Arrow on the Economy and the 2012 Election, October 9, 2012 (1:26:54)

Is This a Recovery in Name Only? September 21, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (7:44)

Will Fed’s Sprint to Print Ease Economic Woes?  September 21, 2012, CNCB’s Squawk Box (7:43)

Will Bernanke Announce Policy Changes in Jackson Hole? August 30, 2012, Fox Business (6:38)

Will Americans Buy Romney’s Proposals to Turn Around the Economy? August 28, 2012, PBS Newshour (8:41)

Taylor Says Fed Should Return to Rules-Based Policy August 28, 2012, Bloomberg Street Smart (9:11)

The Biggest Threats to the U.S. Economy August 23, 2012, Fox Business Willis Report (4:53)

Romney’s Economic Proposal Gaining Support Among Economists?, August 21, 2012 Fox Business (4:04)

What Can the Fed Do to Prop Up the Economy July 31, 2012, Fox Business (3:47)

Interview on Hayek and Policy Rules with Rick Santelli June 26, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk on the Street (6:25)

Interview on Economics, Leading Economists Series, Center for Advanced Studies in Economic Efficiency, December 2011

How US Can Reclaim Its Economic Strength? June 8, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (6:25)

The Eighth Annual Hayek Lecture June 1, 2012, The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (57:48)

Monetary, Fiscal Policies Stall Growth, Taylor Says May 31, 2012, Bloomberg Television’s Inside Track (4:34)

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity April 19, 2012, C-Span (37:47)

Tracking Gains in the Job Market April 9, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (6:53)

The Power of the Markets April 9, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (3:55)

Economic Debate: John Taylor and Larry Summers April 4, 2012, SIEPR (1:14:00)

Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity April 3, 2012, Reason TV (5:31)

Stocks Swing Higher March 8, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (7:27)

Bernanke’s Testimony and the Economy March 1, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (8:46)

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity February 24, 2012, The Heritage Foundation (37:20)

The Greek Bailout Equation February 22, 2012, Wall Street Journal TV  (6:36)

Taylor on U.S. Budget Deficit February 21, 2012, Bloomberg Television’s Street Smart  (4:10)

Will Greece Get Bailout Package? February 14, 2012, CNBC (3:13)

Taylor on U.S. Deficit, Fed, Greece February 6, 2012, Bloomberg TV (7:09)

Economics for the Long Run January 24, 2012, Wall Street Journal TV (8:27)

Restoring Prosperity: Trust Markets, Not Bailouts January 24, 2012, The Street (3:13)

John Taylor’s Spending Rules to Live By January 23, 2012, Wall Street Journal TV (8:27)

The 5 Steps to Fixing the Economy January 20, 2012, Fox Business’ Willis Report (4:24)

Taylor on Fed Policy, US Economy January 20, 2012, Bloomberg’s Surveillance Midday (12:51)

Carnegie’s Meltzer on Fed Policy, Taylor Rule January 20, 2012, Bloomberg’s Surveillance Midday with Allan Meltzer (7:22)

Principles to Restore the Economy January 20, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (9:58)

Market Anticipates FOMC January 20, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box, segment on monetary policy with Steve Liesman (6:55)

“Economic Principles for Growth” January 20, 2012, CNBC’s Squawk Box (1:30)

Less recent videos of interviews and talks

 

Podcasts

John Taylor on the John Batchelor Show June 3, 2014, John Bachelor Show.

Taylor on Hays Advantage May 29, 2014, Hays Advantage, Bloomberg Radio.

Taylor on the Larry Kudlow Show March 22, 2014, The Larry Kudlow Show (86:34).

Taylor on the Larry Kudlow Show February 15, 2014, The Larry Kudlow Show (78:28).

John Taylor on the John Batchelor Show January 14, 2014, John Bachelor Show (19:27).

Extreme Policies Are a Big Problem, Despite Naysayer November 5, 2013, John Batchelor Show (10:07).

What Will It Take to Get the US Economy Moving? October 3, 2013, National Press Club Update-1 (9:47).

Republican Convention Coverage Part 2 August 30, 2012, WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show (44:25).

The Romney Economic Plan August 29, 2012, NPR’s On Point (47:31).

Taylor on a Gold Standard and a Rules Based Fed Policy August 27, 2012, Hays Advantage (15:29).

First Principles and the Rule of Law June 26, 2012, John Bachelor Show.

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity June 18, 2012, Money, Riches, and Wealth (21:55).

Fixing the weak US economy requires more long-term policy June 5, 2012, Market Place (4:04).

John Taylor’s 2012 Hayek Prize May 15, 2012, John Batchelor Show.

2012 Hayek Prize for First Principles May 15, 2012, John Batchelor Show (39:47).

John Batchelor Show Debate at the Hoover Institution, April 28-29, 2012

Keynes and Hayek, with attention to Milton Friedman’s conversation on Keynes and Hayek. Nicholas Wapshott, John Taylor, Michael Boskin, Russ Roberts. (Three segments broadcast on April 28 and 29, 2012 on the John Batchelor Show)

Segment 1

Segment 2

Segment 3

Taylor on Rules, Discretion and First Principles April 30, 2012, EconTalk. 1:02:34

Taylor on the John Batchelor Show April 3, 2012, John Batchelor Show.

First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity March 3, 2012, Larry Kudlow Show.

John Taylor on Returning Economy to Prosperity February 27, 2012, The Foundry (7:27).

Rebecca Costa’s Interview with John B. Taylor February 17, 2012, The Costa Report (51:20).

Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity February 16, 2012, KQED’s Forum (52:00).

John Taylor on Payne Nation January 25, 2012, Payne Nation.

John Taylor on the Tom O’Brien Show January 25, 2012, Tom O’Brien Show (starts around 1:21:00).

Stanford’s Taylor Says Economic Crisis Not Over January 20, 2010, Bloomberg’s Surveillance (13:50).

First Principles Broadcast on January 17, 2012, John Batchelor Show (starts at 19:27).

Less recent podcasts

 

Economics Teaching

Monetary Theory and Policy Lecture Slides and Syllabus for Stanford Ph.D. course, Spring 2013

Lessons From the Financial Crisis for Teaching Economics, Slide Presentation for AEA Conference on Teaching. June 2011

Economics 1A  Debt Charts from Lecture 2, S&P 500 Box, Adam Smith on the Woolen Coat; Smith Bio, The Role of Private Organizations, Rose Friedman, McKinnon on China, Lehman Weekend, JPMorgan-Money Multiplier, Monetary Imbalance Table-GDW, Phelps On Tunisia, Shultz on Steady as You Go, Requirements for Policy Rules for the FOMC

Caps for Sale: The Economic Side of the Story Stanford Economics Graduation, June 2008

Remarks at Stanford Economics Graduation Ceremony 1999

Economics 169, Spring 2008

Economics 212, Spring 2008

Ideas for the Economics Lecture Innovative Techniques for Teaching Economics

Surprise Side Economics: Ideas for Introductory Economics

Teaching Modern Macroeconomics at the Principles Level

 

Earlier Editions of Textbooks

Economics, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Economics, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Economics, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Economics, Sixth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Microeconomics, Sixth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Second Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Third Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Fifth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Principles of Macroeconomics, Sixth Edition, Houghton Mifflin

Macroeconomics , Principles Text for Australian Economy with Bruce Littleboy, Third Edition, John Wiley

Microeconomics, Principles Text for Australian Economy with Lionel Frost), Third Edition, John Wiley

Handbook of Macroeconomics, (Editor with Michael Woodford)

Macroeconomics Intermediate Text with Robert E. Hall and David Papell, Sixth Edition, WW

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Republican Donor Base Says So long it’s been good to know you and Voter Base Says — Hit The Road Jack — Mitt Romney — American Pie — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Climate, Comedy, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Family, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Story 1: Republican Donor Base Says So long it’s been good to know you and Voter Base Says — Hit The Road Jack — Mitt Romney — American Pie — Videos

Mitt Romney Cartoon-NottRomney Mitt-Flip-Flop-Romney-Cartoon occupy-wall-street-mitt-romney-cartoonJanuary 16, 2015bush_romney

Woody Guthrie – So long it’s been good to know you

Romney Says He Won’t Run for President in 2016

FULL AUDIO: Mitt Romney explains decision not to run in 2016

Mitt Romney will not run for President

Mitt Romney Vs. Jeb Bush. Who Will Be On The Republican Ticket In 2016?

Laura Ingraham: Rand Paul is almost as bad as Jeb Bush on amnesty

Laura Ingraham “super disappointed” in Rand Paul for opposing mass deportation

Laura Ingraham: Rand Paul ISIS flip-flop a mistake

Laura Ingraham goofs on Rand Paul’s newfound neoconservatism

Rand Paul vs. Charles Krauthammer on Iran

Charles Krauthammer: Rand Paul “has a lot of political genius”

Rand Paul says He Would Give a Legalized Status to Illegal Immigrants

RAND PAUL Explains LIBERTARIANISM

Why is Rand Paul the right choice for America? Rand Paul 2016.

Rand Paul: Voters ready for Libertarian Republican in 2016

Libertarians need to get over Rand Paul

Ray Charles – Hit The Road Jack

Don McLean – American Pie

“American Pie”

[Intro]
A long, long time ago
I can still remember how that music used to make me smile
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And maybe they’d be happy for a whileBut February made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver
Bad news on the doorstep
I couldn’t take one more stepI can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died[Chorus]
So bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”[Verse 1]
Did you write the book of love
And do you have faith in God above
If the Bible tells you so?
Now do you believe in rock and roll?
Can music save your mortal soul?
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?Well, I know that you’re in love with him
‘Cause I saw you dancin’ in the gym
You both kicked off your shoes
Man, I dig those rhythm and bluesI was a lonely teenage broncin’ buck
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck
But I knew I was out of luck
The day the music died[Chorus]
I started singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”[Verse 2]
Now for ten years we’ve been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rollin’ stone
But that’s not how it used to be
When the jester sang for the king and queen
In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
And a voice that came from you and meOh, and while the king was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returnedAnd while Lenin read a book on Marx
The quartet practiced in the park
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died[Chorus]
We were singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”[Verse 3]
Helter skelter in a summer swelter
The birds flew off with a fallout shelter
Eight miles high and falling fast
It landed foul on the grass
The players tried for a forward pass
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast

Now the halftime air was sweet perfume
While the sergeants played a marching tune
We all got up to dance
Oh, but we never got the chance

‘Cause the players tried to take the field
The marching band refused to yield
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?

[Chorus]
We started singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
And singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”

[Verse 4]
Oh, and there we were all in one place
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again
So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
‘Cause fire is the devil’s only friend

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in Hell
Could break that Satan’s spell

And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died

He was singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
And singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”

[Outro]
I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news
But she just smiled and turned away
I went down to the sacred store
Where I’d heard the music years before
But the man there said the music wouldn’t play

And in the streets, the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken

And the three men I admire most
The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died

And they were singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
Singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die
This’ll be the day that I die”

[Chorus]
They were singin’ bye-bye, Miss American Pie
Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey in Rye
And singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die”

 

Mitt Romney will NOT run for President again: Former Massachusetts governor says he will not mount a third campaign

  • ‘I’m not organizing a PAC or taking donations; I’m not hiring a campaign team,’ he told donors during a Friday morning conference call
  • Jeb Bush boxed him out of access to big donors by getting in the race early with an exploratory committee
  • Romney and his wife had told reporters time and time again that he wasn’t running in 2016 but few believed them
  • CNN aired part of the private call live as Romney thanked his inner circle and said he thought another leader would have the best chance 
  • Romney will have dinner with Chris Christie on Friday night, raising new eyebrows about the aftermath of his bowing out 
  • White House paid him a backhanded compliment for messages about poverty, saying Republicans had used it as ‘a talking point’ 

Mitt Romney, who stumbled his way to a lackluster finish in the 2012 presidential election as the Republican nominee, will not make a third run at the political world’s ultimate prize.

The former Massachusetts governor told top donors Friday morning that ‘after putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.’

‘I’ve been asked, and will certainly be asked again,’ he said, ‘if there are any circumstances whatsoever that might develop that could change my mind. That seems unlikely.’

‘Accordingly, I’m not organizing a PAC or taking donations; I’m not hiring a campaign team.’

Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke at Mississippi State University on Thursday as he prepared to announce that he'll be sitting out the 2016 presidential race

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (left) campaigned with Romney in 2012, but he's the main beneficiary of Mitt's decidion to drop out of the next race early

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (left) campaigned with Romney in 2012, but he’s the main beneficiary of Mitt’s decidion to drop out of the next race early

That giant noise you hear this morning in suburban New York is the sound of opposition-research binders being shredded in the offices of Hillary Clinton, who was looking forward to taking on Romney in 2016

That giant noise you hear this morning in suburban New York is the sound of opposition-research binders being shredded in the offices of Hillary Clinton, who was looking forward to taking on Romney in 2016

Mitt Romney will NOT run for president in 2016

Daily Mail Online obtained Romney’s prepared remarks from a consultant close to the former governor.

The White House reacted Friday by paying him a backhanded compliment.

Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said at the beginning of his press briefing that he hadn’t spoken to the president about Romney’ss decision, but offered his own observations.

Romney, he said, is ‘a man of great faith and a man who has tremendous loyalty and commitment to his country’ and ‘is worthy of our respect.’

‘He did say in recent days that he hoped that we can have a more robust debate in this country about what we could do to put in place policies that benefit middle class families,’ Earnest noted, before dismissing Republicans whom he said ‘have used the middle class as a talking point.’

JEB BUSH’S FACEBOOK FAREWELL TO MITT

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush posted this message on Facebook shortly after Romney’s inner-circle conference call ended:

‘Mitt Romney has been a leader in our party for many years. There are few people who have worked harder to elect Republicans across the country than he has. Though I’m sure today’s decision was not easy, I know that Mitt Romney will never stop advocating for renewing America’s promise through upward mobility, encouraging free enterprise and strengthening our national defense. 

‘Mitt is a patriot and I join many in hoping his days of serving our nation and our party are not over. I look forward to working with him to ensure all Americans have a chance to rise up.

‘Columba and I wish Mitt, Ann and their entire family the very best.’

‘We are seeing more rhetoric from Republicans indicating what was a previously unstated concern for people who aren’t at the top,’ Earnest said.

‘All of a sudden … some Republicans seem to be changing their tune.’

Two weeks ago Earnest seemed to mock reports that Romney would be seeking the White House in 2016, addressing ‘reports that Governor Romney is considering gettng the band back together again.’

Obama drew jeers from Democratic lawmakers on Thursday night in Philadelphia when he said that ‘a former presidential candidate on the other side’ was ‘suddenly … just deeply concerned about poverty.’

‘That’s great. Let’s go. Come on. Let’s do something about it,’ he said.

Earnest dismissed the nation’s momentary fascination with a third Romney run.

‘I’m confident that Governor Romney will be someone whose endorsement will be, um, sought,’ he said Friday.

He also said Obama is ‘not disappointed’ that Romney won’t be part of the 2016 race.

Romney’s decision to end his much-discusion flirtation with another White House run comes just hours after a Fox News poll put Romney at the top of the pack, leading former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and others by a considerable margin

His 21 per cent support among Republican voters was nearly double that of a second-place cluster that included Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with 11 per cent each, and Bush, with 10 per cent.

Romney’s infamous ‘47%’ comment and his reaction

Bush posted a statement on Facebook shortly after Romney made his announcement.

‘Though I’m sure today’s decision was not easy, I know that Mitt Romney will never stop advocating for renewing America’s promise through upward mobility, encouraging free enterprise and strengthening our national defense,’ he wrote.

‘Mitt is a patriot and I join many in hoping his days of serving our nation and our party are not over. I look forward to working with him to ensure all Americans have a chance to rise up.’

Jeb poached a key member of Romney’s poltical organization on Thursday.

David Kochel, an Iowa-based consultant who worked on ROmney’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns, went to work for Right to Rise, Bush’s new political action committee.

Romney’s first shot at the presidency came in 2008, when he lost the GOP nomination to Arizona Sen. John McCain.

He risked losing a third time to any of nearly two dozen other potential candidates, although Bush’s entry into the picture last month has caused the most concern – at least from a fundraising perspective.

‘Mitt Romney 3.0 was worried about Jeb Bush 1.0 freezing him out of the big money,’ a GOP campaign consultant in the early primary state of New Hampshire warned Daily Mail Online on Friday morning. ‘That’s why he’s sitting out.’

‘Let’s face it: Jeb has a month-long head start. Mitt was already running out of billionaires who haden’t already made commitments.’

SIX DAYS AGO: Broadcaster Larry King tweeted on Jan. 24 that Romney told him a decision would be forthcoming within two weeks

SIX DAYS AGO: Broadcaster Larry King tweeted on Jan. 24 that Romney told him a decision would be forthcoming within two weeks

He seemed to recognize that reality on Friday, but framed his decision in terms of what some in the party had begun to call ‘Romney fatigue.’

‘I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president,’ he said. ‘You know that I have wanted to be that president.’

‘But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president.’

At the same time, Romney clung to the idea that his financing and organization would have been adequate to the task.

‘Our finance calls made it clear we would have enough funding to be more than competitive and with few exceptions our field political leadership is ready and enthusiastic about a new race.,’ he told supporters.

‘The reaction of Republican voters across the country was both surprising and heartening.’

CNN made waves Friday morning by airing part of the Romney conference call, which was a private conversation and not meant for the press.

Romney would have faced considerable challenges if he had run.

In addition to his complaint in 2012 that ’47 per cent’ of Americans who depend on government benefits to make ends meet would never vote for him, he has said over and over in the past two years that he’s no longer interested in the White House.

‘Oh, no, no, no,’ he told the New York Times twelve months ago. ‘No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. I’m not running again.’

WINNER? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie could benefit from Romney's disappearance in presidential polls as much of his support among self-described 'moderates' had swung to Romney – and Romney himself will dine with Christie on Friday night

WINNER? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie could benefit from Romney’s disappearance in presidential polls as much of his support among self-described ‘moderates’ had swung to Romney – and Romney himself will dine with Christie on Friday night

‘In February 2014, he said on Meet the Press: ‘You know, I’m not Ronald Reagan. And I’m not running for president. We’ve got some very good people who are considering the race. And I’m looking forward to supporting someone who I think will have the best shot of defeating whoever it is the Democrats put up.’

In June 2014 he told another NBC News interviewer that ‘I’m not running for president.’

‘I’m not running, I’m not planning on running, and I’ve got nothing new on that story,’ he told Bloomberg in October.

Ann Romney, the once upon a time would-be first lady, piled on too.

‘Done, completely,’ she said then. ‘Not only Mitt and I are done, but the kids are done. Done. Done. Done.’

Romney jumped back into the presidential discussion on Jan. 10, when he told a small group of former donors in New York that he was eyeing another White House run.

But it’s over for him as of Friday morning, as it became apparent that many of his past supporters and major fundraisers had defected to the Bush camp.

One told the Associated Press this week, ‘I have turned the page.’

Several called other candidates and their campaign consultants, pledgign support to presidential hopefuls including Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Christie got a boost from news that he will have dinner with Romney on Friday night.

That could indicate the Utah Republican’s desire to box Jeb Bush out and help a different moderate alternative rise to take his place.

MITT ROMNEY’S PREPARED STATEMENT TO DONORS

‘Let me begin by letting you know who else is on this call, besides Ann and me. There are a large number of people who signed on to be leaders of our 2016 finance effort. In addition, state political leadership from several of the early primary states are on the line. And here in New York City, and on the phone, are people who have been helping me think through how to build a new team, as well as supporters from the past who have all been kind enough to volunteer their time during this deliberation stage. Welcome, and thank you. Your loyalty and friendship, and your desire to see the country with new, competent and conservative leadership warms my heart.

‘After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.

‘Let me give you some of my thinking. First, I am convinced that with the help of the people on this call, we could win the nomination. Our finance calls made it clear that we would have enough funding to be more than competitive. With few exceptions, our field political leadership is ready and enthusiastic about a new race. And the reaction of Republican voters across the country was both surprising and heartening. I know that early poll numbers move up and down a great deal during a campaign, but we would have no doubt started in a strong position. One poll out just today shows me gaining support and leading the next closest contender by nearly two to one. I also am leading in all of the four early states. So I am convinced that we could win the nomination, but fully realize it would have been difficult test and a hard fight.

‘I also believe with the message of making the world safer, providing opportunity to every American regardless of the neighborhood they live in, and working to break the grip of poverty, I would have the best chance of beating the eventual Democrat nominee, but that is before the other contenders have had the opportunity to take their message to the voters.

‘I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.

‘I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president. You know that I have wanted to be that president. But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president. You can’t imagine how hard it is for Ann and me to step aside, especially knowing of your support and the support of so many people across the country. But we believe it is for the best of the Party and the nation.

‘I’ve been asked, and will certainly be asked again if there are any circumstances whatsoever that might develop that could change my mind. That seems unlikely. Accordingly, I’m not organizing a PAC or taking donations; I’m not hiring a campaign team.

‘I encourage all of you on this call to stay engaged in the critical process of selecting a Republican nominee for President. Please feel free to sign up on a campaign for a person who you believe may become our best nominee.

‘I believe a Republican winning back the White House is essential for our country, and I will do whatever I can to make that happen.

‘To all my supporters, friends and family who worked both tirelessly and loyally to support my campaigns in the past, I will always be deeply appreciative. What you have already done is a tribute to your patriotism. We are overwhelmed and humbled by your loyalty to us, by your generosity of spirit, and by your friendship. God bless you all.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Laurence H. Meyer — A Term At The Fed — Videos

Posted on February 7, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Lawrence Meyera term at the fed_

Interview with Laurence Meyer :: Forefront :: Part 1

Interview with Laurence Meyer :: Forefront :: Part 2

Interview with Laurence Meyer :: Forefront :: Part 3

Laurence Meyer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laurence Meyer
Born March 8, 1944 (age 70)
Bronx, New York
Nationality United States
Field Macroeconomics
School or tradition
Neo-Keynesian economics
Alma mater MIT (Ph.D., 1970)
Yale (B.A., 1965)
Influences Hyman Minsky

Laurence Meyer (born March 8, 1944) is an economist and was a United States Federal Reserve System governor from June 1996 to January 2002.

Meyer received a B.A. (magna cum laude) from Yale University in 1965 and a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970. He then taught at Washington University in St. Louis for 27 years. Meyer also ran an economic consulting firm, Laurence H. Meyer and Associates, with two former students. After he moved to the Fed, he sold his interest in the firm and it renamed itself Macroeconomic Advisers. He won several economic forecasting awards while running the company.

He was nominated to the Fed by President Bill Clinton along with Alice Rivlin in 1996. At the Fed, Meyer was one of the Governors most ready to raise interest rates, because he believed that the economy was operating near full capacity, and especially that employment was near the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or the rate that would cause inflation. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman at that time, was one of the leaders of the idea that improved productivity would allow the Fed to keep interest rates low without causing inflation.

After leaving the Fed, Meyer became a Distinguished Scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He also resumed working with Macroeconomic Advisers.

Publications

  • Meyer, Laurence (2004). A Term at the Fed : An Insider’s View. Collins. ISBN 0-06-054270-5.

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Meyer

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch Says Illegal Aliens Have A Right To Work in America — No They Do Not — They Should Be Deported — It Is The Law — Vote Against Nominee — Who Broke The Immigration System By Not Enforcing The Law — Presidents Bush and Obama — Videos

Posted on January 28, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,