"The notion that science can improve health has been borne out in Islam for many centuries. There is a clear belief that through knowledge you can improve not just medicine, but the lot of man.
"I was born in Algeria, in a small town called Nidroma. I became very interested in medicine because I had an uncle who was a radiologist.
"I came to America in 1975, and everybody said, 'Johns Hopkins is the real Mecca of medicine, if you could go there, you'd do great.' I was totally embraced by the people there, my professors. Everybody told me, 'We're all immigrants here, we're all from different places, and we all meld together.'
"The mission of the National Institutes of Health is to advance knowledge about medical care and diseases that affect mankind. There are 18,000 people working here in Washington, and 45,000 projects that the institute funds throughout the world.
"When we develop a vaccine, it is made available worldwide. When we develop a new treatment, it is available worldwide. So it impacts on the health of everyone on earth.
"I was nominated to this position by President George Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. What I can tell Muslims around the world is, I don't think there is any other country in the world where different people from different countries are as accepted and welcomed as members of a society and as good citizens."
Sabtu, 29 Maret 2008
Adam Smith
Adam Smith FRSE (baptised June 5 (OS) / June 16 (NS) 1723 – July 17, 1790) was a Scottish moral philosopher and a pioneering political economist. He is a major contributor to the modern perception of free market economics. One of the key figures of the intellectual movement known as the Scottish Enlightenment, he is known primarily as the author of two treatises: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter was one of the earliest attempts to systematically study the historical development of industry and commerce in Europe, as well as a sustained attack on the doctrines of mercantilism. Smith's work helped to build the foundation of the modern academic discipline of free market economics and provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade, capitalism, and libertarianism.
Career in Edinburgh and Glasgow
In 1748 Smith began delivering public lectures in Edinburgh under the patronage of the Lord Kames. Some of these dealt with rhetoric and belles-lettres, but later he took up the subject of "the progress of opulence," and it was then, in his middle or late 20s, that he first expounded the economic philosophy of "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty" which he was later to proclaim to the world in his Wealth of Nations. In about 1750 he met the philosopher David Hume, who was his senior by over a decade. The alignments of opinion that can be found within the details of their respective writings covering history, politics, philosophy, economics, and religion indicate that they both shared a closer intellectual alliance and friendship than with the others who were to play important roles during the emergence of what has come to be known as the Scottish Enlightenment[2]; he frequented The Poker Club of Edinburgh.
In 1751 Smith was appointed chair of logic at the University of Glasgow, transferring in 1752 to the Chair of Moral Philosophy, once occupied by his famous teacher, Francis Hutcheson. His lectures covered the fields of ethics, rhetoric, jurisprudence, political economy, and "police and revenue". In 1759 he published his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, embodying some of his Glasgow lectures. This work, which established Smith's reputation in his day, was concerned with how human communication depends on sympathy between agent and spectator (that is, the individual and other members of society). His analysis of language evolution was somewhat superficial, as shown only 14 years later by a more rigorous examination of primitive language evolution by Lord Monboddo in his Of the Origin and Progress of Language[3]. Smith's capacity for fluent, persuasive, if rather rhetorical argument, is much in evidence. He bases his explanation not, as the third Lord Shaftesbury and Hutcheson had done, on a special "moral sense"; nor, as Hume did, on utility; but on sympathy.
Smith now began to give more attention to jurisprudence and economics in his lecture and less to his theories of morals. An impression can be obtained as to the development of his ideas on political economy from the notes of his lectures taken down by a student in about 1763 which were later edited by Edwin Cannan[4], and from what Scott, its discoverer and publisher, describes as "An Early Draft of Part of The Wealth of Nations", which he dates about 1763. Cannan's work appeared as Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms. A fuller version was published as Lectures on Jurisprudence in the Glasgow Edition of 1776.
Career in Edinburgh and Glasgow
In 1748 Smith began delivering public lectures in Edinburgh under the patronage of the Lord Kames. Some of these dealt with rhetoric and belles-lettres, but later he took up the subject of "the progress of opulence," and it was then, in his middle or late 20s, that he first expounded the economic philosophy of "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty" which he was later to proclaim to the world in his Wealth of Nations. In about 1750 he met the philosopher David Hume, who was his senior by over a decade. The alignments of opinion that can be found within the details of their respective writings covering history, politics, philosophy, economics, and religion indicate that they both shared a closer intellectual alliance and friendship than with the others who were to play important roles during the emergence of what has come to be known as the Scottish Enlightenment[2]; he frequented The Poker Club of Edinburgh.
In 1751 Smith was appointed chair of logic at the University of Glasgow, transferring in 1752 to the Chair of Moral Philosophy, once occupied by his famous teacher, Francis Hutcheson. His lectures covered the fields of ethics, rhetoric, jurisprudence, political economy, and "police and revenue". In 1759 he published his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, embodying some of his Glasgow lectures. This work, which established Smith's reputation in his day, was concerned with how human communication depends on sympathy between agent and spectator (that is, the individual and other members of society). His analysis of language evolution was somewhat superficial, as shown only 14 years later by a more rigorous examination of primitive language evolution by Lord Monboddo in his Of the Origin and Progress of Language[3]. Smith's capacity for fluent, persuasive, if rather rhetorical argument, is much in evidence. He bases his explanation not, as the third Lord Shaftesbury and Hutcheson had done, on a special "moral sense"; nor, as Hume did, on utility; but on sympathy.
Smith now began to give more attention to jurisprudence and economics in his lecture and less to his theories of morals. An impression can be obtained as to the development of his ideas on political economy from the notes of his lectures taken down by a student in about 1763 which were later edited by Edwin Cannan[4], and from what Scott, its discoverer and publisher, describes as "An Early Draft of Part of The Wealth of Nations", which he dates about 1763. Cannan's work appeared as Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms. A fuller version was published as Lectures on Jurisprudence in the Glasgow Edition of 1776.
Adidas
Adidas AG (ISIN: DE0005003404) is a German sports apparel manufacturer, part of the Adidas Group, which is the second largest sportswear manufacturer worldwide. The company was named after its founder, Adolf (Adi) Dassler, who started producing shoes in the 1920s in Herzogenaurach near Nuremberg with the help of his brother Rudolf Dassler who later formed rival shoe company PUMA AG. It registered as adidas AG on 18 August 1949 (with lower-case lettering). The company's clothing and shoe designs typically feature three parallel stripes, and this same motif is incorporated into Adidas's current official logo. The company revenue for 2005 was listed at 6.6 billion euro, or about 8.4 billion U.S. dollars.
Adidas perfumery and personal care products are manufactured by Coty, Inc. under license worldwide.
Adidas perfumery and personal care products are manufactured by Coty, Inc. under license worldwide.
Affordable Call Centers for Small Businesses
Outsourcing has turned so many services into commodities that the personal touch that used to distinguish one business among its competitors is rarer today than it has ever been. Consequently, that personal touch is also, perhaps, more crucial than ever for a business that wants to pull ahead in a competitive marketplace.
Delivering that “personal touch” may not necessarily mean that your own employees are responsible for all the contact your company makes with customers. If you choose wisely, you can get a fully outsourced call center service that can uphold your standards for good customer interaction.
You may also decide to develop your call center services in-house, in which case you can support your customer service or sales staff with technology that helps to route calls, offer multiple ways to interact with customers, and manage the information your customers provide. As a third approach to setting up your company’s call center, you may choose a hybrid option, relying partly on outsourced services and partly on your own call center system and personnel to take care of all your customer contact.
The good news for small businesses is that there are affordable tools and services in all these call center options. “Call centers are no longer formal, complex, and expensive solutions only for those with dedicated agents,” says Michael Margolis, chief technical officer for SMB solutions at telecommunications equipment manufacturer Avaya, based in Basking Ridge, N.J. “Managing communications — and integrating the management of that information along with other aspects of customer relations, including customer history — is now available to businesses of any size at a fraction of the cost from 5 to 10 years ago.
This buyer’s guide explains the functions that come with call centers, introducing the special functions that make a contact center different from the traditional phone-only interaction of the traditional call center. We explain the different levels of call center service and technology, from fully outsourced solutions to the software and hardware that will allow you to set up your own in-house contact center.
When you get the information you need to start shopping, we can help you get bids from targeted, qualified vendors. You fill out a questionnaire and our partner, BuyerZone, can match you with companies that can tell you more about their offerings. You can check out the following bid request forms:
call center services,
telemarketing services
call center software
IVR (interactive voice response) systems
If you already have a sales or service staff and are looking for ways to make their job easier while smoothing out your service, read an overview of the components that make contact centers such powerful tools in the What Is a Contact Center? section of this guide. You can also skip to the more detailed discussion of call center technology.
If you’re investigating call center options for a short-term project, you will probably be interested in the discussion of call center outsourcing options.
Our guide touches on the choices available for outbound call centers, but you can get more in-depth information about telemarketing options in the Buyer’s Guide to Telemarketing Services.
Delivering that “personal touch” may not necessarily mean that your own employees are responsible for all the contact your company makes with customers. If you choose wisely, you can get a fully outsourced call center service that can uphold your standards for good customer interaction.
You may also decide to develop your call center services in-house, in which case you can support your customer service or sales staff with technology that helps to route calls, offer multiple ways to interact with customers, and manage the information your customers provide. As a third approach to setting up your company’s call center, you may choose a hybrid option, relying partly on outsourced services and partly on your own call center system and personnel to take care of all your customer contact.
The good news for small businesses is that there are affordable tools and services in all these call center options. “Call centers are no longer formal, complex, and expensive solutions only for those with dedicated agents,” says Michael Margolis, chief technical officer for SMB solutions at telecommunications equipment manufacturer Avaya, based in Basking Ridge, N.J. “Managing communications — and integrating the management of that information along with other aspects of customer relations, including customer history — is now available to businesses of any size at a fraction of the cost from 5 to 10 years ago.
This buyer’s guide explains the functions that come with call centers, introducing the special functions that make a contact center different from the traditional phone-only interaction of the traditional call center. We explain the different levels of call center service and technology, from fully outsourced solutions to the software and hardware that will allow you to set up your own in-house contact center.
When you get the information you need to start shopping, we can help you get bids from targeted, qualified vendors. You fill out a questionnaire and our partner, BuyerZone, can match you with companies that can tell you more about their offerings. You can check out the following bid request forms:
call center services,
telemarketing services
call center software
IVR (interactive voice response) systems
If you already have a sales or service staff and are looking for ways to make their job easier while smoothing out your service, read an overview of the components that make contact centers such powerful tools in the What Is a Contact Center? section of this guide. You can also skip to the more detailed discussion of call center technology.
If you’re investigating call center options for a short-term project, you will probably be interested in the discussion of call center outsourcing options.
Our guide touches on the choices available for outbound call centers, but you can get more in-depth information about telemarketing options in the Buyer’s Guide to Telemarketing Services.
Competition with Boeing
For a comparison of Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 orders, click here.
For a comparison of Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8 orders, click here.
Airbus is in tight competition with Boeing every year for aircraft orders. Though both manufacturers have a broad product range in various segments from single-aisle to wide-body, both manufacturers' offerings do not always compete head-to-head. Instead they respond with models a bit smaller or a bit bigger than the other in order to plug any holes in demand and achieve a better edge. The A380, for example, is designed to be a bit bigger than the 747. The A350XWB competes with the high end of the 787 and the low end of the 777. The A320 is bigger than the 737-700 but smaller than the 737-800. The A321 is bigger than the 737-900 but smaller than the previous 757-200. Airlines also see this as a benefit since they get a more complete product range from 100 seats to 500 seats than if both companies offered identical aircraft.
In recent years the Boeing 777 has outsold its Airbus counterparts, which include the A340 family as well as the A330-300. The smaller A330-200 competes with the 767, outselling its Boeing counterpart. The A380 is anticipated to further reduce sales of the Boeing 747, gaining Airbus a share of the market in very large aircraft. Boeing is building a stretched version of the 747, the 747-8, which will provide increased competition for the A380.
There are around 3,850 Airbus aircraft in service, with Airbus winning more than 50 per cent of aircraft orders in recent years. Airbus products are still outnumbered 6 to 1 by in-service Boeings (there are over 5,000 Boeing 737s alone in service). This however is indicative of historical success - Airbus made a late entry into the modern jet airliner market (1972 vs. 1958 for Boeing).
Airbus won a greater share of orders in 2003, 2004. It also delivered more aircraft in 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.
In 2005, Airbus made a claim to victory again with 1111 (1055 net)[18], compared to 1029 (net of 1002) for Boeing[18] However, Boeing won 55% of 2005 orders by value, due to that firm winning several important widebody sales at the expense of Airbus.
In 2006 Boeing won more orders by both measures.
[edit] Subsidies
Boeing has continually protested over "launch aid" and other forms of government aid to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks.
In July 2004 Harry Stonecipher (then-Boeing CEO) accused Airbus of abusing a 1992 bilateral EU-US agreement providing for disciplines for large civil aircraft support from governments. Airbus is given reimbursable launch investment (RLI, called "launch aid" by the US) from European governments with the money being paid back with interest, plus indefinite royalties, but only if the aircraft is a commercial success[18]. Airbus contends that this system is fully compliant with the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. The agreement allows up to 33 per cent of the programme cost to be met through government loans which are to be fully repaid within 17 years with interest and royalties. These loans are held at a minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which would be below market rates available to Airbus without government support[18]. Airbus claims that since the signature of the EU-U.S. Agreement in 1992, it has repaid European governments more than U.S.$6.7 billion and that this is 40% more than it has received.[18].
Airbus argues that the pork barrel military contracts awarded to Boeing (the second largest U.S. defence contractor) are in effect a form of subsidy (see the Boeing KC-767 military contracting controversy). The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as does the large tax breaks offered to Boeing which some claim are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered substantial support from local and state governments[19]. However it has been argued that in U.S. government support of technology development, anyone can benefit from the results; even Airbus can benefit from them.
In January 2005 the European Union and United States trade representatives, Peter Mandelson and Robert Zoellick (since replaced by Rob Portman) respectively, agreed to talks aimed at resolving the increasing tensions. These talks were not successful with the dispute becoming more acrimonious rather than approaching a settlement.
[edit] World Trade Organization litigation
On 31 May 2005 the United States filed a case against the European Union for providing allegedly illegal subsidies to Airbus. Twenty-four hours later the European Union filed a complaint against the United States protesting support for Boeing.[18]
Portman (from the USA) and Mandelson (from the EU) issued a joint statement stating: "We remain united in our determination that this dispute shall not affect our cooperation on wider bilateral and multilateral trade issues. We have worked together well so far, and intend to continue to do so."
Tensions increased by the support for the Airbus A380 have erupted into a potential trade war due to the upcoming launch of the Airbus A350. Airbus would ideally like the A350 programme to be launched with the help of state loans covering a third of the development costs although it has stated it will launch without these loans if required. The A350 will compete with Boeing's most successful project in recent years, the 787 Dreamliner.
EU trade officials are questioning the funding provided by NASA, the Department of Defense (in particular in the form of R&D contracts that benefited Boeing) as well as funding from US states (in particular the State of Washington, the State of Kansas and the State of Illinois) for the launch of Boeing aircraft, in particular the 787.
For a comparison of Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8 orders, click here.
Airbus is in tight competition with Boeing every year for aircraft orders. Though both manufacturers have a broad product range in various segments from single-aisle to wide-body, both manufacturers' offerings do not always compete head-to-head. Instead they respond with models a bit smaller or a bit bigger than the other in order to plug any holes in demand and achieve a better edge. The A380, for example, is designed to be a bit bigger than the 747. The A350XWB competes with the high end of the 787 and the low end of the 777. The A320 is bigger than the 737-700 but smaller than the 737-800. The A321 is bigger than the 737-900 but smaller than the previous 757-200. Airlines also see this as a benefit since they get a more complete product range from 100 seats to 500 seats than if both companies offered identical aircraft.
In recent years the Boeing 777 has outsold its Airbus counterparts, which include the A340 family as well as the A330-300. The smaller A330-200 competes with the 767, outselling its Boeing counterpart. The A380 is anticipated to further reduce sales of the Boeing 747, gaining Airbus a share of the market in very large aircraft. Boeing is building a stretched version of the 747, the 747-8, which will provide increased competition for the A380.
There are around 3,850 Airbus aircraft in service, with Airbus winning more than 50 per cent of aircraft orders in recent years. Airbus products are still outnumbered 6 to 1 by in-service Boeings (there are over 5,000 Boeing 737s alone in service). This however is indicative of historical success - Airbus made a late entry into the modern jet airliner market (1972 vs. 1958 for Boeing).
Airbus won a greater share of orders in 2003, 2004. It also delivered more aircraft in 2003, 2004, 2005 & 2006.
In 2005, Airbus made a claim to victory again with 1111 (1055 net)[18], compared to 1029 (net of 1002) for Boeing[18] However, Boeing won 55% of 2005 orders by value, due to that firm winning several important widebody sales at the expense of Airbus.
In 2006 Boeing won more orders by both measures.
[edit] Subsidies
Boeing has continually protested over "launch aid" and other forms of government aid to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks.
In July 2004 Harry Stonecipher (then-Boeing CEO) accused Airbus of abusing a 1992 bilateral EU-US agreement providing for disciplines for large civil aircraft support from governments. Airbus is given reimbursable launch investment (RLI, called "launch aid" by the US) from European governments with the money being paid back with interest, plus indefinite royalties, but only if the aircraft is a commercial success[18]. Airbus contends that this system is fully compliant with the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. The agreement allows up to 33 per cent of the programme cost to be met through government loans which are to be fully repaid within 17 years with interest and royalties. These loans are held at a minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which would be below market rates available to Airbus without government support[18]. Airbus claims that since the signature of the EU-U.S. Agreement in 1992, it has repaid European governments more than U.S.$6.7 billion and that this is 40% more than it has received.[18].
Airbus argues that the pork barrel military contracts awarded to Boeing (the second largest U.S. defence contractor) are in effect a form of subsidy (see the Boeing KC-767 military contracting controversy). The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as does the large tax breaks offered to Boeing which some claim are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered substantial support from local and state governments[19]. However it has been argued that in U.S. government support of technology development, anyone can benefit from the results; even Airbus can benefit from them.
In January 2005 the European Union and United States trade representatives, Peter Mandelson and Robert Zoellick (since replaced by Rob Portman) respectively, agreed to talks aimed at resolving the increasing tensions. These talks were not successful with the dispute becoming more acrimonious rather than approaching a settlement.
[edit] World Trade Organization litigation
On 31 May 2005 the United States filed a case against the European Union for providing allegedly illegal subsidies to Airbus. Twenty-four hours later the European Union filed a complaint against the United States protesting support for Boeing.[18]
Portman (from the USA) and Mandelson (from the EU) issued a joint statement stating: "We remain united in our determination that this dispute shall not affect our cooperation on wider bilateral and multilateral trade issues. We have worked together well so far, and intend to continue to do so."
Tensions increased by the support for the Airbus A380 have erupted into a potential trade war due to the upcoming launch of the Airbus A350. Airbus would ideally like the A350 programme to be launched with the help of state loans covering a third of the development costs although it has stated it will launch without these loans if required. The A350 will compete with Boeing's most successful project in recent years, the 787 Dreamliner.
EU trade officials are questioning the funding provided by NASA, the Department of Defense (in particular in the form of R&D contracts that benefited Boeing) as well as funding from US states (in particular the State of Washington, the State of Kansas and the State of Illinois) for the launch of Boeing aircraft, in particular the 787.
Airbus
Airbus S.A.S. is the aircraft manufacturing subsidiary of EADS N.V., a pan-European aerospace concern. Based at Toulouse, France with significant operations in other European states, Airbus produces around half of the world's jet airliners, with most of the rest built by rival Boeing Commercial Airplanes, though the precise share varies on an annual basis.
Airbus was incorporated in 2001 under French law as a simplified joint stock company or S.A.S. (Société par Actions Simplifiée). Airbus was formerly known as Airbus Industrie. The name is pronounced /ˈɛəbʌs/ in British English, /ɛʁbys/ in French, and /ˈɛːɐbʊs/ in German.
Airbus was jointly held by EADS (80%) and BAE Systems (20%), Europe's two largest defence contractors. BAE Systems announced its intention to sell its 20% share of Airbus in April 2006 and exercised its put option in June 2006 to force EADS to buy the stake. The put option appointed investment bank Rothschild to establish an independent valuation. Rothschild's valuation, reported in 2006, was £1.9 billion (€2.75 billion), well below the expecations of BAE and EADS. Unhappy with the valuation, BAE appointed independent auditors to investigate the value of its 20% share. [2] On 6 September 2006 the BAE board announced it would recommend to shareholders to sell its share for €2.75bn (£1.87bn or $3.53bn). [3]
Airbus employs around 57,000 people at sixteen sites in four European countries: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain. Final assembly production occurs at Toulouse (France) and Hamburg (Germany). Airbus also has three subsidiaries in the USA, Japan and China.
[edit] History
A340-600 at Farnborough Air Show, 2006.
Airbus Industrie began as a consortium of European aviation firms to compete with American companies such as Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed. In the 1960s European aircraft manufacturers competed with each other as much as the American giants. In the mid-1960s tentative negotiations commenced regarding a European collaborative approach.
In September 1967 the German, French and British governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to start development of the 300 seat Airbus A300. This was the second major joint aircraft programme in Europe, following the Concorde, for which no ongoing consortium was devised. An earlier announcement had been made in July 1967 but had been complicated by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC). The British government refused to back its proposed competitor, a development of the BAC 1-11 and instead supported the Airbus aircraft.
In the months following this agreement both the French and British governments expressed doubts about the aircraft. Another problem was the requirement for a new engine (to be developed by Rolls-Royce, the RB207). In December 1968 the French and British partner companies, Sud Aviation and Hawker Siddeley proposed a revised configuration, the 250 seat Airbus A250. Renamed the A300B the aircraft would not require new engines, reducing development costs.
In 1969 the British government shocked its partners by withdrawing from the project. Given the participation by Hawker Siddeley up to that point, France and Germany were reluctant to take over their wing design. Thus the British company was allowed to continue as a major subcontractor. In 1978 Britain rejoined the consortium when British Aerospace (the merged Hawker Siddeley and BAC) purchased again a 20% share of the company.
[edit] Formation of Airbus
Airbus A300, the first aircraft model launched by Airbus.
Airbus Industrie was formally set up in 1970 following an agreement between Sud-Aviation (France) and Deutsche Airbus—itself a German aerospace consortium consisting of Bölkow, Dornier, Flugzeug-Union Süd, HFB, Messerschmitt, TG Siebelwerke, and VFW.[4] The grouping was joined by CASA of Spain in 1971. Each company would deliver its sections as fully equipped, ready to fly items. The name "Airbus" was taken from a non-proprietary term used by the airline industry in the 1960s to refer to a commercial aircraft of a certain size and range, for this term was acceptable to the French linguistically.
In 1972 the A300 made its maiden flight and the first production model, the A300B2 entered service in 1974. Initially the success of the consortium was poor but by 1979 there were 81 aircraft in service. It was the launch of the A320 in 1981 that guaranteed Airbus as a major player in the aircraft market - the aircraft had over 400 orders before it first flew, compared to 15 for the A300 in 1972.
It was a fairly loose alliance but that changed shortly after major defence mergers in 2000. DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (successor to Deutsche Airbus), Aérospatiale-Matra (successor to Sud-Aviation) and CASA merged to form EADS. In 2001 BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) and EADS formed the Airbus Integrated Company to coincide with the development of the new Airbus A380 which will seat 555 passengers and be the world's largest commercial passenger jet when it enters service in late 2007 according to the revised schedule announced in October of 2006[5].
Airbus was incorporated in 2001 under French law as a simplified joint stock company or S.A.S. (Société par Actions Simplifiée). Airbus was formerly known as Airbus Industrie. The name is pronounced /ˈɛəbʌs/ in British English, /ɛʁbys/ in French, and /ˈɛːɐbʊs/ in German.
Airbus was jointly held by EADS (80%) and BAE Systems (20%), Europe's two largest defence contractors. BAE Systems announced its intention to sell its 20% share of Airbus in April 2006 and exercised its put option in June 2006 to force EADS to buy the stake. The put option appointed investment bank Rothschild to establish an independent valuation. Rothschild's valuation, reported in 2006, was £1.9 billion (€2.75 billion), well below the expecations of BAE and EADS. Unhappy with the valuation, BAE appointed independent auditors to investigate the value of its 20% share. [2] On 6 September 2006 the BAE board announced it would recommend to shareholders to sell its share for €2.75bn (£1.87bn or $3.53bn). [3]
Airbus employs around 57,000 people at sixteen sites in four European countries: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain. Final assembly production occurs at Toulouse (France) and Hamburg (Germany). Airbus also has three subsidiaries in the USA, Japan and China.
[edit] History
A340-600 at Farnborough Air Show, 2006.
Airbus Industrie began as a consortium of European aviation firms to compete with American companies such as Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed. In the 1960s European aircraft manufacturers competed with each other as much as the American giants. In the mid-1960s tentative negotiations commenced regarding a European collaborative approach.
In September 1967 the German, French and British governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to start development of the 300 seat Airbus A300. This was the second major joint aircraft programme in Europe, following the Concorde, for which no ongoing consortium was devised. An earlier announcement had been made in July 1967 but had been complicated by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC). The British government refused to back its proposed competitor, a development of the BAC 1-11 and instead supported the Airbus aircraft.
In the months following this agreement both the French and British governments expressed doubts about the aircraft. Another problem was the requirement for a new engine (to be developed by Rolls-Royce, the RB207). In December 1968 the French and British partner companies, Sud Aviation and Hawker Siddeley proposed a revised configuration, the 250 seat Airbus A250. Renamed the A300B the aircraft would not require new engines, reducing development costs.
In 1969 the British government shocked its partners by withdrawing from the project. Given the participation by Hawker Siddeley up to that point, France and Germany were reluctant to take over their wing design. Thus the British company was allowed to continue as a major subcontractor. In 1978 Britain rejoined the consortium when British Aerospace (the merged Hawker Siddeley and BAC) purchased again a 20% share of the company.
[edit] Formation of Airbus
Airbus A300, the first aircraft model launched by Airbus.
Airbus Industrie was formally set up in 1970 following an agreement between Sud-Aviation (France) and Deutsche Airbus—itself a German aerospace consortium consisting of Bölkow, Dornier, Flugzeug-Union Süd, HFB, Messerschmitt, TG Siebelwerke, and VFW.[4] The grouping was joined by CASA of Spain in 1971. Each company would deliver its sections as fully equipped, ready to fly items. The name "Airbus" was taken from a non-proprietary term used by the airline industry in the 1960s to refer to a commercial aircraft of a certain size and range, for this term was acceptable to the French linguistically.
In 1972 the A300 made its maiden flight and the first production model, the A300B2 entered service in 1974. Initially the success of the consortium was poor but by 1979 there were 81 aircraft in service. It was the launch of the A320 in 1981 that guaranteed Airbus as a major player in the aircraft market - the aircraft had over 400 orders before it first flew, compared to 15 for the A300 in 1972.
It was a fairly loose alliance but that changed shortly after major defence mergers in 2000. DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (successor to Deutsche Airbus), Aérospatiale-Matra (successor to Sud-Aviation) and CASA merged to form EADS. In 2001 BAE Systems (formerly British Aerospace) and EADS formed the Airbus Integrated Company to coincide with the development of the new Airbus A380 which will seat 555 passengers and be the world's largest commercial passenger jet when it enters service in late 2007 according to the revised schedule announced in October of 2006[5].
American Mosques
More than 1,200 mosques and Islamic centers have existed in this country, according to a survey conducted in the latter part of the 1990s, but fewer than 100 were actually designed as mosques. The survey revealed that most Islamic congregations in the United States began in buildings that had been constructed for other purposes -- fire stations, theaters, warehouses, and shops.
The situation changed, however, after 1965 when the first large-scale influx of Muslims from various countries came to the United States. Mosques then began to be built for the sole purpose of ministering to the Muslim community as houses of worship and community centers. The great variety of religious diversity and ethnicity among American Muslims today is reflected in the variety of building design and organization.
The situation changed, however, after 1965 when the first large-scale influx of Muslims from various countries came to the United States. Mosques then began to be built for the sole purpose of ministering to the Muslim community as houses of worship and community centers. The great variety of religious diversity and ethnicity among American Muslims today is reflected in the variety of building design and organization.
The Islamic veil across Europe
Comments by British cabinet minister Jack Straw are the latest episode in a Europe-wide debate on the Islamic veil.
Mr Straw said he asked Muslim women visitors to his offices to remove their veils to facilitate communication.
Countries across the continent have wrestled with an issue that takes in religious freedom, female equality, secular traditions and even fears of terrorism.
FRANCE
A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004.
The measure received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.
However, headscarves can be worn in Muslim schools, and at university level, where the law on religious signs does not apply.
TURKEY
For the past 80 years Turks have lived in a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who rejected headscarves as backward-looking in his campaign to secularise Turkish society.
Even so, it is estimated that as many as 65% of Turkish women cover their heads with a scarf.
Nonetheless, scarves are banned in civic spaces, including schools, universities - state or private - and official buildings.
In November 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled the ban was legitimate.
BRITAIN
There is no ban on Islamic dress in the UK.
However, schools are allowed to forge their own dress code.
The courts were forced to rule when a schoolgirl complained that her school sent her home for wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body, except for hands, feet, face, and head.
The courts said the school made sufficient concessions by allowing the Islamic trousers and tunic.
GERMANY
In September 2003 the federal Constitutional Court ruled in favour of a teacher who wanted to wear an Islamic scarf to school.
However, it said states could change their laws locally if they wanted to.
At least four German states have gone on to ban teachers from wearing headscarves and in the state of Hesse the ban applies to all civil servants.
RUSSIA
Russia's Supreme Court has overturned a 1997 interior ministry ruling which forbade women from wearing headscarves in passport photos.
ITALY
In September 2004 local politicians in the north of Italy resurrected old laws against the wearing of masks, to ban women from wearing the all-over burqa.
In July 05 the Italian parliament approved anti-terrorist laws which make hiding one's features from the public - including through wearing the burqa - an offence.
BELGIUM
The city of Maaseik, on the Dutch border, has banned the niqab, which covers the whole body except for the eyes.
Mr Straw said he asked Muslim women visitors to his offices to remove their veils to facilitate communication.
Countries across the continent have wrestled with an issue that takes in religious freedom, female equality, secular traditions and even fears of terrorism.
FRANCE
A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004.
The measure received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.
However, headscarves can be worn in Muslim schools, and at university level, where the law on religious signs does not apply.
TURKEY
For the past 80 years Turks have lived in a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who rejected headscarves as backward-looking in his campaign to secularise Turkish society.
Even so, it is estimated that as many as 65% of Turkish women cover their heads with a scarf.
Nonetheless, scarves are banned in civic spaces, including schools, universities - state or private - and official buildings.
In November 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled the ban was legitimate.
BRITAIN
There is no ban on Islamic dress in the UK.
However, schools are allowed to forge their own dress code.
The courts were forced to rule when a schoolgirl complained that her school sent her home for wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body, except for hands, feet, face, and head.
The courts said the school made sufficient concessions by allowing the Islamic trousers and tunic.
GERMANY
In September 2003 the federal Constitutional Court ruled in favour of a teacher who wanted to wear an Islamic scarf to school.
However, it said states could change their laws locally if they wanted to.
At least four German states have gone on to ban teachers from wearing headscarves and in the state of Hesse the ban applies to all civil servants.
RUSSIA
Russia's Supreme Court has overturned a 1997 interior ministry ruling which forbade women from wearing headscarves in passport photos.
ITALY
In September 2004 local politicians in the north of Italy resurrected old laws against the wearing of masks, to ban women from wearing the all-over burqa.
In July 05 the Italian parliament approved anti-terrorist laws which make hiding one's features from the public - including through wearing the burqa - an offence.
BELGIUM
The city of Maaseik, on the Dutch border, has banned the niqab, which covers the whole body except for the eyes.
Deborah Read
In 1724, while a boarder in the Read home, Franklin had courted Deborah Read before going to London at Governor Keith's request. At that time, Miss Read's mother was wary of allowing her daughter to wed a seventeen-year old who was on his way to London. Her own husband having recently died, Mrs. Read declined Franklin's offer of marriage.
While Franklin was finding himself in London, Deborah married a man named John Rodgers. This proved to be a regrettable decision. Rodgers shortly avoided his debts and prosecution by fleeing to Barbados, leaving Deborah behind. With Rodgers' fate unknown, and bigamy an offense punishable by public whipping and imprisonment, Deborah was not free to remarry.
Franklin himself had his own actions to ponder. In 1730, Franklin acknowledged an illegitimate son named William, who eventually became the last Loyalist governor of New Jersey. While the identity of William's mother remains unknown, perhaps the responsibility of an infant child gave Franklin a reason to take up residence with Deborah Read. William would be raised in the Franklin household but eventually broke with his father over the treatment of the colonies at the hands of the crown, but was not above using his father's notoriety to enhance his own standing.
Franklin established a common law marriage with Deborah Read on September 1, 1730. At a time when many colonial families consisted of six or more children, Benjamin and Deborah Franklin eventually had two (in addition to raising William). The first was Francis Folger Franklin, born October 1732. In one of the most painful moments of Franklin's life, the boy died of smallpox in the fall of 1736. A daughter, Sarah Franklin, was born in 1743. She eventually married a man named Richard Bache, had seven children, and cared for her father in his old age.
Deborah's fear of the sea meant that she never accompanied Franklin on any of his extended trips to Europe, despite his repeated requests.
While Franklin was finding himself in London, Deborah married a man named John Rodgers. This proved to be a regrettable decision. Rodgers shortly avoided his debts and prosecution by fleeing to Barbados, leaving Deborah behind. With Rodgers' fate unknown, and bigamy an offense punishable by public whipping and imprisonment, Deborah was not free to remarry.
Franklin himself had his own actions to ponder. In 1730, Franklin acknowledged an illegitimate son named William, who eventually became the last Loyalist governor of New Jersey. While the identity of William's mother remains unknown, perhaps the responsibility of an infant child gave Franklin a reason to take up residence with Deborah Read. William would be raised in the Franklin household but eventually broke with his father over the treatment of the colonies at the hands of the crown, but was not above using his father's notoriety to enhance his own standing.
Franklin established a common law marriage with Deborah Read on September 1, 1730. At a time when many colonial families consisted of six or more children, Benjamin and Deborah Franklin eventually had two (in addition to raising William). The first was Francis Folger Franklin, born October 1732. In one of the most painful moments of Franklin's life, the boy died of smallpox in the fall of 1736. A daughter, Sarah Franklin, was born in 1743. She eventually married a man named Richard Bache, had seven children, and cared for her father in his old age.
Deborah's fear of the sea meant that she never accompanied Franklin on any of his extended trips to Europe, despite his repeated requests.
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin (January 17 [O.S. January 6] 1706 – April 17, 1790) was one of the most prominent of the Founders and early political figures and statesmen of the United States.
One of the earliest Founders, Franklin was noted for his curiosity, writings, ingenuity and diversity of interests. His wise and scintillating writings are proverbial to this day. He shaped the American Revolution, despite never holding national elective office; a leader of the Enlightenment, he gained the recognition of scientists and intellectuals across Europe and the United States. As an agent in London before the Revolution, and Minister to France during, he more than anyone defined the new nation in the minds of Europe. His success in securing French military and financial aid was the turning point for American victory over Britain. He invented the lightning rod; he was an early proponent of colonial unity; historians hail him as the "First American". The city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania marked Franklin's 300th birthday in January 2006 with a wide array of exhibitions, and events citing Franklin's extraordinary accomplishments throughout his illustrious career.
Born in Boston, Massachusetts to a tallow-maker, Franklin learned printing from his older brother and became a newspaper editor, printer, and merchant in Philadelphia, becoming very wealthy. He spent many years in England and published the famous Poor Richard's Almanack and the Pennsylvania Gazette. He formed both the first public lending library and fire department in America as well as the Junto, a political discussion club.
He became a national hero in America when he convinced Parliament to repeal the unpopular Stamp Act. A diplomatic genius, Franklin was almost universally admired among the French as American minister to Paris, and was a major figure in the development of positive Franco-American relations. From 1775 to 1776, Franklin was Postmaster General under the Continental Congress and from 1785 to his death in 1790 was President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania.
Franklin was interested in science and technology, carrying out his famous electricity experiments and invented the Franklin stove, medical catheter, lightning rod, swimfins, glass harmonica, and bifocals. He also played a major role in establishing the higher education institutions that would become the Ivy League's University of Pennsylvania and the Franklin and Marshall College. In addition, Franklin was a noted linguist, fluent in five languages. He also practiced and published on astrology (see Poor Richard's Almanac).
Franklin was also noted for his philanthropy and several liaisons, including that which produced his illegitimate Loyalist son William Franklin, later the colonial governor of New Jersey. Towards the end of his life, he became one of the most prominent early American abolitionists. Today Franklin is pictured on the U.S. $100 bill.
Ancestry
Franklin's father, Josiah Franklin, was born at Ecton, Northamptonshire, England on December 23, 1657, the son of Thomas Franklin, a blacksmith and farmer, and Jane White. His mother, Abiah Folger, was born in Nantucket, Massachusetts on August 15, 1667, to Peter Folger, a miller and schoolteacher, and his wife Mary Morrill, a former indentured servant.
Around 1677, Josiah married Anne Child at Ecton, and over the next few years had three children. These half-siblings of Benjamin Franklin included Elizabeth (March 2, 1678), Samuel (May 16, 1681), and Hannah (May 25, 1683).
Sometime during the second half of 1683, the Franklins left England for Boston, Massachusetts. While in Boston, they had several more children, including Josiah Jr. (August 23, 1685), Ann (January 5, 1687), Joseph (February 5, 1688), and Joseph (June 30, 1689) (the first Joseph having died soon after birth).
Josiah's first wife Anne died in Boston on July 9, 1689. He married to Abiah Folger on November 25, 1689 in the Old South Church of Boston by the Rev. Samuel Willard.
Josiah and Abiah had the following children: John (December 7, 1690), Peter (November 22, 1692), Mary (September 26, 1694), James (February 4, 1697), Sarah (July 9, 1699), Ebenezer (September 20, 1701), Thomas (December 7, 1703), Benjamin (January 17, 1706), Lydia (August 8, 1708), and Jane (March 27, 1712).
One of the earliest Founders, Franklin was noted for his curiosity, writings, ingenuity and diversity of interests. His wise and scintillating writings are proverbial to this day. He shaped the American Revolution, despite never holding national elective office; a leader of the Enlightenment, he gained the recognition of scientists and intellectuals across Europe and the United States. As an agent in London before the Revolution, and Minister to France during, he more than anyone defined the new nation in the minds of Europe. His success in securing French military and financial aid was the turning point for American victory over Britain. He invented the lightning rod; he was an early proponent of colonial unity; historians hail him as the "First American". The city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania marked Franklin's 300th birthday in January 2006 with a wide array of exhibitions, and events citing Franklin's extraordinary accomplishments throughout his illustrious career.
Born in Boston, Massachusetts to a tallow-maker, Franklin learned printing from his older brother and became a newspaper editor, printer, and merchant in Philadelphia, becoming very wealthy. He spent many years in England and published the famous Poor Richard's Almanack and the Pennsylvania Gazette. He formed both the first public lending library and fire department in America as well as the Junto, a political discussion club.
He became a national hero in America when he convinced Parliament to repeal the unpopular Stamp Act. A diplomatic genius, Franklin was almost universally admired among the French as American minister to Paris, and was a major figure in the development of positive Franco-American relations. From 1775 to 1776, Franklin was Postmaster General under the Continental Congress and from 1785 to his death in 1790 was President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania.
Franklin was interested in science and technology, carrying out his famous electricity experiments and invented the Franklin stove, medical catheter, lightning rod, swimfins, glass harmonica, and bifocals. He also played a major role in establishing the higher education institutions that would become the Ivy League's University of Pennsylvania and the Franklin and Marshall College. In addition, Franklin was a noted linguist, fluent in five languages. He also practiced and published on astrology (see Poor Richard's Almanac).
Franklin was also noted for his philanthropy and several liaisons, including that which produced his illegitimate Loyalist son William Franklin, later the colonial governor of New Jersey. Towards the end of his life, he became one of the most prominent early American abolitionists. Today Franklin is pictured on the U.S. $100 bill.
Ancestry
Franklin's father, Josiah Franklin, was born at Ecton, Northamptonshire, England on December 23, 1657, the son of Thomas Franklin, a blacksmith and farmer, and Jane White. His mother, Abiah Folger, was born in Nantucket, Massachusetts on August 15, 1667, to Peter Folger, a miller and schoolteacher, and his wife Mary Morrill, a former indentured servant.
Around 1677, Josiah married Anne Child at Ecton, and over the next few years had three children. These half-siblings of Benjamin Franklin included Elizabeth (March 2, 1678), Samuel (May 16, 1681), and Hannah (May 25, 1683).
Sometime during the second half of 1683, the Franklins left England for Boston, Massachusetts. While in Boston, they had several more children, including Josiah Jr. (August 23, 1685), Ann (January 5, 1687), Joseph (February 5, 1688), and Joseph (June 30, 1689) (the first Joseph having died soon after birth).
Josiah's first wife Anne died in Boston on July 9, 1689. He married to Abiah Folger on November 25, 1689 in the Old South Church of Boston by the Rev. Samuel Willard.
Josiah and Abiah had the following children: John (December 7, 1690), Peter (November 22, 1692), Mary (September 26, 1694), James (February 4, 1697), Sarah (July 9, 1699), Ebenezer (September 20, 1701), Thomas (December 7, 1703), Benjamin (January 17, 1706), Lydia (August 8, 1708), and Jane (March 27, 1712).
Big banks find little loans a Nobel winner, too : The world of finance is realizing Muhammad Yunus's idea is more than mere charity –
He is not one of the hundreds of well-wishers who thronged Muhammad Yunus's Bangladesh home this weekend to celebrate a bright moment for a troubled nation. Nor has he ever received one of Dr. Yunus's microloans - loans of as little as $30 that have helped raise millions from abject poverty.
Instead, Mr. Brookfield is a former venture capitalist from Redmond, Wash., who has given up the life of dotcoms and wireless start-ups to raise money for microloans. His Unitus Equity Fund has collected $10 million from investors in order to offer small loans to the poor from Mexico to India.
As the world recognizes Yunus for his contribution to global peace, the world of finance is increasingly realizing his idea is more than mere charity - it is good business.
It is a trend that gives Yunus pause, saying in an interview that he would "like to see microcredit remain a social enterprise." But mounting evidence suggests that microfinance is moving beyond its modest roots, and Western banks are now keen for a share of the action.
"It has caught the attention of serious investors like Citibank and [Dutch bank] ABN AMRO ... and even the capital markets," says Syed Aftab Ahmed, senior manager for global microfinance at the International Finance Corp. in Washington. "The quality of the loan portfolios of these microfinance institutions is very high."
Throughout the developing world, the concept of microfinancing has been enormously successful. Yunus pioneered the idea in 1976 when he lent $27 to a group of poor Bangladeshi craftsmen who lacked the collateral to receive a traditional loan. The scheme worked, and in 1983, Yunus founded Grameen Bank on the concept. It has since lent $5.1 billion to 5.3 million people. And the idea has spread. The global supply of microcredit exceeds $12 billion for 50 million borrowers, by some estimates.
A next step for microfinance is to achieve an even bigger scale by luring investors from places like Wall Street, London, and Frankfurt. To some extent, this is already occurring.
Some of the biggest banks in the US, Germany, and the Netherlands - Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, and ABN AMRO - have units focused on the smallest of loans. In most cases, these bankers - like other profit-seeking investors in the field - aren't hiring their own loan officers in South Africa or São Paulo. Rather, they provide financial support to grass-roots lenders, and expecting a profit in return.
They have good reason to expect a profit. Historically, few microloans default; Yunus says Grameen Bank has a 99 percent repayment rate. And while nonprofit or agency support is typically vital for ventures started with microloans, a good share of them have developed into self-sustaining businesses.
Though the banks' emerging microfinance operations aren't a major contributor to their bottom lines, the steps hint at the promise of more Western money reaching the world's poorest people.
Last month, for instance:
• TIAA-CREF, the leading provider of teacher pension plans, announced a $100 million global microfinance investment program.
• Citigroup and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. launched a $100 million program to help provide capital for hundreds of microfinance organizations.
• Brookfield's Unitus Fund, a private equity fund that invests in microfinance institutions (MFIs), placed a $1 million investment in Credex, an MFI in Mexico.
"I'm more excited about the return potential of microfinance than I am about local venture capital," says Brookfield. "It feels to me like a global growth business that has much more growth ahead of it."
As it grows, this field should see a variety of choices for investors, he says, from initial public offerings of stock in some of the more successful MFIs to insuring debts incurred by such schemes. "You will see all kinds of investment vehicles," he says. "All of the same layers that exist in the traditional ... capital markets."
Yet Yunus is wary of microfinance as a profit vehicle. "Maybe banks can make a profit from it. There's no harm in it," says Yunus from his home in Bangladesh. "But this is what loan sharks do."
"I don't want that conventional banks go into this. We have enough enterprises generating money for profit," he adds. "I would rather think that the rich can set up social enterprises."
Instead, Mr. Brookfield is a former venture capitalist from Redmond, Wash., who has given up the life of dotcoms and wireless start-ups to raise money for microloans. His Unitus Equity Fund has collected $10 million from investors in order to offer small loans to the poor from Mexico to India.
As the world recognizes Yunus for his contribution to global peace, the world of finance is increasingly realizing his idea is more than mere charity - it is good business.
It is a trend that gives Yunus pause, saying in an interview that he would "like to see microcredit remain a social enterprise." But mounting evidence suggests that microfinance is moving beyond its modest roots, and Western banks are now keen for a share of the action.
"It has caught the attention of serious investors like Citibank and [Dutch bank] ABN AMRO ... and even the capital markets," says Syed Aftab Ahmed, senior manager for global microfinance at the International Finance Corp. in Washington. "The quality of the loan portfolios of these microfinance institutions is very high."
Throughout the developing world, the concept of microfinancing has been enormously successful. Yunus pioneered the idea in 1976 when he lent $27 to a group of poor Bangladeshi craftsmen who lacked the collateral to receive a traditional loan. The scheme worked, and in 1983, Yunus founded Grameen Bank on the concept. It has since lent $5.1 billion to 5.3 million people. And the idea has spread. The global supply of microcredit exceeds $12 billion for 50 million borrowers, by some estimates.
A next step for microfinance is to achieve an even bigger scale by luring investors from places like Wall Street, London, and Frankfurt. To some extent, this is already occurring.
Some of the biggest banks in the US, Germany, and the Netherlands - Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, and ABN AMRO - have units focused on the smallest of loans. In most cases, these bankers - like other profit-seeking investors in the field - aren't hiring their own loan officers in South Africa or São Paulo. Rather, they provide financial support to grass-roots lenders, and expecting a profit in return.
They have good reason to expect a profit. Historically, few microloans default; Yunus says Grameen Bank has a 99 percent repayment rate. And while nonprofit or agency support is typically vital for ventures started with microloans, a good share of them have developed into self-sustaining businesses.
Though the banks' emerging microfinance operations aren't a major contributor to their bottom lines, the steps hint at the promise of more Western money reaching the world's poorest people.
Last month, for instance:
• TIAA-CREF, the leading provider of teacher pension plans, announced a $100 million global microfinance investment program.
• Citigroup and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. launched a $100 million program to help provide capital for hundreds of microfinance organizations.
• Brookfield's Unitus Fund, a private equity fund that invests in microfinance institutions (MFIs), placed a $1 million investment in Credex, an MFI in Mexico.
"I'm more excited about the return potential of microfinance than I am about local venture capital," says Brookfield. "It feels to me like a global growth business that has much more growth ahead of it."
As it grows, this field should see a variety of choices for investors, he says, from initial public offerings of stock in some of the more successful MFIs to insuring debts incurred by such schemes. "You will see all kinds of investment vehicles," he says. "All of the same layers that exist in the traditional ... capital markets."
Yet Yunus is wary of microfinance as a profit vehicle. "Maybe banks can make a profit from it. There's no harm in it," says Yunus from his home in Bangladesh. "But this is what loan sharks do."
"I don't want that conventional banks go into this. We have enough enterprises generating money for profit," he adds. "I would rather think that the rich can set up social enterprises."
Bigotry and Ignorance of Islam
President George Bush's ignorance of the Middle East and its people is well-known. So also is his habit of parroting words and sentences given to him by other people. He hit a new low when he referred to "Islamic fascists."
No two more opposite concepts are to be found. Fascism glorifies the nation-state; Islam is transnational. Fascism demands slavish devotion to a national leader; Muslims are far too independent-minded to be slavish followers of anybody. Virtually all the people Saddam Hussein murdered were people trying to overthrow him. Fascism is militaristic. Islam is not.
Mr. Bush, who has dubbed himself the "war president," has made a pathetic and absurd effort to picture himself as Winston Churchill facing off against evil. He is no Churchill. Most of the enemies he imagines, he has created himself.
The West faces no threat from Islam. Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, but it really is a religion of peace. More importantly, it is a religion that concentrates on individual salvation. There is no Muslim pope, no College of Cardinals, no bishops, no priesthood. Any five Muslims anywhere in the world can start their own mosque. Imams are teachers and, like Protestant preachers or Jewish rabbis, can be fired by their congregation. The Shi'ite version is slightly more organized.
A fatwa is a statement issued by an imam, usually explanatory. It is similar to statements issued by the pope, with this important difference: No Muslim is bound by any fatwa. Muslims are free to pay attention to it or to ignore it.
Islam, like Christianity, is a universal religion that ignores nationality, race or color. To become a Muslim, one must profess belief in one God, acknowledge Muhammad as his prophet, recognize the Quran as the word of God, pray five times a day, provide for the poor and, if possible, make a trip to Mecca once in your lifetime. The God Muslims worship is the same God Christians and Jews worship.
To dispose of some of the slanderous misstatements being floated about, Islam forbids forced conversions. People would do well to read some history rather than rely on ignorant and malicious radio and TV talk-show hosts. The oldest Christian communities in the world are all in Muslim countries. There have always been Christian and Jewish communities in the Muslim world. Muslims are commanded to treat Christians and Jews as they would treat themselves. They revere Jesus as a prophet and highly respect the Virgin Mary. The disputes you see in the modern Middle East are not religious; they are all about secular matters, principally Israeli occupation of Arab lands.
The Arabs see Israel as the last European colonialist state imposed on them by the European powers. That's true, in fact, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are concerned only with ending Israeli occupation of Palestine. Hezbollah is concerned with ending Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Al-Qaeda wants to overthrow the Persian Gulf governments and is at war with us because we are the principal backers and supporters of those governments. Al-Qaeda alone is most un-Islamic and has been so labeled by a majority of Muslims. It is a small group.
If you wish to understand Islam, turn off your TV and go to the library. Introduce yourself to some of America's 6 million Muslims. You'll find them to be very decent and patriotic people. There are some fanatics among Muslims, just as there are among Jews and Christians. Most of the New England states were originally populated by people fleeing Puritan rule in Massachusetts.
The way to combat the fanatics is to extend the hand of friendship to ordinary Muslims and to protest the slander and libel of Muslims and Islam, just as you should protest the slander and libel of Jews and other groups. Bigotry should have no place in our public dialogue, regardless of the target.
It's obvious that President Bush will never understand the world into which he was born, but most Americans have more open minds -- except, of course, those who prefer to click their heels and salute when their Fuehrer of choice speaks.
No two more opposite concepts are to be found. Fascism glorifies the nation-state; Islam is transnational. Fascism demands slavish devotion to a national leader; Muslims are far too independent-minded to be slavish followers of anybody. Virtually all the people Saddam Hussein murdered were people trying to overthrow him. Fascism is militaristic. Islam is not.
Mr. Bush, who has dubbed himself the "war president," has made a pathetic and absurd effort to picture himself as Winston Churchill facing off against evil. He is no Churchill. Most of the enemies he imagines, he has created himself.
The West faces no threat from Islam. Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, but it really is a religion of peace. More importantly, it is a religion that concentrates on individual salvation. There is no Muslim pope, no College of Cardinals, no bishops, no priesthood. Any five Muslims anywhere in the world can start their own mosque. Imams are teachers and, like Protestant preachers or Jewish rabbis, can be fired by their congregation. The Shi'ite version is slightly more organized.
A fatwa is a statement issued by an imam, usually explanatory. It is similar to statements issued by the pope, with this important difference: No Muslim is bound by any fatwa. Muslims are free to pay attention to it or to ignore it.
Islam, like Christianity, is a universal religion that ignores nationality, race or color. To become a Muslim, one must profess belief in one God, acknowledge Muhammad as his prophet, recognize the Quran as the word of God, pray five times a day, provide for the poor and, if possible, make a trip to Mecca once in your lifetime. The God Muslims worship is the same God Christians and Jews worship.
To dispose of some of the slanderous misstatements being floated about, Islam forbids forced conversions. People would do well to read some history rather than rely on ignorant and malicious radio and TV talk-show hosts. The oldest Christian communities in the world are all in Muslim countries. There have always been Christian and Jewish communities in the Muslim world. Muslims are commanded to treat Christians and Jews as they would treat themselves. They revere Jesus as a prophet and highly respect the Virgin Mary. The disputes you see in the modern Middle East are not religious; they are all about secular matters, principally Israeli occupation of Arab lands.
The Arabs see Israel as the last European colonialist state imposed on them by the European powers. That's true, in fact, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are concerned only with ending Israeli occupation of Palestine. Hezbollah is concerned with ending Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Al-Qaeda wants to overthrow the Persian Gulf governments and is at war with us because we are the principal backers and supporters of those governments. Al-Qaeda alone is most un-Islamic and has been so labeled by a majority of Muslims. It is a small group.
If you wish to understand Islam, turn off your TV and go to the library. Introduce yourself to some of America's 6 million Muslims. You'll find them to be very decent and patriotic people. There are some fanatics among Muslims, just as there are among Jews and Christians. Most of the New England states were originally populated by people fleeing Puritan rule in Massachusetts.
The way to combat the fanatics is to extend the hand of friendship to ordinary Muslims and to protest the slander and libel of Muslims and Islam, just as you should protest the slander and libel of Jews and other groups. Bigotry should have no place in our public dialogue, regardless of the target.
It's obvious that President Bush will never understand the world into which he was born, but most Americans have more open minds -- except, of course, those who prefer to click their heels and salute when their Fuehrer of choice speaks.
Bill McKibben: Reversal of Fortune
Our continued devotion to growth above all is, on balance, making our lives worse, both collectively and individually. Growth no longer makes most people wealthier, but instead generates inequality and insecurity. Growth is bumping up against physical limits so profound -- like climate change and peak oil -- that trying to keep expanding the economy may be not just impossible but also dangerous. And perhaps most surprisingly, growth no longer makes us happier...
It was the great economist John Maynard Keynes who pointed out that until very recently, "there was no very great change in the standard of life of the average man living in the civilized centers of the earth." At the utmost, Keynes calculated, the standard of living roughly doubled between 2000 B.C. and the dawn of the 18th century -- four millennia during which we basically didn't learn to do much of anything new. Before history began, we had already figured out fire, language, cattle, the wheel, the plow, the sail, the pot. We had banks and governments and mathematics and religion.
And then, something new finally did happen. In 1712, a British inventor named Thomas Newcomen created the first practical steam engine. Over the centuries that followed, fossil fuels helped create everything we consider normal and obvious about the modern world, from electricity to steel to fertilizer; now, a 100 percent jump in the standard of living could suddenly be accomplished in a few decades, not a few millennia.
It was the great economist John Maynard Keynes who pointed out that until very recently, "there was no very great change in the standard of life of the average man living in the civilized centers of the earth." At the utmost, Keynes calculated, the standard of living roughly doubled between 2000 B.C. and the dawn of the 18th century -- four millennia during which we basically didn't learn to do much of anything new. Before history began, we had already figured out fire, language, cattle, the wheel, the plow, the sail, the pot. We had banks and governments and mathematics and religion.
And then, something new finally did happen. In 1712, a British inventor named Thomas Newcomen created the first practical steam engine. Over the centuries that followed, fossil fuels helped create everything we consider normal and obvious about the modern world, from electricity to steel to fertilizer; now, a 100 percent jump in the standard of living could suddenly be accomplished in a few decades, not a few millennia.
Big politics, big business
Many of the forum's key events will focus on big politics, like the war in Iraq and the fight against terrorism.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is currently holding both the chair of the G8 group of top industrialised nations and the presidency of the European Union, is expected to outline her international agenda.
Most of the sessions, however, cater to the needs of company bosses, who will tackle topics like activist investment funds, the recent commodities boom and the rise of new internet technologies.
Among the business leaders at this year's World Economic Forum will be the bosses of more than 70 of the world's 100 largest companies.
They will be joined by technology pioneers, social entrepreneurs running not-for-profit companies, and campaigners from organisations like Greenpeace, Oxfam and Islamic Relief.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is currently holding both the chair of the G8 group of top industrialised nations and the presidency of the European Union, is expected to outline her international agenda.
Most of the sessions, however, cater to the needs of company bosses, who will tackle topics like activist investment funds, the recent commodities boom and the rise of new internet technologies.
Among the business leaders at this year's World Economic Forum will be the bosses of more than 70 of the world's 100 largest companies.
They will be joined by technology pioneers, social entrepreneurs running not-for-profit companies, and campaigners from organisations like Greenpeace, Oxfam and Islamic Relief.
Green agenda for global leaders
Climate change, the rise of Asia and the next web revolution will dominate the agenda when the World Economic Forum starts on Wednesday in Davos.
The five-day talking shop in the Swiss Alps brings together business leaders, politicians and campaigners, among them Bill Gates, Tony Blair and Bono.
More than 30 trade ministers will meet on the sidelines in the hope of reviving stalled global trade talks.
Davos attracts 2,400 participants from 90 countries.
They will discuss the geopolitical changes that have resulted in an "increasingly schizophrenic world" that is "harder and harder to understand", said the forum's founder Professor Klaus Schwab.
Participants can expect a daily reminder of what global warming could mean: usually the Davos valley is buried under a metre or two of snow at this time of year, but until Tuesday the mild winter left the hills mostly green.
Overnight there has been some snow, but it compares poorly to the huge amount of snow that participants have come to expect.
The five-day talking shop in the Swiss Alps brings together business leaders, politicians and campaigners, among them Bill Gates, Tony Blair and Bono.
More than 30 trade ministers will meet on the sidelines in the hope of reviving stalled global trade talks.
Davos attracts 2,400 participants from 90 countries.
They will discuss the geopolitical changes that have resulted in an "increasingly schizophrenic world" that is "harder and harder to understand", said the forum's founder Professor Klaus Schwab.
Participants can expect a daily reminder of what global warming could mean: usually the Davos valley is buried under a metre or two of snow at this time of year, but until Tuesday the mild winter left the hills mostly green.
Overnight there has been some snow, but it compares poorly to the huge amount of snow that participants have come to expect.
Blair sees hope of climate deal
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the World Economic Forum a major breakthrough on long-term climate change goals could be close.
He told the forum in Davos, Switzerland it was possible because of a "quantum shift" in the attitude of the US.
He said the German G8 presidency offered an opportunity for a new international agreement for when the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012.
"I believe we are potentially on the verge of a breakthrough," he said.
Mr Blair praised Chancellor Angela Merkel's focus on climate change during her EU presidency and India and China's engagement with the G8.
He also pledged to work with other world leaders towards a more "radical" and "comprehensive" successor to the Kyoto protocol.
"The German G8 Presidency gives us the opportunity to agree at least the principles of a new, binding international agreement to come into effect when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," Mr Blair said.
"But one which is more radical than Kyoto and more comprehensive, one which this time includes all the major countries of the world."
'Mood shift'
However, he said any agreement would not be able to deliver without binding commitments from the US, China and India.
He told the World Economic Forum: "If Britain shut down our emissions entirely, i.e. we closed down the country - not the legacy I want - the growth in China's emissions would make up the difference in just two years.
"Without the biggest economies being part of the framework to reduce carbon dependence, we have no earthly chance of success," he said.
But Mr Blair added: "The mood in the US is in the process of a quantum shift.
"The president's State of the Union address built on his 'addicted to oil' speech last year and set the first US targets for a reduction in petrol consumption."
In a wide-ranging speech on world issues, Mr Blair also said he believed nuclear power had to be part of the future.
"But I look ahead in my country and I see a situation where we're going to move, incidentally, from self-sufficiency in gas to importing 90% of it, and I say for reasons both of energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions, how are we going to do that without nuclear energy being part of the mix?
"And I think we've got to get over this false view that it offers nothing by way of the future. I think there is a whole new generation of technology growing up around it," he said.
He told the forum in Davos, Switzerland it was possible because of a "quantum shift" in the attitude of the US.
He said the German G8 presidency offered an opportunity for a new international agreement for when the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012.
"I believe we are potentially on the verge of a breakthrough," he said.
Mr Blair praised Chancellor Angela Merkel's focus on climate change during her EU presidency and India and China's engagement with the G8.
He also pledged to work with other world leaders towards a more "radical" and "comprehensive" successor to the Kyoto protocol.
"The German G8 Presidency gives us the opportunity to agree at least the principles of a new, binding international agreement to come into effect when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012," Mr Blair said.
"But one which is more radical than Kyoto and more comprehensive, one which this time includes all the major countries of the world."
'Mood shift'
However, he said any agreement would not be able to deliver without binding commitments from the US, China and India.
He told the World Economic Forum: "If Britain shut down our emissions entirely, i.e. we closed down the country - not the legacy I want - the growth in China's emissions would make up the difference in just two years.
"Without the biggest economies being part of the framework to reduce carbon dependence, we have no earthly chance of success," he said.
But Mr Blair added: "The mood in the US is in the process of a quantum shift.
"The president's State of the Union address built on his 'addicted to oil' speech last year and set the first US targets for a reduction in petrol consumption."
In a wide-ranging speech on world issues, Mr Blair also said he believed nuclear power had to be part of the future.
"But I look ahead in my country and I see a situation where we're going to move, incidentally, from self-sufficiency in gas to importing 90% of it, and I say for reasons both of energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions, how are we going to do that without nuclear energy being part of the mix?
"And I think we've got to get over this false view that it offers nothing by way of the future. I think there is a whole new generation of technology growing up around it," he said.
The Jewel in the Crown
TCS, the oldest IT software company and still the largest, is part of one of India's biggest industrial groups, Tata Holdings, which includes steel mills, car factories and shipbuilding, and is the only one not based in Bangalore.
TCS is strong in IT solutions for manufacturing industry and domestic businesses as well as outsourcing, and hopes to sell R&D - research and development - manufacturing services to Western companies.
Its profits have helped strengthen the Tata group's finances, enabling them to mount their current bid for UK-based Corus Steel.
TCS is strong in IT solutions for manufacturing industry and domestic businesses as well as outsourcing, and hopes to sell R&D - research and development - manufacturing services to Western companies.
Its profits have helped strengthen the Tata group's finances, enabling them to mount their current bid for UK-based Corus Steel.
From vegetable oil to hi-tech
Bangalore's other IT tiger, Wipro, has a rather different history.
Wipro had its origins as a food company, selling vegetable oil - and its chief executive, Azim Premji, abandoned business school at Stanford in the US when his father died and he had to take over the family firm.
The company tried diversifying in many areas, including soap and computers, before settling on IT services as its main money-maker.
It has grown its business over the years by buying up other companies, and recently went on a buying spree in Europe and the US.
Like many other big Indian companies, it is still family-owned, and despite floating some shares on the stock market, it is still owned by Mr Premji, making him one of India's richest men.
The soft-spoken Mr Premji told the BBC that he recognised that there were genuine concerns in Europe about whether outsourcing would cost jobs.
"The Western world loves liberalisation, provided it doesn't affect them. That's the case all over the world. Liberalisation is a great word if it doesn't affect you."
Wipro had its origins as a food company, selling vegetable oil - and its chief executive, Azim Premji, abandoned business school at Stanford in the US when his father died and he had to take over the family firm.
The company tried diversifying in many areas, including soap and computers, before settling on IT services as its main money-maker.
It has grown its business over the years by buying up other companies, and recently went on a buying spree in Europe and the US.
Like many other big Indian companies, it is still family-owned, and despite floating some shares on the stock market, it is still owned by Mr Premji, making him one of India's richest men.
The soft-spoken Mr Premji told the BBC that he recognised that there were genuine concerns in Europe about whether outsourcing would cost jobs.
"The Western world loves liberalisation, provided it doesn't affect them. That's the case all over the world. Liberalisation is a great word if it doesn't affect you."
The poster child of globalisation
Infosys is the fastest growing of the three Bangalore tigers, and the one that has most clearly embraced the model of globalisation.
It has no clients in India, and only does outsourcing work for global firms.
Infosys was the first Indian company to list on the Nasdaq hi-tech US stock market, when it floated some of its shares for $70m in 1999.
Now it is worth $32bn, and many of its executives who received share options are multi-millionaires - a fact that is admired not denigrated in Bangalore.
Touring its gleaming 40-acre campus in Bangalore, with its spectacular modernist architecture, basketball courts, and golf course, it is easy to imagine that you are in Palo Alto, California.
The chief executive of Infosys is active at international globalisation forums, such as the World Economic Forum currently taking place in Davos, Switzerland.
He told the BBC that in the long run everyone gains from globalisation.
It has no clients in India, and only does outsourcing work for global firms.
Infosys was the first Indian company to list on the Nasdaq hi-tech US stock market, when it floated some of its shares for $70m in 1999.
Now it is worth $32bn, and many of its executives who received share options are multi-millionaires - a fact that is admired not denigrated in Bangalore.
Touring its gleaming 40-acre campus in Bangalore, with its spectacular modernist architecture, basketball courts, and golf course, it is easy to imagine that you are in Palo Alto, California.
The chief executive of Infosys is active at international globalisation forums, such as the World Economic Forum currently taking place in Davos, Switzerland.
He told the BBC that in the long run everyone gains from globalisation.
The entrepreneurial spirit
Mr Rajam is an example of the new spirit of entrepreneurialism that seems to have migrated from America's Silicon Valley to Bangalore in the last decade.
And it is not just Ittiam that is challenging the global leaders at their own game.
Bangalore's IT industry has produced two Indian companies that are global leaders in outsourcing, Wipro and Infosys.
They first got a foothold in the global corporate market for IT services by helping global multinationals reprogram their computers to avoid the threat of the millennium bug.
They got another boost after 9/11, when many multinational businesses realised how critical their IT systems were, and moved to establish back-up systems in other locations around the world.
Their competitive advantage is based on their global delivery models, which promise their clients both lower cost and a guarantee of a higher level of service for the increasingly complex back-office IT functions.
Now household names like Virgin, BT and HSBC are running their IT networks from Bangalore, with mission-critical services like airline booking systems, telephone network routing, and banking transactions serviced by Indian IT companies.
In the last four years, these Indian Tigers (also including TCS, headquartered in Bombay) have increased their share of the global outsourcing market from 0.5% to 7%, while the share of the Big Six Western consulting firms (Accenture, ACS, CSC, EDS, HP and IBM) fell from 71% to 46%, according to consultants TPI.
With their profits and revenues doubling every two years, they are attracting investors, and are now worth more on the stock market than any of their global rivals except IBM.
The huge number of people they hire each year - 25,000 each - and the high salaries they pay, have transformed the economy of Bangalore.
And it is not just Ittiam that is challenging the global leaders at their own game.
Bangalore's IT industry has produced two Indian companies that are global leaders in outsourcing, Wipro and Infosys.
They first got a foothold in the global corporate market for IT services by helping global multinationals reprogram their computers to avoid the threat of the millennium bug.
They got another boost after 9/11, when many multinational businesses realised how critical their IT systems were, and moved to establish back-up systems in other locations around the world.
Their competitive advantage is based on their global delivery models, which promise their clients both lower cost and a guarantee of a higher level of service for the increasingly complex back-office IT functions.
Now household names like Virgin, BT and HSBC are running their IT networks from Bangalore, with mission-critical services like airline booking systems, telephone network routing, and banking transactions serviced by Indian IT companies.
In the last four years, these Indian Tigers (also including TCS, headquartered in Bombay) have increased their share of the global outsourcing market from 0.5% to 7%, while the share of the Big Six Western consulting firms (Accenture, ACS, CSC, EDS, HP and IBM) fell from 71% to 46%, according to consultants TPI.
With their profits and revenues doubling every two years, they are attracting investors, and are now worth more on the stock market than any of their global rivals except IBM.
The huge number of people they hire each year - 25,000 each - and the high salaries they pay, have transformed the economy of Bangalore.
Owning the technology
Now big consumer products companies like Sony and Toshiba are beating a path to his door, desperate to buy his superior digital signalling technology to give them an edge in such products as portable media players, camcorders, and video phones.
Mr Rajam and his engineers now have 100 major customers worldwide, holds 31 patents, and employ 200 people in India, the US, Britain, and Taiwan.
And Ittiam get royalty payments of several dollars per unit every time their clients sell a product containing their software.
Mr Rajam's company didn't have the luxury of guessing wrong about what the next big thing in consumer products would be.
His company can only afford to develop two or three products at a time, and each one has to be a winner.
But so far his bets have been spot-on.
And his next project?
Improved digital CCTV cameras which can scan thousands of hours of images by computer without human intervention to tackle crime and disorder.
According to Rishi Sahai, managing director of venture capital advisers Indusview, there has now been a sea change in attitudes to venture capital investment in India, with a flood of foreign investors looking for opportunities not just in software and IT, but also in real estate, retailing and telecommunications.
Mr Rajam and his engineers now have 100 major customers worldwide, holds 31 patents, and employ 200 people in India, the US, Britain, and Taiwan.
And Ittiam get royalty payments of several dollars per unit every time their clients sell a product containing their software.
Mr Rajam's company didn't have the luxury of guessing wrong about what the next big thing in consumer products would be.
His company can only afford to develop two or three products at a time, and each one has to be a winner.
But so far his bets have been spot-on.
And his next project?
Improved digital CCTV cameras which can scan thousands of hours of images by computer without human intervention to tackle crime and disorder.
According to Rishi Sahai, managing director of venture capital advisers Indusview, there has now been a sea change in attitudes to venture capital investment in India, with a flood of foreign investors looking for opportunities not just in software and IT, but also in real estate, retailing and telecommunications.
The rise of the Bangalore Tigers
When Srini Rajam told his friends in 2001 that he was quitting his job as the managing director of Texas Instruments India, they were very concerned.
Why would he want to give up a good salary and a comfortable pension?
But Srini Rajam was a man with a mission.
He wanted to prove that Indian companies could compete globally, not just in IT services, but in developing software for consumer electronics products.
It was not an auspicious time to start an IT company, in India or anywhere else.
The dotcom bubble had just burst, and finding start-up venture capital, especially in India's cautious market, was tough.
He named his new firm "I Think Therefore I Am" (Ittiam), after a phrase by the famous French philosopher Descartes.
But in just a few years, Mr Rajam's company has succeeded beyond even his expectations.
"We were lucky to start at the bottom of the dotcom boom," he told BBC News.
"We had nowhere to go but up, and it was cheaper to recruit people."
Why would he want to give up a good salary and a comfortable pension?
But Srini Rajam was a man with a mission.
He wanted to prove that Indian companies could compete globally, not just in IT services, but in developing software for consumer electronics products.
It was not an auspicious time to start an IT company, in India or anywhere else.
The dotcom bubble had just burst, and finding start-up venture capital, especially in India's cautious market, was tough.
He named his new firm "I Think Therefore I Am" (Ittiam), after a phrase by the famous French philosopher Descartes.
But in just a few years, Mr Rajam's company has succeeded beyond even his expectations.
"We were lucky to start at the bottom of the dotcom boom," he told BBC News.
"We had nowhere to go but up, and it was cheaper to recruit people."
Climate change v Africa
Speaking at the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Mr Gates and his wife Melinda said Gavi - which has committed $2.6bn (£1.3bn) to support immunisation programmes in 70 developing countries - had only made an impact because governments had supported the cause.
Mr Gates said Africa had failed to follow Asia's path of rapid economic development because it had a different spread of diseases, geography and quality of governance.
Asked whether they were worried that the issue of climate change could push the plight of Africa from the agenda, Mr Gates said he believed that the world should be able to keep more than one issue on top of its mind.
Melinda Gates, however, said while Africa was still high on the agenda of the G8 group of industrialised nations, one had to be careful not to let it slip, because it would "take us a long time to help Africa".
Mr Gates is the world's richest man, and he and his wife had contributed about $30bn to set up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which focuses on health and education initiatives.
In June last year the world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, said he would donate $37bn of his money to be administered by the Gates foundation.
Mr Gates said Africa had failed to follow Asia's path of rapid economic development because it had a different spread of diseases, geography and quality of governance.
Asked whether they were worried that the issue of climate change could push the plight of Africa from the agenda, Mr Gates said he believed that the world should be able to keep more than one issue on top of its mind.
Melinda Gates, however, said while Africa was still high on the agenda of the G8 group of industrialised nations, one had to be careful not to let it slip, because it would "take us a long time to help Africa".
Mr Gates is the world's richest man, and he and his wife had contributed about $30bn to set up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which focuses on health and education initiatives.
In June last year the world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, said he would donate $37bn of his money to be administered by the Gates foundation.
Bill Gates praises UK on Africa
The UK government is an important "change agent" to keep Africa on the international agenda, according to Microsoft boss Bill Gates.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had managed to get the continent's plight on the agenda of world leaders, he said.
Gavi, an aid organisation sponsored by Mr Gates, announced on Friday that its vaccination programme had so far saved the lives of 2.3m children in Africa.
Mr Gates told the BBC this proved that aid programmes could deliver success.
Not everything had gone well, he admitted, but overall the programme had met its targets.
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had managed to get the continent's plight on the agenda of world leaders, he said.
Gavi, an aid organisation sponsored by Mr Gates, announced on Friday that its vaccination programme had so far saved the lives of 2.3m children in Africa.
Mr Gates told the BBC this proved that aid programmes could deliver success.
Not everything had gone well, he admitted, but overall the programme had met its targets.
Birth of a Salesman: The Transformation of Selling in America
In the 1880s the agricultural canvasser and the wholesale drummer were at their peak. Canvassers toured from farmhouse to farmhouse, either on foot or in a wagon, carrying books or other small items, taking instruction from a sales outfit, and selling goods on commission. At the same time, drummers worked for wholesale houses, which bought goods from a range of small manufacturers, sorted and repackaged them, and sold them to retail stores or to other, usually smaller, wholesalers. Wholesale drummers traveled on trains and wagons, hauling trunks filled with merchandise samples or carrying thick catalogs, and were usually paid a mixture of salary and commission.
But in the late nineteenth century, a newer, more aggressive, and highly managed form of salesmanship emerged. Mass manufacturers began to build their own cadres of salesmen, and in doing so, developed the first modern sales forces—"modern" because their use of salesmen set the pattern for companies in the decades that followed. The final decades of the nineteenth century were an unusually fertile period for American business. The economy was changing rapidly, propelled by the emergence of large industrial manufacturers. Several companies grew from small entrepreneurial concerns to large enterprises including Heinz, Kellogg, Duke, and Post—also attended local schools for business, learning accounting and other aspects of commerce.
Many of the entrepreneurs were interested in reform of one sort or another: William K. Kellogg and C. W. Post advocated nutritional and dietary reform; Henry Heinz lobbied for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906; John H. Patterson, of National Cash Register, pioneered in "welfare work," or the creation of healthy work environments, with parks, exercise facilities, and public lecture halls. This did not mean that these businessmen were not primarily interested in profit, but rather that they harbored a deep enthusiasm and personal zeal for their enterprises, which they communicated to their sales forces. At times, they viewed an entire industry as their personal calling.
Drawing on their own experience, entrepreneurs made sense of selling in different ways. Henry Heinz came out of a peddling tradition, selling vegetables off the back of his wagon, and built an organization that sold ketchup, pickles, baked beans, and other packaged food around the world. Asa Candler, a devout Methodist and pharmaceutical salesman, combined the zeal of his religion with the advertising acumen of patent medicine makers in his promotion of Coca-Cola. William S. Burroughs, grandfather of the writer of the same name, was a tinkerer and inventor who fielded a team of salesmen to hawk his ingenious adding machine and explain its many features.
Still, these entrepreneurs—peddlers, evangelists, and inventors—shared many characteristics. They built large businesses that combined production with mass distribution. And they usually complemented the work of their sales force with advertising and other promotional devices. Significantly, the salesman's role in promoting goods was very different from that of advertising. To use a military analogy common in the early twentieth century, advertising was a weapon for waging an air war, while salesmen were deployed as foot soldiers in a ground campaign.
To orchestrate their sales campaigns, entrepreneurs increasingly turned to sales managers, who had control over the intricacies of the sales process. Managers oversaw every detail of selling—assigning territory, setting up sales quotas, and establishing compensation schemes.
These efforts transformed selling in ways equivalent to Frederick W. Taylor's scientific management movement, which had revolutionized production. Taylor instructed managers to analyze and standardize all work routines, making them as efficient as possible and giving workers clear guidelines and timetables for the completion of tasks. Taylorism was a way for managers to seize control of every aspect of the production process. Around the turn of the century, "scientific sales management," as one business writer called it, had somewhat similar implications for selling.3
In many ways, large manufacturing companies "branded" their salesmen, just as they had their products. Mass manufacturers were not only trying to turn out uniform sales arguments, as book companies had done by distributing detailed manuals, but uniform salesmen as well. They did not hire "canvassers" or "drummers," but rather Remington salesmen, NCR agents, or Heinz salesmen. The company name, or brand, was paramount in the salesmen's identity, for they represented the manufacturer, not themselves. They were integrated into a large corporate system that began with gathering raw materials and continued through to the sale of products.
Systems of sales management at large companies altered not only the day-to-day responsibilities of the occupation, but also, at times, the appearance of the salesmen themselves, as employers demanded conservative dress and a healthy diet to distinguish their representatives from the stereotypical corpulent traveling salesman.4 Manufacturers tried to raise the status of their salesmen by belittling the common "drummer"—often their main competitor for the attention of shopkeepers. One article in a Heinz company newsletter in 1905 claimed that the loudly dressed and vulgar drummer was a thing of the past. "Specimens of this type should be stuffed and mounted and exhibited in museums, simply as a matter of historical record, along with stage coaches, muzzle-loading guns, and other relics." The modern salesman bore no relation, it claimed. "He is polished, intelligent, energetic; a man of affairs; a student of human nature; an observer of conditions; alert, affable, dignified, enthusiastic. He is trained for his work."5
The sales force remained a male preserve. Women seldom were hired for sales work, but occasionally were hired as demonstrators at machinery companies like Burroughs and Singer Sewing Machine. Yet the masculinity of the manufacturer's salesman, as revealed in house journals, was supposed to be restrained and professional, rather than exuberant and aggressive.
But in the late nineteenth century, a newer, more aggressive, and highly managed form of salesmanship emerged. Mass manufacturers began to build their own cadres of salesmen, and in doing so, developed the first modern sales forces—"modern" because their use of salesmen set the pattern for companies in the decades that followed. The final decades of the nineteenth century were an unusually fertile period for American business. The economy was changing rapidly, propelled by the emergence of large industrial manufacturers. Several companies grew from small entrepreneurial concerns to large enterprises including Heinz, Kellogg, Duke, and Post—also attended local schools for business, learning accounting and other aspects of commerce.
Many of the entrepreneurs were interested in reform of one sort or another: William K. Kellogg and C. W. Post advocated nutritional and dietary reform; Henry Heinz lobbied for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906; John H. Patterson, of National Cash Register, pioneered in "welfare work," or the creation of healthy work environments, with parks, exercise facilities, and public lecture halls. This did not mean that these businessmen were not primarily interested in profit, but rather that they harbored a deep enthusiasm and personal zeal for their enterprises, which they communicated to their sales forces. At times, they viewed an entire industry as their personal calling.
Drawing on their own experience, entrepreneurs made sense of selling in different ways. Henry Heinz came out of a peddling tradition, selling vegetables off the back of his wagon, and built an organization that sold ketchup, pickles, baked beans, and other packaged food around the world. Asa Candler, a devout Methodist and pharmaceutical salesman, combined the zeal of his religion with the advertising acumen of patent medicine makers in his promotion of Coca-Cola. William S. Burroughs, grandfather of the writer of the same name, was a tinkerer and inventor who fielded a team of salesmen to hawk his ingenious adding machine and explain its many features.
Still, these entrepreneurs—peddlers, evangelists, and inventors—shared many characteristics. They built large businesses that combined production with mass distribution. And they usually complemented the work of their sales force with advertising and other promotional devices. Significantly, the salesman's role in promoting goods was very different from that of advertising. To use a military analogy common in the early twentieth century, advertising was a weapon for waging an air war, while salesmen were deployed as foot soldiers in a ground campaign.
To orchestrate their sales campaigns, entrepreneurs increasingly turned to sales managers, who had control over the intricacies of the sales process. Managers oversaw every detail of selling—assigning territory, setting up sales quotas, and establishing compensation schemes.
These efforts transformed selling in ways equivalent to Frederick W. Taylor's scientific management movement, which had revolutionized production. Taylor instructed managers to analyze and standardize all work routines, making them as efficient as possible and giving workers clear guidelines and timetables for the completion of tasks. Taylorism was a way for managers to seize control of every aspect of the production process. Around the turn of the century, "scientific sales management," as one business writer called it, had somewhat similar implications for selling.3
In many ways, large manufacturing companies "branded" their salesmen, just as they had their products. Mass manufacturers were not only trying to turn out uniform sales arguments, as book companies had done by distributing detailed manuals, but uniform salesmen as well. They did not hire "canvassers" or "drummers," but rather Remington salesmen, NCR agents, or Heinz salesmen. The company name, or brand, was paramount in the salesmen's identity, for they represented the manufacturer, not themselves. They were integrated into a large corporate system that began with gathering raw materials and continued through to the sale of products.
Systems of sales management at large companies altered not only the day-to-day responsibilities of the occupation, but also, at times, the appearance of the salesmen themselves, as employers demanded conservative dress and a healthy diet to distinguish their representatives from the stereotypical corpulent traveling salesman.4 Manufacturers tried to raise the status of their salesmen by belittling the common "drummer"—often their main competitor for the attention of shopkeepers. One article in a Heinz company newsletter in 1905 claimed that the loudly dressed and vulgar drummer was a thing of the past. "Specimens of this type should be stuffed and mounted and exhibited in museums, simply as a matter of historical record, along with stage coaches, muzzle-loading guns, and other relics." The modern salesman bore no relation, it claimed. "He is polished, intelligent, energetic; a man of affairs; a student of human nature; an observer of conditions; alert, affable, dignified, enthusiastic. He is trained for his work."5
The sales force remained a male preserve. Women seldom were hired for sales work, but occasionally were hired as demonstrators at machinery companies like Burroughs and Singer Sewing Machine. Yet the masculinity of the manufacturer's salesman, as revealed in house journals, was supposed to be restrained and professional, rather than exuberant and aggressive.
Birth of the American Salesman
There were many reasons for this: The emergence of salesmanship in the U.S. depended on a stable currency, the rule of law, the protection of private property, and the availability of credit. These were all aspects of the American economic system. But what made the U.S. unique was the scale of American firms that were founded in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These massive manufacturing concerns, which produced tremendous numbers of business machines, appliances, and cars, hired salesmen in the hundreds in some cases, and even thousands in others, to create demand for their products. These goods, all pushed by aggressive salesmanship, distinguished the American economy by their early appearance and widespread purchase. British industry, which produced on a smaller scale, and German manufacturers, which were rooted in craftwork traditions, seldom exhibited a similar interest in mass selling campaigns.
Salesmanship flourished in America for cultural reasons as well. In a country that, from the outset, held democratic elections and had no established church or hereditary aristocracy, salesmanship provided political and religious groups with a way to compete against their rivals for followers. Moreover, with more fluid class boundaries than in European countries, the skills of salesmanship, especially beginning in the late nineteenth century, offered a pathway to personal success. By the early twentieth century, Americans read how-to-sell books and turned Bruce Barton's The Man Nobody Knows (1925), which portrayed Jesus Christ as a successful sales and advertising executive, into a bestseller. Books on salesmanship skills still sell well today. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, published originally in 1937, remains one of the most popular and draws in part on lessons the author learned working as a salesman for Armour.
Salesmanship flourished in America for cultural reasons as well. In a country that, from the outset, held democratic elections and had no established church or hereditary aristocracy, salesmanship provided political and religious groups with a way to compete against their rivals for followers. Moreover, with more fluid class boundaries than in European countries, the skills of salesmanship, especially beginning in the late nineteenth century, offered a pathway to personal success. By the early twentieth century, Americans read how-to-sell books and turned Bruce Barton's The Man Nobody Knows (1925), which portrayed Jesus Christ as a successful sales and advertising executive, into a bestseller. Books on salesmanship skills still sell well today. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, published originally in 1937, remains one of the most popular and draws in part on lessons the author learned working as a salesman for Armour.
Dr. Maria Araneta confirmed that arrhythmia caused Ernst's death. But what caused the arrhythmia?
A blood clot probably led to a heart attack which produced the arrhythmia, she said. Clots and heart attacks are exactly the sorts of cardiovascular events that studies found Vioxx could cause.
Clot Vanishes
So, why didn't she find evidence of a clot or heart attack while performing the autopsy? The clot could have been dislodged during attempts to revive Ernst, and the heart attack killed him so quickly that it left no telltale damage, Araneta testified.
After all, something must have caused the irregular beat. Ernst, a marathon runner, had no previous heart problems when he died in his sleep at age 59, Lanier argued.
On the other hand, a defense expert called Ernst a ``walking time bomb'' because his arteries were so heavily clogged.
Probably. Maybe. Could be. Might not.
What killed Ernst was the threshold question. Answer that it wasn't Vioxx, and the case is over. Answer that it was, and you get to say just how evil Merck was, punish it and send a message to drug companies to take patients' lives more seriously.
Clot Vanishes
So, why didn't she find evidence of a clot or heart attack while performing the autopsy? The clot could have been dislodged during attempts to revive Ernst, and the heart attack killed him so quickly that it left no telltale damage, Araneta testified.
After all, something must have caused the irregular beat. Ernst, a marathon runner, had no previous heart problems when he died in his sleep at age 59, Lanier argued.
On the other hand, a defense expert called Ernst a ``walking time bomb'' because his arteries were so heavily clogged.
Probably. Maybe. Could be. Might not.
What killed Ernst was the threshold question. Answer that it wasn't Vioxx, and the case is over. Answer that it was, and you get to say just how evil Merck was, punish it and send a message to drug companies to take patients' lives more seriously.
Bloomberg Columnists : Matthew Lynn : Germany's Merkel Won't Survive Economic Crisis
Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Angela Merkel already has one historic achievement to her name. Later this month she will become the first female chancellor of Germany.
That may well be her only achievement. It is unlikely that Merkel can last very long in the top job.
Why not? For the simple reason that she has allowed herself to preside over a disastrous economic program that seems certain to push Germany into recession. Voters won't forgive her for that, nor will they forgive the Christian Democratic Union she leads for allowing it to happen.
The Sept. 18 federal election produced a stalemate between the two big parties: the CDU and the Social Democratic Party. With neither commanding enough seats in parliament to form a government by itself or in coalition with other parties, Merkel was left with little choice but to agree to a ``grand coalition'' of the two main rivals.
At the time, some commentators welcomed the policy mix. A grand coalition would have the unchallenged authority to push through the structural change that the German economy needs. It would unify the country, and give it a common purpose. It would have the power to face down special interest groups on both sides of the political divide.
It was a seductive line of reasoning. There was just one flaw: It didn't produce the policies needed.
The coalition may be grand, yet the economy will be petite.
`Fear the Worst'
``The plans of the future grand coalition to cut subsidies and to hike the value-added tax rate from 16 percent to 19 percent make me fear the worst for Germany,'' said Dirk Chlench, an economist at Hypothekenbank in Essen AG, in an e-mailed response to questions. ``If this was not bad enough, ECB interest-rate hikes seem to be around the corner. Thus, deflation has become more than a remote possibility in Germany.''
Merkel's government will be presiding over the kind of economic program that has rarely been seen since the global recession of the 1930s. It's taking an economy that suffers from chronically weak consumer demand, and punishing it with an iron determination to balance the budget. It is as if John Maynard Keynes had never been born.
The program has taken the worst knee-jerk policies from both the left and the right, ignoring the probability that anyone with two knees jerking at the same time will fall over.
Take a look at the platform that has been approved.
From the traditional right comes a determination to balance the budget. From the left, there are proposals to punish the rich.
That may well be her only achievement. It is unlikely that Merkel can last very long in the top job.
Why not? For the simple reason that she has allowed herself to preside over a disastrous economic program that seems certain to push Germany into recession. Voters won't forgive her for that, nor will they forgive the Christian Democratic Union she leads for allowing it to happen.
The Sept. 18 federal election produced a stalemate between the two big parties: the CDU and the Social Democratic Party. With neither commanding enough seats in parliament to form a government by itself or in coalition with other parties, Merkel was left with little choice but to agree to a ``grand coalition'' of the two main rivals.
At the time, some commentators welcomed the policy mix. A grand coalition would have the unchallenged authority to push through the structural change that the German economy needs. It would unify the country, and give it a common purpose. It would have the power to face down special interest groups on both sides of the political divide.
It was a seductive line of reasoning. There was just one flaw: It didn't produce the policies needed.
The coalition may be grand, yet the economy will be petite.
`Fear the Worst'
``The plans of the future grand coalition to cut subsidies and to hike the value-added tax rate from 16 percent to 19 percent make me fear the worst for Germany,'' said Dirk Chlench, an economist at Hypothekenbank in Essen AG, in an e-mailed response to questions. ``If this was not bad enough, ECB interest-rate hikes seem to be around the corner. Thus, deflation has become more than a remote possibility in Germany.''
Merkel's government will be presiding over the kind of economic program that has rarely been seen since the global recession of the 1930s. It's taking an economy that suffers from chronically weak consumer demand, and punishing it with an iron determination to balance the budget. It is as if John Maynard Keynes had never been born.
The program has taken the worst knee-jerk policies from both the left and the right, ignoring the probability that anyone with two knees jerking at the same time will fall over.
Take a look at the platform that has been approved.
From the traditional right comes a determination to balance the budget. From the left, there are proposals to punish the rich.
Bloomberg Columnists : Ann Woolner : Come One, Come All. File Your Vioxx Lawsuit
Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) -- I'm thinking of calling a lawyer to see if I can file a Vioxx lawsuit. Mark Lanier in Houston is probably busy on other calls, having won a $253 million Vioxx verdict against Merck & Co. this month. No matter. The Internet is full of lawyers offering free consultations, online case evaluations and toll-free telephone numbers.If Lanier can win that much money for a widow whose husband might not have died from Vioxx, if he can do it with 11 Republicans on the jury in a politically conservative county, then surely anybody can win a case against Merck. Scrounging through my medicine cabinet, I find no bottles of Vioxx. OK, so I never took the stuff and suffer no ailment resembling a Vioxx side effect.
Still, the news out of Texas gives me hope. The first Vioxx trial of many to come looks like yet another case of a runaway jury softened up by a sad story, manipulated by a clever trial lawyer and unable to understand scientific evidence. Merck's lawyers didn't make comprehension easy. ``Whenever Merck was up there, it was like `Wah, wah, wah,''' juror John Ostrom told reporters after the verdict. ``We didn't know what the heck they were talking about.''
Doctors' Questions
What they did understand were documents and e-mails that showed Merck suspected as far back as 1997 that Vioxx might be more dangerous than the company would claim. They heard evidence Merck told its sales force to evade doctors' questions about health risks and tried to intimidate scientists who openly questioned Vioxx's safety. Jurors, outraged over Merck's conduct, may well have filled in evidence gaps around the essential issue they had to answer: did Vioxx help kill Robert Ernst?
The autopsy showed Ernst died of arrhythmia, an irregular heartbeat. That's never been one of Vioxx's known side effects. Case closed, right? Merck had hoped so. But Lanier tracked down in the United Arab Emirates the pathologist who had performed the autopsy and flew her to Texas for a video deposition mid-trial.
Still, the news out of Texas gives me hope. The first Vioxx trial of many to come looks like yet another case of a runaway jury softened up by a sad story, manipulated by a clever trial lawyer and unable to understand scientific evidence. Merck's lawyers didn't make comprehension easy. ``Whenever Merck was up there, it was like `Wah, wah, wah,''' juror John Ostrom told reporters after the verdict. ``We didn't know what the heck they were talking about.''
Doctors' Questions
What they did understand were documents and e-mails that showed Merck suspected as far back as 1997 that Vioxx might be more dangerous than the company would claim. They heard evidence Merck told its sales force to evade doctors' questions about health risks and tried to intimidate scientists who openly questioned Vioxx's safety. Jurors, outraged over Merck's conduct, may well have filled in evidence gaps around the essential issue they had to answer: did Vioxx help kill Robert Ernst?
The autopsy showed Ernst died of arrhythmia, an irregular heartbeat. That's never been one of Vioxx's known side effects. Case closed, right? Merck had hoped so. But Lanier tracked down in the United Arab Emirates the pathologist who had performed the autopsy and flew her to Texas for a video deposition mid-trial.
Citibank subsidiaries
Some information in this article or section is not attributed to sources and may not be reliable.
Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed.
According to the Citigoup website, until October 2006, Citibank ran the following subsidiaries:
Citibank, N.A.(National Association) - The "original" Citibank, primarily doing business in New York State and the tri-state New York City metropolitan area. Also the parent company of the other subsidiaries.
Citibank Canada. http://www.citibank.com/canada/homepage/english/index.htm
Citibank Texas, N.A. - The former First American bank.
Citibank (West), F.S.B. - The former Citicorp Savings (a savings and loan operating in California), as well as the former California Federal Bank and Golden State Bank.
Citibank, F.S.B. - The primary Citibank subsidiary serving all other states, based in Chicago.
Citibank Banamex USA - Formally California Commerce Bank, Banamex's U.S. banking division.
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. - A credit card and lending-only bank based in South Dakota, including the former Associates National Bank.
Universal Financial Corp. - A credit card bank, purchased in 1997, that manages the AT&T Universal Card.
On October 1, 2006, a massive re-organization designed to streamline the various Citibank banking charters occurred. Under the new structure, the following divisions were consolidated into:
Citibank, N.A.:
Citibank, FSB
Citibank (West), FSB
Citibank, Texas, N.A.
Citibank Delaware
Citibank Banamex USA
Citicorp Trust, N.A. (California)
Citibank South Dakota, N.A.:
Citibank, Nevada, N.A.
Citibank USA, N.A.
Universal Financial Corp.
Citibank South Dakota, FSB
As of December 2006, these are the only two Citibank banking divisions: Citibank, N.A. and Citibank South Dakota, N.A.:
Please check for inaccuracies, and modify and cite sources as needed.
According to the Citigoup website, until October 2006, Citibank ran the following subsidiaries:
Citibank, N.A.(National Association) - The "original" Citibank, primarily doing business in New York State and the tri-state New York City metropolitan area. Also the parent company of the other subsidiaries.
Citibank Canada. http://www.citibank.com/canada/homepage/english/index.htm
Citibank Texas, N.A. - The former First American bank.
Citibank (West), F.S.B. - The former Citicorp Savings (a savings and loan operating in California), as well as the former California Federal Bank and Golden State Bank.
Citibank, F.S.B. - The primary Citibank subsidiary serving all other states, based in Chicago.
Citibank Banamex USA - Formally California Commerce Bank, Banamex's U.S. banking division.
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. - A credit card and lending-only bank based in South Dakota, including the former Associates National Bank.
Universal Financial Corp. - A credit card bank, purchased in 1997, that manages the AT&T Universal Card.
On October 1, 2006, a massive re-organization designed to streamline the various Citibank banking charters occurred. Under the new structure, the following divisions were consolidated into:
Citibank, N.A.:
Citibank, FSB
Citibank (West), FSB
Citibank, Texas, N.A.
Citibank Delaware
Citibank Banamex USA
Citicorp Trust, N.A. (California)
Citibank South Dakota, N.A.:
Citibank, Nevada, N.A.
Citibank USA, N.A.
Universal Financial Corp.
Citibank South Dakota, FSB
As of December 2006, these are the only two Citibank banking divisions: Citibank, N.A. and Citibank South Dakota, N.A.:
1998 Citibank logo
Citibank was one of the first U.S. banks to introduce automatic teller machines in the 1970s, in order to give 24-hour access to accounts.
Citibank's major presence in California is fairly recent. The bank had only a handful of branches in that state before acquiring the assets of California Federal Bank in 2002 with Citicorp's purchase of Golden State Bancorp.
In 2001, Citibank settled a $45 million class action lawsuit for improperly assessing late fees. Following this Citibank lobbied in Congress to pass legislation that would limit class action lawsuits to 5 million dollars unless they were initiated on a federal level. Some consumer advocate websites report that Citibank is still improperly assessing late fees.
In August of 2004, Citibank entered the Texas market with the purchase of First American Bank of Bryan, Texas. The deal established Citigroup's retail banking presence in Texas, giving Citibank over 100 branches, $3.5 billion in assets and approximately 120,000 new customers in the state. First American Bank was renamed Citibank Texas after the take-over was completed on March 31, 2005.
It is hoped that with both California and Texas markets, Citibank can appeal to both states' Latino population, and offer products on both sides of the border through Citibank in the U.S., and Banamex (Citigroup's Mexican division) in Mexico.
Citibank has operations in more than 100 countries and territories around the world. More than half of its 1,400 offices are in the United States, mostly in the New York City, Chicago, Miami, and Washington DC metropolitan areas, as well as in California.
In addition to the standard banking transactions, Citibank offers insurance, credit card and investment products. Their online services division is among the most successful in the field, claiming about 15 million users.
In April of 2006, Citibank struck a deal with 7-Eleven to put its ATMs in over 5,500 convenience stores in the U.S. In the same month, it also announced it would sell all of its Buffalo and Rochester New York branches and accounts to M&T Bank.
It was announced on November 13th, 2006 that Citibank would be the corporate sponsor of the new stadium for the New York Mets. The stadium will open in 2009 and be called Citi Field.
Citibank's major presence in California is fairly recent. The bank had only a handful of branches in that state before acquiring the assets of California Federal Bank in 2002 with Citicorp's purchase of Golden State Bancorp.
In 2001, Citibank settled a $45 million class action lawsuit for improperly assessing late fees. Following this Citibank lobbied in Congress to pass legislation that would limit class action lawsuits to 5 million dollars unless they were initiated on a federal level. Some consumer advocate websites report that Citibank is still improperly assessing late fees.
In August of 2004, Citibank entered the Texas market with the purchase of First American Bank of Bryan, Texas. The deal established Citigroup's retail banking presence in Texas, giving Citibank over 100 branches, $3.5 billion in assets and approximately 120,000 new customers in the state. First American Bank was renamed Citibank Texas after the take-over was completed on March 31, 2005.
It is hoped that with both California and Texas markets, Citibank can appeal to both states' Latino population, and offer products on both sides of the border through Citibank in the U.S., and Banamex (Citigroup's Mexican division) in Mexico.
Citibank has operations in more than 100 countries and territories around the world. More than half of its 1,400 offices are in the United States, mostly in the New York City, Chicago, Miami, and Washington DC metropolitan areas, as well as in California.
In addition to the standard banking transactions, Citibank offers insurance, credit card and investment products. Their online services division is among the most successful in the field, claiming about 15 million users.
In April of 2006, Citibank struck a deal with 7-Eleven to put its ATMs in over 5,500 convenience stores in the U.S. In the same month, it also announced it would sell all of its Buffalo and Rochester New York branches and accounts to M&T Bank.
It was announced on November 13th, 2006 that Citibank would be the corporate sponsor of the new stadium for the New York Mets. The stadium will open in 2009 and be called Citi Field.
Citibank
Citibank is a major international bank, founded in 1812 as the City Bank of New York. Citibank is now the consumer and corporate banking arm of financial services giant Citigroup, the largest company of its kind in the world. It is the third largest bank in the United States by holdings behind Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Manhattan Chinatown Citibank branch (New York City)
Founded in 1812 as the City Bank of New York by a group of New York merchants, the bank's first head was Samuel Osgood, who had been the U.S.'s first Postmaster General. Subsequently, ownership and management of the bank was taken over by Moses Taylor, a protégé of John Jacob Astor and one of the giants of the business world in the 19th century. During Taylor's ascendancy, the bank functioned largely as a treasury and finance center for Taylor's own extensive business empire.
In 1865 the bank joined the U.S.'s new national banking system and became The National City Bank of New York. By 1894, it was considered one of the largest banks in the United States, and in 1897, it became the first major U.S. bank to establish a foreign department. In 1913 it was the first contributor to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
National City became the first U.S. national bank to open an overseas banking office when its branch in Buenos Aires, Argentina was opened in 1914. Many of Citi's present international offices are older; offices in London, Shanghai, Calcutta and elsewhere were opened in 1901 and 1902 by the International Banking Corporation (IBC), a company chartered to conduct banking business outside the U.S., at that time an activity time forbidden to U.S. national banks. In 1918, IBC became a wholly owned subsidiary and was subsequently merged into the bank. By 1919 the bank had become the first U.S. bank to have $ 1 billion in assets.
Charles E. Mitchell was elected president in 1921 and in 1929 was made chairman, a position he held until 1933. Under Mitchell the bank expanded rapidly and by 1930 had 100 branches in 23 countries outside the United States.
In 1952, James Stillman Rockefeller was elected president and then chairman in 1959, serving until 1967. Stillman was a direct descendant of the Rockefeller family through the William Rockefeller (the brother of John D.) branch; in 1960 his second cousin, David Rockefeller, became president of Chase Manhattan Bank, National City's longtime New York rival for dominance in the banking industry in America.
Following its merger with the First National Bank, the bank changed its name to The First National City Bank of New York in 1955, then shortened it to First National City Bank in 1962, and ultimately changed it to Citibank in 1976. By that time, the bank had created its own "one-bank holding company" and had become a wholly owned subsidiary of that company, Citicorp (all shareholders of the bank had become shareholders of the new corporation, which became the bank's sole owner).
In the 1960's the bank entered into the credit card business. In 1965, First National City Bank bought Carte Blanche from Hilton Hotels. However after three years, the bank (under pressure from the U.S. government) was forced to sell this division. By 1968, the company created its own credit card. The card, known as "The Everything Card," was promoted as a kind of East Coast version of the BankAmericard. By 1969, First National City Bank decided that the Everything Card was too costly to promote as an independent brand and joined Master Charge (now MasterCard). Citibank unsuccessfully tried again in 1977-1987 to create a separate credit card brand, the Choice Card.
In 1981, Citibank chartered a South Dakota subsidiary to take advantage of new laws that raised the state's maximum permissible interest rate on loans to 25 percent (then the highest in the nation). In many other states, usury laws prevented banks from charging interest that aligned with the extremely high costs of lending money in the late 1970s and early 1980s, making consumer lending unprofitable.
Manhattan Chinatown Citibank branch (New York City)
Founded in 1812 as the City Bank of New York by a group of New York merchants, the bank's first head was Samuel Osgood, who had been the U.S.'s first Postmaster General. Subsequently, ownership and management of the bank was taken over by Moses Taylor, a protégé of John Jacob Astor and one of the giants of the business world in the 19th century. During Taylor's ascendancy, the bank functioned largely as a treasury and finance center for Taylor's own extensive business empire.
In 1865 the bank joined the U.S.'s new national banking system and became The National City Bank of New York. By 1894, it was considered one of the largest banks in the United States, and in 1897, it became the first major U.S. bank to establish a foreign department. In 1913 it was the first contributor to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
National City became the first U.S. national bank to open an overseas banking office when its branch in Buenos Aires, Argentina was opened in 1914. Many of Citi's present international offices are older; offices in London, Shanghai, Calcutta and elsewhere were opened in 1901 and 1902 by the International Banking Corporation (IBC), a company chartered to conduct banking business outside the U.S., at that time an activity time forbidden to U.S. national banks. In 1918, IBC became a wholly owned subsidiary and was subsequently merged into the bank. By 1919 the bank had become the first U.S. bank to have $ 1 billion in assets.
Charles E. Mitchell was elected president in 1921 and in 1929 was made chairman, a position he held until 1933. Under Mitchell the bank expanded rapidly and by 1930 had 100 branches in 23 countries outside the United States.
In 1952, James Stillman Rockefeller was elected president and then chairman in 1959, serving until 1967. Stillman was a direct descendant of the Rockefeller family through the William Rockefeller (the brother of John D.) branch; in 1960 his second cousin, David Rockefeller, became president of Chase Manhattan Bank, National City's longtime New York rival for dominance in the banking industry in America.
Following its merger with the First National Bank, the bank changed its name to The First National City Bank of New York in 1955, then shortened it to First National City Bank in 1962, and ultimately changed it to Citibank in 1976. By that time, the bank had created its own "one-bank holding company" and had become a wholly owned subsidiary of that company, Citicorp (all shareholders of the bank had become shareholders of the new corporation, which became the bank's sole owner).
In the 1960's the bank entered into the credit card business. In 1965, First National City Bank bought Carte Blanche from Hilton Hotels. However after three years, the bank (under pressure from the U.S. government) was forced to sell this division. By 1968, the company created its own credit card. The card, known as "The Everything Card," was promoted as a kind of East Coast version of the BankAmericard. By 1969, First National City Bank decided that the Everything Card was too costly to promote as an independent brand and joined Master Charge (now MasterCard). Citibank unsuccessfully tried again in 1977-1987 to create a separate credit card brand, the Choice Card.
In 1981, Citibank chartered a South Dakota subsidiary to take advantage of new laws that raised the state's maximum permissible interest rate on loans to 25 percent (then the highest in the nation). In many other states, usury laws prevented banks from charging interest that aligned with the extremely high costs of lending money in the late 1970s and early 1980s, making consumer lending unprofitable.
Clash of Civilizations : In the battle between America and Europe, we better hope that they prevail.
George W. Bush may believe he has the mandate of heaven for what, as I write, is still the looming war in Iraq, but he's not doing very well on earth. Indeed, he's all but unified the planet in opposition to the notion of a U.S.-led preemptive war.
Governments that support the war do so at their own risk. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is in danger of losing the support of his own party. In Spain, the Popular Party of Prime Minister José María Aznar has fallen behind the opposition Socialists for the first time in seven years. In Eastern Europe -- a particularly pro-American part of the world where most governments back the U.S. position on Iraq -- huge majorities nonetheless reject the war: 75 percent of Poles, 82 percent of Hungarians, 76 percent of Czechs.
These numbers directly reflect the failure of the administration to convince the world that Iraq poses the kind of imminent threat that justifies a preventive war. But plainly they also reflect a more fundamental rift than that, as the answers to an international Gallup Poll taken in January make clear. When respondents were asked whether American foreign policy had a positive or negative effect on their countries, what was stunning was the uniformity of their answers: In Spain, the margin was 57 percent negative to 9 percent positive; in Russia, the margin was 55 percent to 11 percent; in Argentina, 58 percent to 13 percent; in Pakistan, 46 percent to 8 percent.
This global rejection is breathtaking, but not all that surprising. Under Bush, America has become a hegemon with a chip on its shoulder, at once belligerent and xenophobic. The United States has been seceding from a new world order of interdependence that, until recently, it had helped construct. At the very moment when the world's peoples have recognized the need to build global institutions to deal with a global economy and environment, with globalized crime and weapons proliferation and stateless terrorism, the United States has arrogated to itself the right to ignore and undermine those parts of the emerging global architecture that fail to please its eye. In Bush's Washington, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is good so long as U.S. investors don't have profits diminished by onerous labor and environmental standards; the Kyoto Protocol on global warming posed such a threat and was rejected; the International Criminal Court was fine for deterring other nations' war crimes but not our own; the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty threatened a new Pentagon program and had to be scrapped. The United Nations -- well, we'll just have to see about that.
And then there's the European Union, which is well on its way to becoming a supranational entity -- more than a federation but not quite a state -- that would be something new in the world. At first glance this convergence of America's longtime allies might not seem threatening to the United States. But of all the entities aborning at the dawn of the 21st century, a unified Europe poses the greatest threat to the unholy alliance of neoconservatives and xenophobes who dominate the Bush administration. For them the 21st century has already been stamped as American property. The one obstacle in their path is Europe -- an emerging power bloc committed to a different kind of capitalism than ours and the primary champion of the very global institutions that impede the construction of an American-dominated order.
On the whole this is an assessment with which Europe -- masses and elites alike -- concurs. As Michael Emerson of the Centre for European Policy Studies has written, "Europe understands that the future governance of this world has to be some system of cosmopolitan democracy." And, he might have added, Europeans understand that such a system will never win the blessing of the Bush White House. (Indeed, it's hard to say which of those notions troubles the administration more -- a democratic world order or a cosmopolitan one.)
And so, at the outset of the 21st century, the battle between Europe and America for the power to shape the century, and on behalf of different models of social organization, is already joined. And may I gently suggest that the best possible outcome for the American democratic republic -- for the America of Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt -- would be an American (or more precisely, Bushian) defeat. But not an unconditional one.
II. Europe v. America
I doubt that many, if any, European leaders at the time the Berlin Wall fell envisioned this clash. Though many took umbrage when Francis Fukuyama proclaimed history's end, the idea that Europe would be so fundamentally opposed to the United States within a scant 14 years would have taken them by surprise. The European left, after all, had long since acclimated itself to capitalism; the socialists, social democrats and British Laborites were all heirs of Eduard Bernstein, the fin de siècle meliorative socialist for whom the very idea of a final conflict was anathema.
In his new book Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, which Stephen Holmes reviews elsewhere in this issue [see "Why We Need Europe," page 47], Robert Kagan adduces some of the reasons for the rift that has opened up within the erstwhile Atlantic alliance. Kagan depicts a Europe enmeshed in unification (and the worlds of diplomacy and social harmonization that attend such a project) and an America that has chosen instead to be the lone sentinel guarding against external threats and disorder. He omits, however, any discussion of the diverging economic visions and realities that increasingly separate the two great continental democracies. He especially omits any thought that the European model might be the more compelling.
Governments that support the war do so at their own risk. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is in danger of losing the support of his own party. In Spain, the Popular Party of Prime Minister José María Aznar has fallen behind the opposition Socialists for the first time in seven years. In Eastern Europe -- a particularly pro-American part of the world where most governments back the U.S. position on Iraq -- huge majorities nonetheless reject the war: 75 percent of Poles, 82 percent of Hungarians, 76 percent of Czechs.
These numbers directly reflect the failure of the administration to convince the world that Iraq poses the kind of imminent threat that justifies a preventive war. But plainly they also reflect a more fundamental rift than that, as the answers to an international Gallup Poll taken in January make clear. When respondents were asked whether American foreign policy had a positive or negative effect on their countries, what was stunning was the uniformity of their answers: In Spain, the margin was 57 percent negative to 9 percent positive; in Russia, the margin was 55 percent to 11 percent; in Argentina, 58 percent to 13 percent; in Pakistan, 46 percent to 8 percent.
This global rejection is breathtaking, but not all that surprising. Under Bush, America has become a hegemon with a chip on its shoulder, at once belligerent and xenophobic. The United States has been seceding from a new world order of interdependence that, until recently, it had helped construct. At the very moment when the world's peoples have recognized the need to build global institutions to deal with a global economy and environment, with globalized crime and weapons proliferation and stateless terrorism, the United States has arrogated to itself the right to ignore and undermine those parts of the emerging global architecture that fail to please its eye. In Bush's Washington, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is good so long as U.S. investors don't have profits diminished by onerous labor and environmental standards; the Kyoto Protocol on global warming posed such a threat and was rejected; the International Criminal Court was fine for deterring other nations' war crimes but not our own; the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty threatened a new Pentagon program and had to be scrapped. The United Nations -- well, we'll just have to see about that.
And then there's the European Union, which is well on its way to becoming a supranational entity -- more than a federation but not quite a state -- that would be something new in the world. At first glance this convergence of America's longtime allies might not seem threatening to the United States. But of all the entities aborning at the dawn of the 21st century, a unified Europe poses the greatest threat to the unholy alliance of neoconservatives and xenophobes who dominate the Bush administration. For them the 21st century has already been stamped as American property. The one obstacle in their path is Europe -- an emerging power bloc committed to a different kind of capitalism than ours and the primary champion of the very global institutions that impede the construction of an American-dominated order.
On the whole this is an assessment with which Europe -- masses and elites alike -- concurs. As Michael Emerson of the Centre for European Policy Studies has written, "Europe understands that the future governance of this world has to be some system of cosmopolitan democracy." And, he might have added, Europeans understand that such a system will never win the blessing of the Bush White House. (Indeed, it's hard to say which of those notions troubles the administration more -- a democratic world order or a cosmopolitan one.)
And so, at the outset of the 21st century, the battle between Europe and America for the power to shape the century, and on behalf of different models of social organization, is already joined. And may I gently suggest that the best possible outcome for the American democratic republic -- for the America of Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt -- would be an American (or more precisely, Bushian) defeat. But not an unconditional one.
II. Europe v. America
I doubt that many, if any, European leaders at the time the Berlin Wall fell envisioned this clash. Though many took umbrage when Francis Fukuyama proclaimed history's end, the idea that Europe would be so fundamentally opposed to the United States within a scant 14 years would have taken them by surprise. The European left, after all, had long since acclimated itself to capitalism; the socialists, social democrats and British Laborites were all heirs of Eduard Bernstein, the fin de siècle meliorative socialist for whom the very idea of a final conflict was anathema.
In his new book Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, which Stephen Holmes reviews elsewhere in this issue [see "Why We Need Europe," page 47], Robert Kagan adduces some of the reasons for the rift that has opened up within the erstwhile Atlantic alliance. Kagan depicts a Europe enmeshed in unification (and the worlds of diplomacy and social harmonization that attend such a project) and an America that has chosen instead to be the lone sentinel guarding against external threats and disorder. He omits, however, any discussion of the diverging economic visions and realities that increasingly separate the two great continental democracies. He especially omits any thought that the European model might be the more compelling.
EU and Whose Army?
On matters of military force, Europe needs to realize that it actually has conflicting principles. In late January, I met in Brussels with some leading members of the European Parliament, who explained why the notion of preemptive war was particularly repugnant to them. (As if anyone representing a continent that had experienced the preemptive wars of 1914 and 1939 needed to explain that.) "All our experience leads us to say, 'Never again' to war and holocaust," one legislator said. But holocausts are seldom averted absent the use of force, and Europe's inability to block the massacres of Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo reveal the shortcomings of its nonmilitary preferences when faced with a challenge to its own moral imperatives.
The policy of saying "no" to America's unilateral use of preemptive force may be morally satisfying and strategically sound. But it has failed to deter the United States or to weaken Saddam Hussein's resistance to inspections, which has eroded only under threat of imminent war. The alternative to this war is inspection and containment, in the manner laid out by former Clinton State Department official Morton H. Halperin in these pages last year [see "Deter and Contain," tap, Nov. 4, 2002]: an aggressive inspection regime, in control of all the skies over Iraq and with a mandate to destroy from the air all buildings from which inspectors are denied entry by Hussein's government.
But both these kinds of interventions (Bosnia and Iraq), as well as more conventional conflicts, would require of Europe some things it does not have: a rapid reaction force and a will to use it. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac called for establishing such a force, but Europe's attention has been directed inward, and no such force as yet exists. What's more telling is that the United States, for all its claims that it would like more allies, is dead set against such a force. Indeed, as the Cato Institute's Christopher Layne has noted, the United States is arguing that each European nation should develop some niche military capability rather than have Europe develop an autonomous force. By the same token, the United States encouraged the European Union to expand eastward in hopes that the new nations would bring perspectives widely variant from those of the western states. It has also voiced concerns that in the preliminary plans for a European Constitution, individual nations will not be able to veto a foreign policy agreed upon by a majority vote. The White House's ability to pick off a Blair here, a Berlusconi there, would be totally undermined.
In short, the United States has been conducting a preemptive war against a unified Europe for some time now.
And yet the Bush and neocon model of an America First century is either undesirable or unsustainable -- or both. Even if we accept the wholly implausible thesis that a U.S. overthrow of Hussein and subsequent occupation and reconstruction of Iraq would democratize the Middle East, for instance, the willingness of the American people to support such a project would run counter to the vision of a privatized America that the conservatives commend here at home. The generation of Americans who supported the Marshall Plan had themselves benefited from an activist government; they were accustomed to a government that undertook major public works and that put millions of Americans on public payrolls. Today, state and local governments are slashing basic services while the Bush administration is throwing money at the rich. Why, under these conditions, conservatives expect Americans to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq is anyone's guess. The kind of solidaristic values and confidence in the public sphere needed to support such an ambitious, enlightened project can be found today, ironically, only in Europe.
Americans must hope that, in this era of global integration, we are not at the brink of the American century. If anything, the Europeans should take some time out from perfecting Europe to project their values more forcefully on the wider world. We need Europe to save us from ourselves.
The policy of saying "no" to America's unilateral use of preemptive force may be morally satisfying and strategically sound. But it has failed to deter the United States or to weaken Saddam Hussein's resistance to inspections, which has eroded only under threat of imminent war. The alternative to this war is inspection and containment, in the manner laid out by former Clinton State Department official Morton H. Halperin in these pages last year [see "Deter and Contain," tap, Nov. 4, 2002]: an aggressive inspection regime, in control of all the skies over Iraq and with a mandate to destroy from the air all buildings from which inspectors are denied entry by Hussein's government.
But both these kinds of interventions (Bosnia and Iraq), as well as more conventional conflicts, would require of Europe some things it does not have: a rapid reaction force and a will to use it. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac called for establishing such a force, but Europe's attention has been directed inward, and no such force as yet exists. What's more telling is that the United States, for all its claims that it would like more allies, is dead set against such a force. Indeed, as the Cato Institute's Christopher Layne has noted, the United States is arguing that each European nation should develop some niche military capability rather than have Europe develop an autonomous force. By the same token, the United States encouraged the European Union to expand eastward in hopes that the new nations would bring perspectives widely variant from those of the western states. It has also voiced concerns that in the preliminary plans for a European Constitution, individual nations will not be able to veto a foreign policy agreed upon by a majority vote. The White House's ability to pick off a Blair here, a Berlusconi there, would be totally undermined.
In short, the United States has been conducting a preemptive war against a unified Europe for some time now.
And yet the Bush and neocon model of an America First century is either undesirable or unsustainable -- or both. Even if we accept the wholly implausible thesis that a U.S. overthrow of Hussein and subsequent occupation and reconstruction of Iraq would democratize the Middle East, for instance, the willingness of the American people to support such a project would run counter to the vision of a privatized America that the conservatives commend here at home. The generation of Americans who supported the Marshall Plan had themselves benefited from an activist government; they were accustomed to a government that undertook major public works and that put millions of Americans on public payrolls. Today, state and local governments are slashing basic services while the Bush administration is throwing money at the rich. Why, under these conditions, conservatives expect Americans to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq is anyone's guess. The kind of solidaristic values and confidence in the public sphere needed to support such an ambitious, enlightened project can be found today, ironically, only in Europe.
Americans must hope that, in this era of global integration, we are not at the brink of the American century. If anything, the Europeans should take some time out from perfecting Europe to project their values more forcefully on the wider world. We need Europe to save us from ourselves.
Global Warming : Science of Global Warming Has the Climate Changed Already?
Historical records show that the climate has changed in the last one hundred years. Not only are long-term averages changing, but the shorter-term variability in climate, from year to year and decade to decade, is also beginning to display changing patterns. Among the established trends and changes are the following:
Temperature increase. Global mean surface temperature has increased about 1.1°F (0.6°C) since the beginning of the 20th century, with night-time minimums increasing more than day-time maximums. While the warming record shows significant spatial and temporal variability, the global upward trend is unambiguous. Most of the warming in
All stations/trends displayed regardless of statistical significance
Source: National Climatic Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA
* Source: National Climatic Data Center NESDIS/NOAA
Green = increasing, Brown = decreasing
All stations/trends displayed regardless of statistical significance
Glaciers. There has been a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions during the 20th century. Northern hemisphere sea-ice extent has decreased 10-15% since the 1950s, and Arctic summer sea-ice thickness is likely to have declined by 40%.
Sea-level rise. Global sea level has risen between 3.9 and 10 in. (10 - 25 cm) largely due to thermal expansion of the oceans, and to a lesser extent due to the melting of land-based glaciers. The rate of sea-level rise during the 20th century was about 10 times higher than the average rate during the last 3,000 years. Global ocean heat content has also increased since the late 1950s.
El Niño. More frequent, persistent and intense El Niños have been observed in recent decades. The persistent 1990 to mid-1995 warm phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation event was exceptional in the 120-year record of the phenomenon. The 1997 El Niño event appears to have been the strongest on record. While scientists cannot yet say with certainty that this observed change is due to human activity, this observation is consistent with some climate model predictions. With climate change, they suggest a warming pattern in the Pacific ocean similar to what occurs during an El Niño event now. Thus, against this background warming, future El Niño events might occur more frequently and be more intense.
In considering the direct and indirect historical record of climate observations from across the globe, the IPCC concluded in 2001, "an increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world."
Temperature increase. Global mean surface temperature has increased about 1.1°F (0.6°C) since the beginning of the 20th century, with night-time minimums increasing more than day-time maximums. While the warming record shows significant spatial and temporal variability, the global upward trend is unambiguous. Most of the warming in
All stations/trends displayed regardless of statistical significance
Source: National Climatic Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA
* Source: National Climatic Data Center NESDIS/NOAA
Green = increasing, Brown = decreasing
All stations/trends displayed regardless of statistical significance
Glaciers. There has been a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions during the 20th century. Northern hemisphere sea-ice extent has decreased 10-15% since the 1950s, and Arctic summer sea-ice thickness is likely to have declined by 40%.
Sea-level rise. Global sea level has risen between 3.9 and 10 in. (10 - 25 cm) largely due to thermal expansion of the oceans, and to a lesser extent due to the melting of land-based glaciers. The rate of sea-level rise during the 20th century was about 10 times higher than the average rate during the last 3,000 years. Global ocean heat content has also increased since the late 1950s.
El Niño. More frequent, persistent and intense El Niños have been observed in recent decades. The persistent 1990 to mid-1995 warm phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation event was exceptional in the 120-year record of the phenomenon. The 1997 El Niño event appears to have been the strongest on record. While scientists cannot yet say with certainty that this observed change is due to human activity, this observation is consistent with some climate model predictions. With climate change, they suggest a warming pattern in the Pacific ocean similar to what occurs during an El Niño event now. Thus, against this background warming, future El Niño events might occur more frequently and be more intense.
In considering the direct and indirect historical record of climate observations from across the globe, the IPCC concluded in 2001, "an increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world."
Harvard Board of Overseers announces newly elected members
The president of the Harvard Alumni Association announced on June 7 the results of the annual election of new members of the Harvard Board of Overseers.
The results were released at the annual meeting of the association following the University’s 356th Commencement.
The five newly elected Overseers are:
Ronald Cohen (London): Born in Egypt, he was educated at Oxford and the Harvard Business School, from which he received an M.B.A. in 1969. He was for many years active in the European venture capital and private equity market. He is the co-founder of the Portland Trust, a not-for-profit foundation to encourage the pursuit of peace in the Middle East through innovative economic tools.
Richard R. Schrock (Cambridge, Mass.): The recipient of the 2005 Nobel Prize in chemistry, he is the Frederick G. Keyes Professor of Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1975. A graduate of the University of California, Riverside, he received the Ph.D. from Harvard in 1972.
Richard A. Meserve (Washington, D.C.): He is the president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a not-for-profit organization that conducts scientific research. A former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he is a Tufts graduate with a Ph.D. in applied physics from Stanford. He received the J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1975.
Stephanie D. Wilson (Houston): She is a NASA astronaut, who spent 13 days in space in July 2006 on a flight to the International Space Station. A 1988 graduate of Harvard in engineering science, she later received a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Texas.
Lucy Fisher (Los Angeles): She is an independent film producer and co-head of Red Wagon Entertainment. The movies of Red Wagon have won 10 Oscars and received 28 nominations. She has been active advancing regenerative medicine, serving as co-chair of the 2004 California stem cell research and cures initiative. She received an A.B. from Harvard in 1971.
The five new Overseers were elected for six-year terms. In 2007, there were eight candidates nominated by a committee of the Harvard Alumni Association, as prescribed by the election rules. Alumni and alumnae ballots cast in the election totaled 28,888.
The primary function of the Board of Overseers is to encourage the University to maintain the highest attainable standards as a place of learning. Overseers carry out this mission by visiting faculties, departments, and other important programs throughout the University so that they can inform themselves about the quality of teaching, research, and administration and then identify problems and offer advice to faculties and University officials.
The results were released at the annual meeting of the association following the University’s 356th Commencement.
The five newly elected Overseers are:
Ronald Cohen (London): Born in Egypt, he was educated at Oxford and the Harvard Business School, from which he received an M.B.A. in 1969. He was for many years active in the European venture capital and private equity market. He is the co-founder of the Portland Trust, a not-for-profit foundation to encourage the pursuit of peace in the Middle East through innovative economic tools.
Richard R. Schrock (Cambridge, Mass.): The recipient of the 2005 Nobel Prize in chemistry, he is the Frederick G. Keyes Professor of Chemistry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1975. A graduate of the University of California, Riverside, he received the Ph.D. from Harvard in 1972.
Richard A. Meserve (Washington, D.C.): He is the president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a not-for-profit organization that conducts scientific research. A former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, he is a Tufts graduate with a Ph.D. in applied physics from Stanford. He received the J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1975.
Stephanie D. Wilson (Houston): She is a NASA astronaut, who spent 13 days in space in July 2006 on a flight to the International Space Station. A 1988 graduate of Harvard in engineering science, she later received a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Texas.
Lucy Fisher (Los Angeles): She is an independent film producer and co-head of Red Wagon Entertainment. The movies of Red Wagon have won 10 Oscars and received 28 nominations. She has been active advancing regenerative medicine, serving as co-chair of the 2004 California stem cell research and cures initiative. She received an A.B. from Harvard in 1971.
The five new Overseers were elected for six-year terms. In 2007, there were eight candidates nominated by a committee of the Harvard Alumni Association, as prescribed by the election rules. Alumni and alumnae ballots cast in the election totaled 28,888.
The primary function of the Board of Overseers is to encourage the University to maintain the highest attainable standards as a place of learning. Overseers carry out this mission by visiting faculties, departments, and other important programs throughout the University so that they can inform themselves about the quality of teaching, research, and administration and then identify problems and offer advice to faculties and University officials.
Bill Gates to speak at Commencement : Microsoft co-founder is principal speaker at Afternoon Exercises
William H. (Bill) Gates, one of the world's most influential business leaders and foremost philanthropists, will be the principal speaker at the Afternoon Exercises during Harvard's 356th Commencement on June 7.
"I am very pleased that the Harvard community will have the opportunity to hear from Bill Gates on June 7," said Paul Finnegan, president of the Harvard Alumni Association. "His contributions to the world of business and technology, and the great example he has set through his far-reaching philanthropy, will rightfully put him on center stage in Harvard Yard. I look forward to greeting him in June."
Gates is a member of the Harvard College Class of 1977, which will celebrate its 30th reunion during Commencement Week.
Born in Seattle in 1955, Gates showed an early interest in math and science, and as a student at Lakeside School he taught himself computer programming. By the time he arrived at Harvard as a freshman in 1973, he and his fellow computer devotees at Lakeside had already founded several for-profit companies and sold their programming services to a number of clients.
While at Harvard College, Gates pursued his passion for computer programming and came to know his classmate and future business partner Steven Ballmer (who lived down the hall at Currier House). As an undergraduate, he teamed with his childhood friend Paul Allen to develop a version of the programming language BASIC for the first microcomputer, the MITS Altair. With a foresighted vision of the immense future potential of desktop computing, Gates left Harvard during his junior year to devote himself to building Microsoft, the company he and Allen founded in 1975.
Over the years, guided by Gates' leadership, Microsoft has risen to become the world's largest maker of computer software, with annual revenues now exceeding $44 billion. He served as the company's chief executive officer until 2000 and is currently its chairman and chief software architect. As of July 2008, Gates intends to relinquish his day-to-day role at Microsoft to spend more time on his global health and education work at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He will remain as Microsoft's chairman.
Gates and his wife, Melinda French Gates, created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2000. The foundation is "guided by the belief that every life has equal value" and supports initiatives intended "to reduce inequities and improve lives around the world." With an endowment of more than $30 billion, the Gates Foundation is the world's largest philanthropic foundation. (Its endowment is expected roughly to double in size within the next several years as the result of a pledge from Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.) The foundation currently makes grants totaling more than $1.5 billion a year.
In recent years, the Gates Foundation has devoted a growing share of its grants to promoting global health, with particular emphasis on combating malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS in the developing world. It also supports major initiatives to alleviate global poverty and hunger. In addition, the foundation works in partnership with organizations across the United States to enhance both the quality of high school education and the availability of learning opportunities for preschool children. Among its educational programs, the foundation has funded an ambitious initiative to bring computers and Internet access to public libraries in low-income communities. To date, the Gates Foundation has committed more than $3.6 billion to organizations working in global health and more than $2 billion to improve educational opportunities.
A variety of Harvard programs, ranging across the Medical School, the School of Public Health, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Nieman Foundation, have benefited from Gates Foundation grants and from Gates' personal philanthropy. Among other gifts and grants, a donation from Gates and Ballmer in 1999 led to the naming of Harvard's new electrical engineering and computer science facility, the Maxwell Dworkin Building, for their mothers, Mary Maxwell Gates and Beatrice Dworkin Ballmer.
Gates is the author of two best-selling books, "The Road Ahead" (1995) and "Business @ the Speed of Thought" (1999). He has donated the proceeds of both books to nonprofit organizations that support the use of technology in education and skills development.
Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 2005, Gates has been widely recognized for both his business and philanthropic activities. Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century, and in 2005 it named Bill and Melinda Gates, along with Bono, as its "persons of the year" for their work on global poverty and disease.
"I am very pleased that the Harvard community will have the opportunity to hear from Bill Gates on June 7," said Paul Finnegan, president of the Harvard Alumni Association. "His contributions to the world of business and technology, and the great example he has set through his far-reaching philanthropy, will rightfully put him on center stage in Harvard Yard. I look forward to greeting him in June."
Gates is a member of the Harvard College Class of 1977, which will celebrate its 30th reunion during Commencement Week.
Born in Seattle in 1955, Gates showed an early interest in math and science, and as a student at Lakeside School he taught himself computer programming. By the time he arrived at Harvard as a freshman in 1973, he and his fellow computer devotees at Lakeside had already founded several for-profit companies and sold their programming services to a number of clients.
While at Harvard College, Gates pursued his passion for computer programming and came to know his classmate and future business partner Steven Ballmer (who lived down the hall at Currier House). As an undergraduate, he teamed with his childhood friend Paul Allen to develop a version of the programming language BASIC for the first microcomputer, the MITS Altair. With a foresighted vision of the immense future potential of desktop computing, Gates left Harvard during his junior year to devote himself to building Microsoft, the company he and Allen founded in 1975.
Over the years, guided by Gates' leadership, Microsoft has risen to become the world's largest maker of computer software, with annual revenues now exceeding $44 billion. He served as the company's chief executive officer until 2000 and is currently its chairman and chief software architect. As of July 2008, Gates intends to relinquish his day-to-day role at Microsoft to spend more time on his global health and education work at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He will remain as Microsoft's chairman.
Gates and his wife, Melinda French Gates, created the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2000. The foundation is "guided by the belief that every life has equal value" and supports initiatives intended "to reduce inequities and improve lives around the world." With an endowment of more than $30 billion, the Gates Foundation is the world's largest philanthropic foundation. (Its endowment is expected roughly to double in size within the next several years as the result of a pledge from Warren Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.) The foundation currently makes grants totaling more than $1.5 billion a year.
In recent years, the Gates Foundation has devoted a growing share of its grants to promoting global health, with particular emphasis on combating malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS in the developing world. It also supports major initiatives to alleviate global poverty and hunger. In addition, the foundation works in partnership with organizations across the United States to enhance both the quality of high school education and the availability of learning opportunities for preschool children. Among its educational programs, the foundation has funded an ambitious initiative to bring computers and Internet access to public libraries in low-income communities. To date, the Gates Foundation has committed more than $3.6 billion to organizations working in global health and more than $2 billion to improve educational opportunities.
A variety of Harvard programs, ranging across the Medical School, the School of Public Health, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Nieman Foundation, have benefited from Gates Foundation grants and from Gates' personal philanthropy. Among other gifts and grants, a donation from Gates and Ballmer in 1999 led to the naming of Harvard's new electrical engineering and computer science facility, the Maxwell Dworkin Building, for their mothers, Mary Maxwell Gates and Beatrice Dworkin Ballmer.
Gates is the author of two best-selling books, "The Road Ahead" (1995) and "Business @ the Speed of Thought" (1999). He has donated the proceeds of both books to nonprofit organizations that support the use of technology in education and skills development.
Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 2005, Gates has been widely recognized for both his business and philanthropic activities. Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century, and in 2005 it named Bill and Melinda Gates, along with Bono, as its "persons of the year" for their work on global poverty and disease.
Clinton lends class to Class Day : Former president looks at what we have in common
In his Class Day speech on Wednesday (June 6) Bill Clinton remarked that the great lesson he learned from the human genome project, which was brought to completion during his presidency, is that genetically all humans are 99.9 percent identical.
It’s too bad, he remarked, that we spend much more time thinking about the .1 percent that divides us than the 99.9 percent that we have in common, because that imbalance keeps us from making positive changes in the world.
“There is no challenge we face — no barrier to having our grandchildren here 50 years from now — that is greater than the ideological and emotional divide that continues to demean our common life and our ability to solve our common problems.”
Clinton’s inspiring address was the culmination of a ceremony held in weather so deliciously springlike that even sitting for two hours on hard, undersized folding chairs could not dampen the spirits of the huge Class Day crowd.
Class Day is traditionally a day of fun and celebration dedicated to and run by the students themselves. Class Day speakers, who are chosen by the graduating class, have run the gamut from Mother Teresa to Sacha Baron Cohen alias Ali G, alias Borat. Reflecting on the varied nature of his predecessors, Clinton wondered about his own selection.
“I couldn’t figure out why, on a day that’s supposed to be an occasion of fun and celebration, you would pick a gray-haired 60-year-old to speak.”
But rather than comparing himself with the many comedians who have brought laughter to past Class Days, Clinton decided to focus on the noncomedians and the graduating classes who chose them.
The list begins with Martin Luther King Jr., who was chosen by the Class of 1968 but was killed in April of that year. His widow Coretta Scott King delivered the speech in his stead. Others who delivered a more serious message were Bono and of course Mother Teresa. Clinton also mentioned Nelson Mandela, who was not a Class Day speaker but was given a special honorary degree by Harvard in 1998.
“I believe that Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and Bono were asked here by people who believe that our common humanity is more important than our differences,” Clinton said.
Although there are terrible problems in the world, ordinary people have more opportunities to engage in active service and to create change than ever before because of the enormous growth of NGOs and the ability of the Internet to unite people, Clinton said. He praised his former political rival, 82-year-old George H.W. Bush, for engaging with Clinton in numerous efforts to bring relief to victims of the 2004 tsunami and other disasters.
“I love the guy. I’m sorry for all the die-hard Democrats in the audience, but I do.”
Clinton cautioned the graduates that the great temptation as they fill the leadership positions for which their Harvard education has prepared them is “to believe that the .1 percent that makes you different is the sum of who you are and that you deserve your good fortune.”
Instead, he urged them to “be true to the traditions of the great people who have come here and think about the other 99.9 percent … Enjoy your good fortune, enjoy your differences, but realize that your common humanity matters much, much more.”
Class Day also featured orations by members of the Class of 2007, some of whom tried to distill philosophic lessons from their four years at Harvard, while others strove, and succeeded, in getting a laugh.
Joshua Patashnik spoke about Harvard’s ability to engender humility in its students, which, he said, is probably a good thing.
“We need more people willing to admit that their political opponents are sometimes right. We need fewer people unyieldingly convinced that their religious beliefs or lack thereof constitute the only acceptable incarnation of absolute truth.”
Rachel Nolan discussed leadership and followership. She has chosen to be a follower, she said, because she calculates that just in the last 20 years, “Harvard has produced significantly more leaders than the world can handle.”
Looking toward a career as a journalist, she plans to be a curious and truth-seeking follower, however, which she sees as important virtues.
“Each and every one of you will be a follower in some aspect of your life; make sure that you research well and follow carefully.”
Tracy Nowski delivered the first Ivy Oration, in which she mused humorously on her expectations of Harvard and whether or not they have been fulfilled.
“I expected — like many of you, I’m sure — that being at Harvard would make me smarter; otherwise, this is the most expensive four-year slumber party I’ve ever been to.”
The second Ivy orator, Kiernan Schmitt, spoke about his lifelong love affair with Harvard, and his parents’ fears that he might not be able to get in.
“I remember their concerned whispered exchanges, peppered with phrases like ‘10 percent admissions rate,’ and ‘high SAT requirements.’”
Also on the program was the announcement of the Ames Awards for “selfless, heroic, and inspiring leadership.” They went to Rajan Sonik and Rabia Mir.
It’s too bad, he remarked, that we spend much more time thinking about the .1 percent that divides us than the 99.9 percent that we have in common, because that imbalance keeps us from making positive changes in the world.
“There is no challenge we face — no barrier to having our grandchildren here 50 years from now — that is greater than the ideological and emotional divide that continues to demean our common life and our ability to solve our common problems.”
Clinton’s inspiring address was the culmination of a ceremony held in weather so deliciously springlike that even sitting for two hours on hard, undersized folding chairs could not dampen the spirits of the huge Class Day crowd.
Class Day is traditionally a day of fun and celebration dedicated to and run by the students themselves. Class Day speakers, who are chosen by the graduating class, have run the gamut from Mother Teresa to Sacha Baron Cohen alias Ali G, alias Borat. Reflecting on the varied nature of his predecessors, Clinton wondered about his own selection.
“I couldn’t figure out why, on a day that’s supposed to be an occasion of fun and celebration, you would pick a gray-haired 60-year-old to speak.”
But rather than comparing himself with the many comedians who have brought laughter to past Class Days, Clinton decided to focus on the noncomedians and the graduating classes who chose them.
The list begins with Martin Luther King Jr., who was chosen by the Class of 1968 but was killed in April of that year. His widow Coretta Scott King delivered the speech in his stead. Others who delivered a more serious message were Bono and of course Mother Teresa. Clinton also mentioned Nelson Mandela, who was not a Class Day speaker but was given a special honorary degree by Harvard in 1998.
“I believe that Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and Bono were asked here by people who believe that our common humanity is more important than our differences,” Clinton said.
Although there are terrible problems in the world, ordinary people have more opportunities to engage in active service and to create change than ever before because of the enormous growth of NGOs and the ability of the Internet to unite people, Clinton said. He praised his former political rival, 82-year-old George H.W. Bush, for engaging with Clinton in numerous efforts to bring relief to victims of the 2004 tsunami and other disasters.
“I love the guy. I’m sorry for all the die-hard Democrats in the audience, but I do.”
Clinton cautioned the graduates that the great temptation as they fill the leadership positions for which their Harvard education has prepared them is “to believe that the .1 percent that makes you different is the sum of who you are and that you deserve your good fortune.”
Instead, he urged them to “be true to the traditions of the great people who have come here and think about the other 99.9 percent … Enjoy your good fortune, enjoy your differences, but realize that your common humanity matters much, much more.”
Class Day also featured orations by members of the Class of 2007, some of whom tried to distill philosophic lessons from their four years at Harvard, while others strove, and succeeded, in getting a laugh.
Joshua Patashnik spoke about Harvard’s ability to engender humility in its students, which, he said, is probably a good thing.
“We need more people willing to admit that their political opponents are sometimes right. We need fewer people unyieldingly convinced that their religious beliefs or lack thereof constitute the only acceptable incarnation of absolute truth.”
Rachel Nolan discussed leadership and followership. She has chosen to be a follower, she said, because she calculates that just in the last 20 years, “Harvard has produced significantly more leaders than the world can handle.”
Looking toward a career as a journalist, she plans to be a curious and truth-seeking follower, however, which she sees as important virtues.
“Each and every one of you will be a follower in some aspect of your life; make sure that you research well and follow carefully.”
Tracy Nowski delivered the first Ivy Oration, in which she mused humorously on her expectations of Harvard and whether or not they have been fulfilled.
“I expected — like many of you, I’m sure — that being at Harvard would make me smarter; otherwise, this is the most expensive four-year slumber party I’ve ever been to.”
The second Ivy orator, Kiernan Schmitt, spoke about his lifelong love affair with Harvard, and his parents’ fears that he might not be able to get in.
“I remember their concerned whispered exchanges, peppered with phrases like ‘10 percent admissions rate,’ and ‘high SAT requirements.’”
Also on the program was the announcement of the Ames Awards for “selfless, heroic, and inspiring leadership.” They went to Rajan Sonik and Rabia Mir.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
