Finance & Economics News

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Rasputin
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2005
    • 63906

    #16
    What's in a trillion?

    WASHINGTON - A person given $1 million a year to spend would need 3 million years to blow $3 trillion. The United States, a government of sizable financial appetite, can do it in one.

    Three trillion dollars is about what the federal government will spend this year for domestic and defense programs and benefit entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, according to President Bush's latest federal budget proposal Monday.

    A trillion is a figure more commonly used when talking about outer space. A light year, the distance that light travels in a vacuum in a year, is about 6 trillion miles.

    Written out, a trillion is a one followed by 12 zeros, or 1,000,000,000,000. That's a million times one million, or a thousand times one billion.

    There are about 6.8 billion people in the world, meaning that every living person would get $441 if the U.S. government's budget was divided up. If the money was split among the 300 million Americans, everyone would take home $10,000.

    Counting to 3 trillion at a rate of one number a second would take almost 95,000 years.

    Looking at it another way, one would have to circumvent the globe 120 million times to travel 3 trillion miles. Similarly, that would be some 17,000 round trips to the sun. The universe, 15 billion years old at the outside, would need another 200 such lifetimes to reach 3 trillion years.

    iran

    Comment

    • Rasputin
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2005
      • 63906

      #17
      واحد اطلاعات اكونوميست در تازه*ترين گزارش خود از رسيدن نرخ بيكارى به 12 درصد و رسيدن نيروى كار به 23 ميليون و 700 هزار نفر در سال جارى خبر داد.

      واحد اطلاعات اقتصادى اكونوميست در گزارش ماه ژانويه خود به بررسى وضعيت نيروى كار در كشور پرداخت و با اعلام اينكه در سال گذشته نرخ بيكارى 11.6 درصد و نيروى كار 23 ميليون نفر بوده، پيش* بينى كرد كه اين شاخص*ها در سال جارى به ترتيب برابر با 12 درصد و 23 ميليون و 700 هزار نفر خواهد بود.

      بر اين اساس نيروى كار ايران طى سال*هاى 87، 88 به ترتيب معادل 24 ميليون و 300 هزار و 25 ميليون نفر خواهد بود كه تداوم روند صعودى اين شاخص را در سال 89 به 25 ميليون و700 هزار نفر خواهد رساند.

      انتظار مي*رود در سال 1390 شمار افراد داراى كار با 2.6 درصد افزايش به 26 ميليون و 400 هزار نفر برسد كه افزايش دوباره 2.6 درصدى ثبت رقم 27 ميليون نفر را براى اين شاخص به دنبال خواهد داشت.

      اكونوميست معتقد است كه طى سال*هاى آتى نرخ بيكارى روند رو به رشدى داشته باشد به طورى كه در سال 87 اين شاخص برابر با 12.5 درصد پيش* بينى شده است. در همين حال براى سال*هاى 88 و 89 نرخ بيكارى 12.9 و 13.2 درصدى پيش*بينى شده و انتظار مي*رود اين شاخص در سال*هاى 1390 و 1391 به ترتيب به 14.1 و 15 درصد برسد.

      به گزارش ايسنا اين در حالى است كه بر اساس اعلام مركز آمار ايران در فصل*هاى تابستان و پاييز نرخ بيكارى ايران تك رقمى شده و انتظار مي*رود در پايان سال 86 اين رقم كه در سال گذشته حدود 12 درصد بود به زير 10 درصد برسد.

      iran

      Comment

      • Rasputin
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2005
        • 63906

        #18
        The 35 bln usd US Air Force refuelling jets contract awarded Friday to an EADS consortium is 'very good news commercially' but may threaten jobs at the company's Airbus plant in Toulouse, France, the CFDT union said.

        To general surprise and to the anger of many in the US, EADS and its American partner Northrop Grumman Corp (NYSE:NOC) beat the strong favourite, domestic rival Boeing Co (NYSE:BA) , Friday to win the contract to build up to 179 refuelling aircraft.

        The contract is one of the largest awarded by the Pentagon in recent years and is the first in a tanker project valued at more than 100 bln usd over 30 years.

        Announcing the deal, EADS said in a statement late Friday it would co-locate the final assembly of the tankers at Mobile, Alabama, 'creating the first new large commercial aircraft assembly facility in the US in over 40 years'.

        In reaction, the CFDT union issued a statement saying the decision 'will not be without consequences on an industrial as well as employment level and notably for the Toulouse plant'.

        It said following the decision in 2006 to build a final assembly line for A320 planes to be located in Tianjin, China, 'this is the second time that a compensation deal has led to the siting of an assembly line outside of Europe'.

        According to EADS, the Mobile plant will employ 1,000 workers to produce the airframe of the A330 MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transport) plane, designated by the USAF as the KC-45A.

        Final assembly will employ a further 300.

        The main parts of the Aircraft, including the wings, will be made in existing plants in Europe.

        Talking to Agence France-Presse, EADS chief executive Louis Gallois yesterday declined to reveal the exact terms of the winning offer, commenting that it was 'compatible with our capabilities and our competitivity.'
        He said the price 'was not decisive for the deal' and that it was the 'quality of the aircraft' that swung the Pentagon's decision.

        'We are going to need to invest in the United States,' he said, adding however that 'it does not change the size of Airbus but it shows it is a supplier to the US defense ministry in a market considered impenetrable.'
        Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2007. All rights reserved.

        The copying, republication or redistribution of Thomson Financial News Content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Financial News.

        iran

        Comment

        • Rasputin
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2005
          • 63906

          #19
          Iranians are getting ready for parliamentary elections at the end of this week, with most voters looking for more openness and freedom.

          For most of the electorate the key issue is the economy with unemployment running at 30 percent in certain areas.

          For the voters there is a baffling array of candidates -- 4600 candidates representing 30 provinces, vying for 290 seats

          Iran comprises a mix of ethnic and religious groups, but is led by clerics of the predominant Shia Islam.

          And that is why students, who see themselves as reformers, feel this election will not change anything.

          Their movement has been thwarted by President Ahmadinejad who has been accused of a gradual crackdown on the youth movement.

          iran

          Comment

          • Rasputin
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2005
            • 63906

            #20
            Alitalia's agreement to a takeover offer from Air France-KLM provoked strong reactions from politicians and workers' unions on Monday and sent its shares down so low that trading was halted.

            A hot issue ahead of Italy's general election on April 13-14, the deal needs the blessing of Italy's next government and Alitalia's strike-prone unions, and there are already signs of a fight ahead.

            Air France-KLM offered one share for every 160 shares of Alitalia, valuing its stock at 0.10 euro a share, or 138 million euros ($183.8 million) in all. The price is an 81 percent discount to the record low at Friday's close.

            "It's an unconditional surrender," CGIL union leader Fabrizio Solari told Italian daily la Repubblica. Unions oppose Air France-KLM's plans to cut flights and staff.

            Anpac, a pilots' union, said it was ready to fight the sale, la Repubblica reported.

            Some opposition politicians, led by the separatist party Northern League, equated the agreement with Air France-KLM to the Battle of Caporetto, Italy's worst military defeat during World War One and a lingering national symbol of collapse.

            "It's a real Caporetto of the government and of the administrators it named," Lombardy region President Roberto Formigoni said, according to la Repubblica.

            Formigoni is one of many northern Italian politicians crying foul over Air France-KLM's plans to scale back Alitalia's operations at Malpensa, Milan's hub.



            CREDIT LINE

            Alitalia's shares were suspended from trading after bids came in offering 30 cents, or 43 percent less than Friday's close. By 0857 GMT the stock was still suspended.

            "We suspect the low offer price is a function of the recent deterioration in Alitalia's debt position and sustained high fuel prices," Deutsche Bank analyst Chris Reid said in a research note.

            The lower price is positive for Air France-KLM, but Reid remain cautious about the deal's impact on the Paris-based carrier because turning around Alitalia will be "a major task in such a competitive marketplace".

            Air France-KLM shares were down 2.5 percent at 15.58 euros, outperforming the DJ Stoxx European travel and leisure index which was down 3.7 percent.

            Nearly bankrupt Alitalia said late on Sunday it would also receive a credit line of 300 million euros from the Italian government.

            The carrier said it expected the stock swap to begin in June and Air France-KLM intended to delist Alitalia's stock if it acquired more than 90 perecent of it.

            Air France-KLM's offer also includes 608 million euros to buy back Alitalia's convertible bonds and a 1 billion euro capital increase.

            The takeover would end the 60-year independence of a global Italian brand. It would also avoid the airline going broke as its cash reserves quickly dry up since the European Union has banned any more state aid.

            Air France-KLM, the world's biggest airline by revenues, had initially offered 0.35 euros per share. Its binding offer is still much higher than that of Air One, a small Italian carrier that had bid one cent a share and was snubbed by Rome.

            It set a deadline of March 31 for several conditions on its offer, including agreement with airports operator SEA over a 1.25 billion euros claim for damages for cutting slots at Malpensa.

            iran

            Comment

            • Rasputin
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2005
              • 63906

              #21
              بررسی نتایج منتشره طرح آمارگیری از نیروی کار در پاییز ‪ ۱۳۸۶‬نشان می*دهد نرخ بیکاری افراد ‪ ۱۰‬ساله و بیشتر نشان می*دهد که در فصل پاییز ‪۹/۸‬ درصد از جمعیت فعال (شاغل و بیکار)، بیکار بوده*اند.

              به گزارش روز دوشنبه روابط عمومی مرکز آمار ایران، شاخص یادشده در مقایسه با پاییز سال گذشته ‪ ۱/۸‬درصد و نسبت به فصل تابستان امسال ‪۰/۱‬ درصد کاهش یافته است.

              در پاییز امسال، ‪ ۳۹/۵‬درصد جمعیت در سن کار (‪ ۱۰‬ساله و بیشتر) از نظر اقتصادی فعال بودند و یا به عبارتی در گروه شاغلان یا بیکار قرار داشتند.

              به گزارش پارسینه، بررسی تغییرات نرخ مشارکت اقتصادی نسبت به فصل مشابه در سال گذشته حاکی از کاهش ‪ ۰/۴‬درصدی این نرخ نسبت به پاییز ‪ ۸۵‬و کاهش ‪ ۲‬درصدی نسبت به فصل تابستان است.

              این گزارش حاکی است: نرخ بیکاری جوانان ‪ ۱۵‬تا ‪ ۲۴‬ساله نشان می*دهد که در فصل پاییز ‪ ۲۱/۶‬درصد از جمعیت فعال ‪ ۱۵‬تا ‪ ۲۴‬سال بیکار بودند. بررسی تغییرات فصلی نرخ بیکاری جوانان این گروه سنی نشان می*دهد این نرخ نسبت به پاییز سال گذشته ‪ ۳/۱‬درصد کاهش یافته است.

              همچنین نرخ یاد شده نسبت به فصل تابستان یک درصد افزایش یافته و نرخ بیکاری جوانان ‪ ۱۵‬تا ‪ ۲۹‬ساله نیز کاهش ‪ ۲/۵‬درصدی را نسبت به پاییز سال گذشته نشان می*دهد و نسبت به فصل تابستان، نرخ بیکاری این گروه سنی ‪۰/۳‬ درصد افزایش یافته است.

              بررسی*های انجام شده نشان می*دهد استان لرستان با ‪ ۱۸/۹‬درصد و کهگیلویه و بویراحمد با ‪ ۱۸‬درصد بالاترین نرخ بیکاری و استان*های خراسان شمالی با ‪۵/۹‬ درصد و خراسان رضوی و آذربایجان شرقی با ‪ ۶/۷‬درصد کمترین نرخ بیکاری را در پاییز ‪ ۸۶‬در میان استان*ها به خود اختصاص دادند.

              براساس این گزارش، بررسی سهم اشتغال ناقص نشان می*دهد که در فصل پاییز ‪ ۶/۷‬درصد جمعیت شاغل به دلایل اقتصادی (فصل غیرکاری، رکود کاری، پیدا نکردن کار با ساعت بیشتر و ...) کمتر از ‪ ۴۴‬ساعت در هفته کار کرده و آماده برای انجام کار اضافی بودند

              iran

              Comment

              • Rasputin
                Senior Member
                • Jan 2005
                • 63906

                #22
                انتشار آمار نگران کننده اشتغال آمریکا


                بازار اشتغال در آمریکا، روز به روز علائم بیشتری از ضعف و رکود از خود نشان می دهد
                بر اساس تازه ترین آمار ارائه شده از سوی وزارت کار در آمریکا، شرکتهای آمریکایی در ماه مارس 80 هزار نفر را از کار برکنار کرده اند که نشانه دیگری از احتمال رکورد در آمریکا است.
                این سومین ماه پیاپی است که کاهش رخ می دهد و رقم اعلام شده بیشتر از رقمی 60 هزار نفر است که بازار انتظار آن را داشت.

                در ماه مارس، نرخ بی کاری در آمریکا از 4.8 درصد در ماه فوریه، به 5.1 درصد رسید که از ماه سپتامبر سال 2005 بی سابقه بوده است.

                بن برنیک، رئیس خزانه داری کل آمریکا در روزهای اخیر هشدار داده بود که اقتصاد آمریکا با خطر رکورد مواجه است.

                "بسیار بد"

                هرچند وزارت کار آمریکا اعلام کرده است که بی کاری ها در شاخه های مختلف اقتصاد آمریکا رخ داده است، اما بزرگترین میزان افزایش بی کاری در بخش تولید و مسکن رخ داده است.

                بر اساس آمارهای اعلام شده در سه ماهه اول سال 2008، بطور متوسط در هر ماه 77 هزار نفر از کار برکنار شده اند.

                در نیمه دوم سال گذشته میلادی، میانگین ایجاد اشتغال در هرماه 76 هزار شغل بود.

                رودی نارواس، یک تحلیلگر موسسه 4Cast گفت: "آمار ارائه شده [حاکی از شرایطی] بسیار بد است."

                "تا کنون در مورد اینکه آیا آمریکا در رکود است یا نه بحث وجود داشت، اما آمار جدید به بحث ها خاتمه می دهد."

                "ما از نقطه آغاز رکورد عبور کرده ایم."

                وزیر خزانه داری آمریکا روز چهارشنبه هفته گذشته هشدار داده بود که میزان تولید ناخالص ملی این کشور در شش ماه اول سال 2008 احتمالا کاهش خواهد یافت.

                سقوط اقتصاد آمریکا عمدتا بخاطر سقوط سریع بازار مسکن آمریکا بوده است.



                iran

                Comment

                • Rasputin
                  Senior Member
                  • Jan 2005
                  • 63906

                  #23
                  Although Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to downplay the impact of UN imposed economic sanctions, the economy of the Islamic Republic has been badly affected by this international isolation.

                  On Thursday the director of the French oil company Total said that the firm had decided to give up on investments in Iran.

                  "The existing tensions are preventing every investment and cooperation with Iran," said a manager of the oil company in an interview with the French newspaper Liberation. He said that they are instead in the middle of "talks to operate in the south of Iraq."

                  The former Iranian nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has said that he finds "shocking" the statements by government representatives who continue to minimise the effects of the UN economic sanctions.

                  Larijani was one of the big winners in last month's parliamentary elections, presenting an alternative list to that of Ahmadinejad's supporters.

                  "These sanctions are a burden on the economy," said Larijani.

                  "Rising inflation, an unemployment rate that is not fallingl and the high cost of living are all direct consequences of the sanctions.," he said.

                  "The sanctions have had a lesser effect than that hoped for by those who wanted to impose them on our country, howeover," he said.

                  It's not just the West either, but even a close ally of the Iranian government, China, that has begun to apply the UN resolutions.

                  A Chinese company which won a contract for the construction of a highway in Iran, has just decided to pull out of the deal without giving any explanation.

                  In past weeks, representatives of the Iranian government, denounced the end of a contact between some important Chinese banks and Iranian industries and financial institutions.

                  Since the beginning of the year, the four main banks in China - a country that is heavily reliant on Iranian oil - have decided to freeze their ties withIranian companies, causing agreements worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to go up in smoke.

                  The automobile sector was the first one to feel the impact of this measure.

                  "The boycott by the Chinese banks has in fact sunk an agreement that we have reached with the Chinese automobile industry," said Manouchehr Manteqi, the managing director of Iran Khodro, the main automobile industry in Iran, in February.

                  The agreement that Manteqi mentioned would have brought about 300 million euros worth of Chinese capital into Iran. However in the end, China turned its back on the deal.

                  On 27 February, another agreement between Tehran and Beijing to exploit the Iranian gas fields in the Persian Gulf was also cancelled.

                  That deal, worth 16 billion dollars, would have been signed by the Iranian Pars Oil and Gas company and its Chinese counterpart, Chinapec, but the Chinese delegation was not present at the appointment to ink the deal.

                  Even banks in Malaysia and Singapore have decided not to endorse any commercial operations with Iran.

                  In Europe, among the first credit institutes to boycott the Islamic Republic, were the Union of Swiss Banks (UBS) and Credit Suisse, as well as the German banks Deutsche Bank and Dresdner Bank.

                  In Italy, the Bank of Italy has assumed control of the Rome branch of Iran's state-owned Bank Sepah.

                  Following these measures, in 2007, exports from Italy and Germany, Iran's two main economic partners in the European Union, fell by more than 16 percent.

                  Italy's export credit agency Sace, which insures the activities of Italian enterprises in foreign markets, has stopped issuing policies to companies seeking to operate in Iran.

                  Sace which has a scale of one to seven to measure risk, has placed Iran in the sixth position.

                  In France, BNP Paribas and l'Union de Credit Agricole, have also begun the close their doors to clients who want to invest in Iran.

                  Besides banks, important oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and Total have decided to abandon Iran and turn down lucrative contracts to exploit the well-known South Pars gas fields.

                  Banks in the Persian Gulf have also taken the opportunity to cutdown their commercial ties with Iran.

                  The National Bank of Fujairah, with its headquarters in Dubai, said a few weeks ago that because of the uncertain situation and the possibility of sanctions, it will no long endorse any commercial operations with Iran.

                  In Bahrain, the Ahli United Bank has suspended any link with Iran following pressure from the government, which yielded to pressure from the White House.

                  The United States has played a decisive role in "convincing" economic entitites and banking institutions to boycott a market as important as the one in Iran.

                  Washington began first with national sanctions, the restrictions imposed by the three resolutions of the UN Security Council.

                  In October 2007, Washington included the names of four Iranian banks (Melli, Mellat, Saderat and Sepah) in the list of financial institutions with which it is prohibited to do business.

                  The decision by the World Bank to suspend a 5.4 million dollars fund to Tehran has also had a devastating effect on the economy of the country, where inflation and employment are continuing to rise.

                  The concern expressed by Larijani has also been confirmed in an analysis provided by the economist Mohammadgholi Yousefi.

                  In an interview with the Tehran-based Iskanews agency, Yousefi said that the economic situation in the country was "extremely critical" in that "the sanctions have stopped foreign investments and have forced local capital to flow out of the country."

                  Yousefi's concern is also shared by Tahmaseb Mazaheri, the governor of the Bank Markazi, Iran's central bank.

                  "The sharp increase in money that's in circulation has surpassed safe levels and has unleashed inflation," he warned.

                  According to the Bank Markazi's estimates, the money in circulation has risen 48.8 percent the past year, pushing inflation to 18.4 percent. Unofficial sources claim the true figure is more than 26 percent.

                  The unemployement rate has also increased in Iran over the past two years.

                  The Markazi Bank said that that there is an unemployment rate of 10.8 percent. The Iranian parliament (Majlis)'s research centre puts the jobless rate at more than 15 percent.

                  Independent sources have put the employment rate as high as over 20 percent.

                  iran

                  Comment

                  • Rasputin
                    Senior Member
                    • Jan 2005
                    • 63906

                    #24
                    In recent days, we've been noting stories indicating a definite "surge" in the Bush Administration's drive toward war with Iran. First, the Saudi government revealed – one day after a visit from Dick Cheney – its urgent plans to deal with "radiations hazards" stemming an attack on Iran's nuclear power facilities. Then General David Petraeus declared that Iran was responsible for a major attack on Baghdad's Green Zone, and the main driver of violence in Iraq generally, laying out, once more, a clear (if mendacious) casus belli for striking at Iran.

                    Now financial analyst John McGlynn reveals that the Administration has quietly launched a "shock and awe" attack on the Iranian economy, using little-known – and little-understood – financial weapons provided by the Patriot Act to begin "the complete financial and economic destruction of Iran," as McGlynn puts it, with the ultimate goal of turning the nation into "another Gaza or Iraq under the economic sanctions of the 1990s, with devastating impact on the economy and society."

                    McGlynn's article, in Japan Focus, is long and complex – necessarily so, in order to detail the intricate punitive mechanisms involved, and their earlier test run against North Korea in 2005. You should read the article in full, but to put it briefly, last week the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), set in motion a process that could make any bank or financial institution in the world that does business with Iran subject to an economic death sentence: complete exclusion from the U.S. financial system. McGlynn, speaking plainly and with no addition, calls the move "a declaration of war on Iran."

                    The move is part of a steady escalation that has seen Washington move from urging sanctions against any firm or bank connected to Iran's nuclear program to its current, highly belligerent stance: seeking to strangle all financial investment or dealing with Iran, nuclear-related or not. As McGlynn notes:

                    During a daily press meeting with reporters on March 19, the State Department’s spokesperson was asked about a deal recently signed between Switzerland and Iran to supply Iranian natural gas to Europe. After condemning the deal, the spokesperson explained that the US is opposed to any “investing in Iran, not only in its petroleum or natural gas area but in any sector of its economy.”
                    All of this, McGlynn says, is an extension of the "Shock and Awe" doctrine formulated by Harlan Ullman and James Wade for the National Defense University in 1995. The strategy became famous after the Pentagon adopted it for the military invasion of Iraq – but as McGlynn points out, the doctrine has always had an economic side too. In fact, the authors believed that the economic ruin visited upon a target nation might be more effective than bombs and bullets – largely because they are more invisible, more politically palatable than big-bang extravaganzas. McGlynn notes:

                    But Shock and Awe’s authors (apparently with something like Vietnam or the 1993-1994 Somalia fiasco in mind) also envisioned that “[i]n certain circumstances, the costs of having to resort to lethal force may be too politically expensive in terms of local support as well as support in the U.S. and internationally." Consequently, they wrote:

                    "Economic sanctions are likely to continue to be a preferable political alternative or a necessary political prelude to an offensive military step… In a world in which nonlethal sanctions are a political imperative, we will continue to need the ability to shut down all commerce into and out of any country from shipping, air, rail, and roads. We ought to be able to do this in a much more thorough, decisive, and shocking way than we have in the past… Weapons that shock and awe, stun and paralyze, but do not kill in significant numbers may be the only ones that are politically acceptable in the future."


                    It was only a matter of finding a sanctions strategy systematic enough to make this more obscure portion of the Shock and Awe doctrine operational. What Ullman and Wade could not have imagined was that Washington's global planners would use extraterritorial legal powers and its financial clout to coerce the global banking industry into accepting US foreign policy diktat.
                    McGlynn notes that even the Chinese – Iran's biggest trading partner – is feeling the heat from the Patriot Act's "nuclear option" of banishment from the U.S. financial system:


                    In December 2007 ArabianBusiness.com reported that Chinese banks were starting to decline to open letters of credit for Iranian traders. Asadollah Asgaroladi, head of the Iran-China chamber of commerce, was quoted as saying that China’s banks did not explain the refusal but “if this trend continues it will harm the two countries' economic cooperation and trade exchange." In February, ArabianBusiness.com found that China's cutbacks in its banking business with Iran was affecting a joint automobile production arrangement.

                    Now the screws are growing even tighter. And the effects will be devastating – not to the leaders of Iran, of course, but, as with the genocidal sanctions against Iraq, to Iran's general population – a population, as we noted recently, made up overwhelmingly of young people and children: almost 70 percent of Iranians are under 30. As McGlynn puts it:

                    If the US succeeds, an international quarantine on Iran's banks would disrupt Iran’s financial linkages with the world by blocking its ability to process cross-border payments for goods and services exported and imported. Without those linkages, Iran is unlikely to be able to engage in global trade and commerce. As 30% of Iran’s GDP in 2005 was imports of goods and services and 20% was non-oil exports, a large chunk of Iran's economy would shrivel up. The repercussions will be painful and extend well beyond lost business and profits. For example, treating curable illnesses will become difficult. According to an Iranian health ministry official, Iran produces 95% of its own medicines but most pharmaceutical-related raw materials are imported.

                    The American people are told nothing about this, of course. The presidential candidates will say nothing about it – or about any of the other flashing danger signals as we careen toward another murderous catastrophe. The "progressive" movement, now consumed with the minutiae of the squabble between Clinton and Obama – both of whom have repeatedly declared their bellicosity toward Iran, and their fierce insistence that all options, including the use of nuclear weapons, remain "on the table" – will no doubt continue its long inaction and avoidance of the subject, as Arthur Silber notes so powerfully here, while also providing active, practical steps that could be taken to head off another war -- something no one else is bothering to do.

                    We'll let Silber have the last word here:


                    So what is your choice? Do the world -- and your life, and the lives of those you love -- mean so little to you, that you will risk losing them all? Is that what you want? Do you still choose to do nothing?

                    Do you?

                    iran

                    Comment

                    • Rasputin
                      Senior Member
                      • Jan 2005
                      • 63906

                      #25
                      Iran's government spokesman announced on Wednesday that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will replace the economy and interior ministers, the state-owned Press TV satellite channel reported.

                      After weeks of speculation about cabinet replacements, Gholam Hossein Elham confirmed there would be changes in Ahmadinejad's cabinet within the next few days.

                      "Mr. President told me on Sunday that he has personally spoken to two of his cabinet members and asked them to serve the country in other positions," Elham was quoted as saying.

                      Iran's Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Davoud Danesh-Jafari and Minister of Interior Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi are to be replaced, Elham said, adding that the new ministers are yet to be introduced.

                      "The constitution of the Islamic Republic allows caretaker ministers to take office for three months until the new ministers are announced," he said.

                      On Saturday, Elham had rejected media reports that Iran's economy minister will soon be replaced.

                      "There has been no talk of changes in the Iranian government. Circulation of such news is aimed at influencing the government's economic planning," Elham was quoted as saying at his weekly press conference Saturday.

                      He added that the government and all ministries would continue with their work seriously in order to materialize the country's economic objectives.

                      In recent days, some Iranian media had speculated that Ahmadinejad might replace Danesh-Jafari.

                      "The possibility of replacing Davoud Danesh-Jafari has become stronger," Iran's Fars News Agency reported Friday.

                      iran

                      Comment

                      • Rasputin
                        Senior Member
                        • Jan 2005
                        • 63906

                        #26
                        Iran's government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham on Saturday rejected media reports that Iran's economy minister will soon be replaced, the state-owned Press TV satellite channel reported.

                        "There has been no talk of changes in the Iranian government. Circulation of such news is aimed at influencing the government's economic planning," Elham was quoted as saying at his weekly press conference.

                        He added that the government and all ministries would continue with their work seriously in order to materialize the country's economic objectives.

                        In recent days, some Iranian media had speculated that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might replace Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance Davoud Danesh-Jafari.

                        "The possibility of replacing Davoud Danesh-Jafari has become stronger," Iran's Fars News Agency reported on Friday. On Iran's nuclear program, Elham reiterated that despite economic sanctions and U.S. pressures, Tehran will continue its nuclear activities.

                        "Generation of 20,000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear energy is on the government's agenda. Iran will pursue its nuclear program until this target is realized," the government spokesman said.

                        iran

                        Comment

                        • Rasputin
                          Senior Member
                          • Jan 2005
                          • 63906

                          #27
                          The question of what to do about the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear weapons aspirations has challenged the United States through several administrations. Indeed, the discussion about how to confront Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and their predecessors has so entered the rote of foreign policy debate that arguments for and against a particular set of policies have become cliché. Worse still, the familiarity of the threat set--for how long have we warned of Iran's nuclear ambitions?--has itself become familiar enough to have lost its menace.

                          Yet the reality remains: Iran is driving toward a nuclear weapon and self sufficiency in the production of highly enriched uranium. The international community is convinced of Iran's intentions. I have met with officials from each of the five permanent members of the Security Council, and each has averred bluntly that it is their government's private view that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. And while the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has suggested he is not convinced, his deputies--to a one--are persuaded of Iran's intentions.

                          That leaves the civilized world with the question of what to do. Some have already announced that we can live with a nuclear Iran, speculating that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others proclaim their commitment to the destruction of Israel and America that they are not serious. Others have come to the reluctant conclusion that a military strike will be the only effective means of slowing Iran's nuclear program. Still others believe the Tehran regime can be removed if there is enough support for the majority of Iranians who loathe their system of government and leadership.

                          This is not a new debate. In November of 1808, Thomas Jefferson mused on the question of an embargo of Great Britain, then threatening the United States and harassing shipping, in a letter. He wrote: "three alternatives alone are to be chosen from: 1, embargo; 2, war; 3, submission and tribute. And, wonderful to tell, the last will not want advocates."

                          Some will suggest that submission and tribute are not options for the United States and its allies. I would argue that the modern day equivalent contemplates accepting what was heretofore unacceptable: allowing Iran enrichment (sometimes described as "limited enrichment"), "containing" an Iranian weapon, tolerating Iranian domination of its region, ignoring Iranian support for terrorism, bribing Iran to take steps that will not verifiably end its program, and worse.

                          The other option, war, is not very attractive for a variety of reasons that have been ably debated in other fora. Certainly, serious analysts are not persuaded that there is any silver bullet in a military conflict or limited strike on the Islamic Republic. However, those who rule out war in any circumstance should recognize that the prospect of military action is what prompts Iran's leadership to take seriously the sanctions now on the table. More importantly, it is obvious that the limited multilateral sanctions now in effect will not have their desired effect. Then what? If war is off the table, submission and tribute will remain.

                          This leaves us with the hope that harsher and more effective economic sanctions can raise the cost to Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and change the calculus of decision-makers in Tehran.

                          There are three United Nations Security Council resolutions now in effect addressing Iran's nuclear program and its violations of its safeguards obligations. Depending on your viewpoint, these resolutions are a triumph of international solidarity in the face of an outlaw or a lame attempt to discover the least common denominator that will unite a divided Council. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

                          Without U.S. leadership, it is unlikely the Council would have acted. And without pressure from France and the U.K., it is unlikely that the Security Council would have agreed upon a third resolution, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese apologia for Iran. Yet, against some odds, we have three resolutions and a moderately robust set of international sanctions. In addition, the European Union has used the authority of the resolutions to impose a set of slightly broader sanctions on Iran. And the United States has also imposed its own set of unilateral sanctions, some of which have been in place for many years.

                          Although there seems little doubt that the mood in Congress has shifted since the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) first passed in 1996, it is important to underscore that the U.S. Congress has always been at the forefront of confronting Iran (as it has been in confronting the worst state sponsors of terrorism and the worst proliferators). It is a principled position that should be a source of pride for members of both parties. I have no doubt that legislation like ILSA (now the Iran Sanctions Act), the Iran Non-Proliferation Act (now the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act), and the Iran-Iraq Non-Proliferation Act have slowed Iran's ability to attract capital, material and technical support for its programs.

                          Over the years, as different pieces of legislation have been introduced and passed, there have been some who have continued to suggest that sanctions don't work in general, and that unilateral sanctions are particularly ineffective. I agree that multilateral sanctions are always more desirable than ad hoc or unilateral sanctions. However, the argument that unilateral sanctions are wrong, ineffective and otherwise to be avoided is also incorrect, and offensive in the sense that such arguments too often come from self-serving members of industry whose sole interest is in making the world safe for untrammeled trade.

                          On consistency grounds alone, those who oppose unilateral American foreign policy sanctions against terror sponsors and proliferators should be challenged to also oppose economic sanctions against foreign companies dumping cheap goods into the U.S. market. After all, if sanctions are good enough punishment for making a cheap television set, presumably they are good enough for terrorists trying to make a nuclear weapon.

                          More importantly, even the threat of unilateral sanctions has been effective as recently as last year. As state after state has ramped up efforts to divest pension funds from companies invested in Iran, and as S. 970, the Smith-Durbin Iran Counter-Proliferation Act has garnered support in the Congress, American companies like General Electric, Halliburton, and Baker Hughes with subsidiaries operating in Iran have rethought the wisdom of doing business with one of our nation's most dangerous enemies. And as the United States has contemplated additional unilateral banking sanctions on Iran, banks across Europe have ratcheted back their exposure to the Islamic Republic, with some pulling out entirely.

                          Reviewing the impact of sanctions to date, it is clear that both unilateral and multilateral sanctions are taking a toll on Iran's economy, much of which is state controlled. The sanctions in effect today have done a better job than many previous sanctions regimes in targeting leadership elements and sources of income without imposing a heavy burden on the Iranian people. Even a brief glance at the impact reveals that Iran is now having difficulty underwriting its oil products (and the regime's own oil minister admitted as much). Financing is hard to come by, and the cost of money has gone up significantly. The OECD has lowered Iran's credit rating. Letters of credit are now difficult to obtain, and as a result, investors have pulled out of a variety of important oil and gas deals. In other words, what you are doing works. We may not all agree on the exact provisions, but Congressional leadership in the use of means other than war to persuade the Iranian regime to slow down its nuclear program has undoubtedly had a positive effect.

                          Mr. Chairman, Could life be more difficult for Iran's leaders? Certainly. Could our friends and allies, particularly in China, Russia and the Persian Gulf, do more to isolate Tehran? Without a doubt. I would like to see the various Emirates shut down the Iranian bank accounts that have flourished since Iran's banking sector came under pressure. I would also like to see nations like the United Arab Emirates do more to ensure they are not the pass-through of choice for Iranian imports and exports, legal and illegal.

                          We could also do more to reassure those in Iran's neighborhood that we are serious about the threat Iran poses to the region. Last year's disingenuous and politicized National Intelligence Estimate undercut America's position and worried the very leaders we have sought to reassure about America's constancy in the fight against terrorism and proliferation.

                          Overall, however, we should remember Mr. Jefferson's admonition. There are only a few choices before us: Imagination, perseverance, pressure and vigilance are the watchwords that should guide us. Submission is unacceptable, and war only a last option when no other offers the hope of preserving our national security.

                          iran

                          Comment

                          • Rasputin
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2005
                            • 63906

                            #28
                            Regarding the specific provisions of S. 970, and without speaking to every section, one of the key provisions is Section 6 on Russia Nuclear Cooperation. Last July, Presidents Bush and Putin initialed an agreement for nuclear cooperation, a so-called 123 agreement, launching a new era in nuclear cooperation between Moscow and Washington. While Russia has long been eager for such an agreement, successive administrations had refused to move forward, arguing that Russia's willingness to cooperate with Iran and build reactors for the Islamic Republic have precluded cooperation with the U.S.

                            The Bush administration reversed its own previous position and that of the Clinton administration, which had refused to begin negotiations on a 123 agreement while Russia continued to assist the Iranian nuclear program. It is not clear to me why the Bush Administration made its move. Certainly, the benefits of the administration's decision are hard to pinpoint, as Russia has been the main roadblock in toughening United Nations sanctions on Iran.

                            Section 6 of S. 970 will take the initiative away from the Executive Branch and underscore the fact that nuclear cooperation with the United States--and the vast attendant potential profits--will not be available to Russia for as long as Russia continues to work with the Iranian nuclear program and supply advanced conventional weapons to the Islamic Republic's military.

                            Section 7 closes the loophole that was reopened by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright which allows US imports of Iranian goods, particularly carpets and pistachios--important foreign exchange earners for the regime. That decision sent an unhelpful mixed message to Iran's leaders, and underscored American weakness in confronting Iranian threats. There is no demonstrable evidence that the step was anything other than a PR move.

                            Section 8 closes a loophole that has been exploited by a number of U.S. companies to use subsidiaries in foreign countries to do what would otherwise be prohibited work in Iran. The companies in question did so in full cognizance of the fact that their actions undermined the spirit and intention of U.S. law and executive orders. And while most have now, to the best of my knowledge, ceased doing new business in Iran, I have little doubt that in another climate that work would quickly resume.

                            Regarding the World Bank and World Bank lending to Iran, the facts are simple. Since 2000, the World Bank has extended more than $1.2 billion in loans to the Islamic Republic. And other than a December 2005 Mulitlateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) credit line of $122 million which clearly aids Iran's petrochemical sector, the loans are hardly remarkable in and of themselves. However, each penny frees up millions then available to the regime to use as it sees fit. And we have a good idea what Ahmadinejad sees fit.

                            The lending is a political disgrace. From an economic standpoint, Iran is one of the most mismanaged economies in the Middle East. It is the only OPEC nation that has defied the spike in crude prices to run a budget deficit. Economic rationalism alone should dictate that the World Bank hold Tehran at arms' length. In addition, a nation that expends untold billions fueling an insurgency in Iraq, sponsoring the dictatorship in Syria, underwriting Hezbollah, Hamas and other terror groups and arming itself with the best conventional weaponry and missiles available from Russia and North Korea, not to speak of funding an expensive clandestine nuclear program, does not bear scrutiny as a responsible fiscal custodian.

                            However, the United States, the single largest World Bank contributor, is forced by World Bank rules to subsidize the regime. No new loans have been extended since 2005, but existing loans are still being paid out. The U.S. taxpayer should not bear a penny of this cost, and this bill remedies the problem.

                            There are several other important provisions to this bill, including reporting requirements about federal thrift savings investments related to Iran, companies operating in the United States that do business with Iran and more. These reports will shine a much needed light onto Iran's friends, suppliers and enablers. At that point, it will be unnecessary to mandate particular steps. People and governments will begin to vote with their pocketbooks, investing in companies that choose to do business in less threatening parts of the world. In this instance, choice is key, and information makes such choices possible.

                            Finally, a brief comment on the creation of an international fuel bank. I am happy to defer to those who have more knowledge of the details of uranium enrichment, reprocessing and safeguards on the basic question of the wisdom of such a fuel bank. However, the provision demands some logical scrutiny: What kind of country needs a nuclear fuel bank? Presumably a country that depends on foreign sources of nuclear fuel and is worried that it may be cut off by its suppliers. Why would a country worry about being cut off by its suppliers? In the nuclear area, the most likely reason would be because it has misbehaved—for example, by detonating a nuclear explosive device. So are we going to set up a fuel bank that addresses this concern by promising to deliver fuel even to countries that do such things as engage in nuclear proliferation? I certainly hope not. But if the fuel bank doesn't address that concern, what makes anyone think that a country like Iran is going to be satisfied to give up its ongoing nuclear enrichment program in order to join the fuel bank?

                            My point is not that a fuel bank is a bad idea. It is simply that I think it gives undue credit to the professed concerns of a country like Iran. We should be under no illusion that this is a tool that is likely to induce Iran to give up nuclear enrichment. Thank you for you attention, and for your continued vigilance. President George W. Bush once suggested that as threats gather, responsible leaders cannot sit idly by. This bill ensures that the U.S. Congress is leading our nation to confront one of the most potent threats facing us.

                            iran

                            Comment

                            • Rasputin
                              Senior Member
                              • Jan 2005
                              • 63906

                              #29
                              'ایرانی ها چگونه تحریم را دور می زنند'


                              فایننشال تایمز: صرافان ایرانی مشکلی برای انتقال پول به دیگر نقاط جهان ندارند
                              دو هفته پس از آنکه خزانه داری آمریکا رسما درباره معامله با بانکهای ایران به موسسات مالی جهانی هشدار داد، روزنامه فایننشال تایمز در گزارشی تحلیلی به این موضوع پرداخته است که تحریمهای مالی علیه ایران، چگونه باعث رواج یافتن نحوه های غیر رسمی تر انتقال پول به خارج از ایران شده است، که به اعتقاد این روزنامه تحریم ها را کم اثر ساخته است.
                              فایننشال تایمز گزارش را با روایت نحوه کار "شهرام"، یک مجری طرح های ساختمانی، آغاز می کند که برای انتقال پول به دوبی، جهت سرمایه گذاری در بخش مسکن، از سیستم بانکی استفاده نمی کند.

                              شهرام به آنا فایفیلد، خبرنگار این روزنامه می گوید که به توصیه صرافی که با او کار می کند، از فرستادن مبالغ بالای 100 هزار دلار در هر بار خود داری می کند و حداکثر 40 هزار دلار یا 50 هزار دلار پول را از طریق حواله می فرستد.

                              شهرام می گوید: "اگر بخواهم به آمریکا پول بفرستم یا از آمریکا پول دریافت کنم، این کار را از طریق ترکیه انجام می دهم."

                              حواله: راه حلی به قدمت 13 قرن

                              فایننشال تایمز می نویسد ایرانیان از طریق بکارگیری روشی بر تحریمهای آمریکا غلبه کرده اند که قدمت آن به قرن هشتم میلادی باز می گردد، اما در دهه های اخیر کارگران مهاجر جنوب آسیا و خاورمیانه بیشتر از آن استفاده کرده اند.

                              این روزنامه چاپ لندن، قابل اعتماد بودن حواله را موضوعی "جالب توجه" می داند و می نویسد "ایرانی ها، پس از سه دهه تحمل تحریم آمریکایی ها، در دور زدن آنها متبحر شده اند."

                              راجر بالارد، کارشناس بکارگیری حواله در دانشگاه منچستر به فایننشال تایمز می گوید: "با تلاش آمریکا برای تحمیل تحریمهای سختگیرانه تر، بازار ایران بدون حواله چگونه می توانست کار کند؟"

                              این روزنامه توضیح می دهد که نقدینگی منتقل شده از طریق حواله، از طریق کارگران مشغول در کشورهای صنعتی جهان تامین می شود که می خواهند برای خانواده های خود پول بفرستند که آقای بالارد حجم این پول را "سالانه 100 میلیارد دلار" برآورد می کند.

                              او می گوید: "این همه حاصل جهانی شدن در دنیای اقتصاد است."

                              نحوه انتقال پول توسط حواله

                              فایننشال تایمز برای توضیح نحوه عملکرد حواله و انتقال پول به خارج از ایران، مثالی را درمورد خرید کفش از یک تولید کننده چینی مطرح می کند.

                              این روزنامه می نویسد: "آقای الف، وارد کننده کفش های چینی، در تهران با مراجعه به صرافی خواستار انتقال 10 هزار دلار می شود. صراف، با همکار خود در چین تماس می گیرد که او نیز به بانک فروشنده مراجعه کرده و پول را واریز می کند."


                              فایننشال تایمز: انتقال پول با حواله سرعت بالایی دارد و بخاطر "فقدان بوروکراسی" بسیار از انتقال پول توسط بانک سریعتر است
                              "در این حالت طرف چینی 10 هزار دلار از صراف ایرانی بستانکار می شود و وقتی (بعنوان مثال) یک ایرانی در چین می خواهد 5000 دلار پول برای خانواده اش بفرستد، با انجام فرایند عکس، 5000 دلار از طلب او وصول می شود."

                              فایننشال تایمز توضیح می دهد : "در مرور زمان و با ادامه معاملات طلب ها و بدهکاری های دو طرف یکدیگر را خنثی می کنند و دو صراف با هم بی حساب می شوند."

                              این روزنامه می نویسد از آنجا که این سیستم بر اساس "احترام متقابل و توافق شرافتی" بنا شده، اگر کسی در معامله خیانت کند، درواقع باعث اخراج خود از سیستم شده است.

                              تایمز معتقد است این شیوه کار، سرعت بالایی نیز دارد و بخاطر "فقدان بوروکراسی" بسیار از انتقال پول توسط بانک سریعتر است.

                              نقش دوبی

                              فایننشال تایمز بر نقش دوبی در تضعیف تحریم تاکید می کند و می نویسد: "مسیر ارسال اکثر کالاهای خریداری شده از اروپا و آسیا یا حتی آمریکا، به دوبی تغییر داده شده، که به این ترتیب تشخیص اینکه مقصد کالا امارات متحده عربی است یا ایران، غیرممکن می شود."

                              ضمن اینکه برای انتقال پول به سیستم مالی بین المللی، معمولا یک صراف در تهران، از طرق همکار خود در دوبی، پول را به بانکی اماراتی واریز می کند و سپس از آن طریق، پول وارد سیستم مالی بین المللی می شود.

                              خبرنگار این روزنامه از قول مدیر یک صرافی در اطراف میدان فردوسی تهران (با ذکر نام) می نویسد این دفتر روزانه تا 100 مورد انتقال پول به خارج از ایران انجام می دهد که حدود نیمی از این موارد، مقصد دوبی است.

                              فایننشال تایمز به نقل از مدیر این شرکت و همچنین "شهرام"، مجری طرح های ساختمانی در ایران و دوبی، می نویسد بانکهای دوبی تمایلی به دانستن اینکه چه کسی پول را انتقال داده، یا اینکه پول از کجا به دست آمده نشان نمی دهند.

                              واکنش آمریکا

                              این روزنامه به استناد تجربه خبرنگارش در تهران می نویسد هیچکدام از صرافی ها در تهران مشکل و مخالفتی با انتقال پول به خارج نداشتند، هرچند تاکید می کنند که پس از اعمال محدودیتها از سوی آمریکا، عمده مبادلات با یورو انجام می شود.

                              ویکتور کومراس، یک کارشناس پول شویی و تامین هزینه گروه های تروریستی در واشنگتن، درباره واکنش آمریکا به نظام ایجاد شده، به فایننشال تایمز می گوید: "، تنها در دو سال گذشته بوده که چند کشور از جمله آمریکا، به تدریج مسئله نظام مند ساختن انتقال پول از طریق حواله را جدی گرفته اند."


                              فایننشال تایمز: "نقدینگی منتقل شده از طریق حواله، از طریق کارگران مشغول در کشورهای صنعتی جهان تامین می شود که می خواهند برای خانواده های خود پول بفرستند"
                              فایننشال تایمز شمار دلالان ثبت شده حواله در امریکا را که ملزم به کسب اطلاع درمورد هویت مشتریانشان هستند، 40 هزار نفر ذکر می کند، اما از قول دنیل گلیزر، معاون رئیس بخش تامین مالی اقدامات تروریستی در وزارت خزانه داری آمریکا می نویسد محبوب شدن انتقال پول با حواله، نشان موفقیت تحریمهای آمریکا است.

                              او می گوید: "این تحریمها، شرایط را برای تامین هزینه های رژیم ایران و برنامه هسته ای این کشور دشوار ساخته است."

                              آقای گلیزر می گوید: "راه برای فرار کردن از تحریمها زیاد است، اما همین که سازمانهایی مثل سپاه قدس مجبور شوند از نظام مالی بین المللی خارج شوند و رو به استفاده از نظام های پر هزینه تر، پر خطر تر و نا کارآمد تر بیاورند، رویداد خوبی است."

                              آمریکا و دوبی

                              با این حال فایننشال تایمز می نویسد: "اعتقاد بر آن است که مقام های آمریکایی از اینکه بانکهای دوبی نقش ایرانیان در مبادلات مالی را نادیده می گیرند، نگران هستند."

                              این روزنامه خبر می دهد که بانکهای اماراتی، تحت فشار آمریکا، از ترس اینکه برخی شرکتها تنها برای عبور از سد تحریم تاسیس شده باشند، سختگیری بیشتری درباره ایرانی ها انجام می دهند.

                              فایننشال تایمز از اظهارات مقام های ایرانی اینطور نتیجه گیری می کند که بیش از نیمی از بانکهای دوبی حاضر به واگذاری اعتبار به شرکتهای مستقر در تهران نیستند.

                              اما، به نوشته فایننشال تایمز، مشکل اینجا است که "سهولت استفاده از حواله، به انتقال دهندگان پول اطمینان می دهد که هرچند رد یک حواله احتمالا به نقطه ای در خلیج فارس ختم شود، اما هیچگاه، یا بسیار به ندرت ثابت می کند که مبدا پول منابع ایرانی بوده اند."



                              iran

                              Comment

                              • Rasputin
                                Senior Member
                                • Jan 2005
                                • 63906

                                #30
                                The parent company of United Airlines, the UAL Corporation, reported a $537 million loss in the first quarter on Tuesday, bigger than expected, as a 51 percent increase in fuel costs overwhelmed furious efforts to raise fares at the country’s second-largest carrier.

                                UAL shares closed down $7.88, to $13.55.

                                Unless oil prices unexpectedly retreat, there is no relief in sight for airlines, and nearly the entire industry is expected to lose money this year.

                                United, based in Chicago, plans to reduce employment by 1,100 by the end of the year, as airlines begin a new round of layoffs. United increased the number of planes it plans to shed to 30, from an earlier estimate of 15 to 20, in hopes of constraining capacity and driving fares up further.

                                JetBlue Airways and AirTran Holdings, two formerly fast-growing discount carriers, also posted first-quarter losses. JetBlue, which operates from John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, reduced its growth plans for the year, hoping to keep raising fares.

                                And AirTran, operating from Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, said it would delay growth plans in the 16 months beginning in September. That move could help it raise fares and conserve cash.

                                AirTran, where shares have fallen in the wake of bankruptcy filings by some smaller carriers, said it would sell notes and stock to raise about $110 million and bolster its cushion against the downturn.

                                But the share sale, after the stock has already fallen, will dilute existing shareholders. AirTran shares fell 95 cents, to $3.61.

                                With a recent rash of bankruptcies at smaller airlines and expected losses at every big carrier but Southwest Airlines, the industry has swiftly entered a steep decline because of oil priced above $100 a barrel and the inability to pass on those higher costs to price-sensitive travelers.

                                The entire industry is now focused on constraining capacity and raising fares. AirTran managed a 5.2 percent increase in its average fare, to $99.06 during the quarter, as it expanded its capacity by 10.8 percent.

                                JetBlue did better, its average fare rising 22.4 percent to $135.64 compared with a year earlier, even as its capacity expanded by almost 14 percent. But now it is hunkering down, planning to increase overall capacity by 3 to 5 percent in 2008.

                                The slowing economy will make fare increases more difficult. Demand for travel typically falls after a recession has started. To date, airlines have not seen a significant decline in demand.

                                At United, first-quarter fares rose more than 11 percent over the year-ago period, as the carrier reduced domestic capacity by about 6 percent. That sent revenue up 7.7 percent to $4.71 billion for the quarter.

                                But a $534 million increase in fuel costs, to $1.58 billion for the quarter, led to a loss. The company has $2.9 billion of unrestricted cash and short-term investments, a slimmer cushion than the $3.6 billion it held Dec. 31, 2007.

                                Of the planned employee cuts, 500 would be managers and 600 union-represented workers, Glenn Tilton, United’s chief executive, said in a recorded message to his workers. “In this extraordinary environment, we recognize the pace of change needs to accelerate,” he said.

                                United hopes to merge with another airline — Continental Airlines and US Airways are leading candidates — in order to compete against the proposed combination of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines. Tuesday, in his message to workers, Mr. Tilton called industry consolidation “one of the changes required to address the gap between where we stand today and profitability and sustainability.”

                                iran

                                Comment

                                Working...