<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">HOW DO YOU MAKE the insurance industry more profitable? James P. Corcoran, New York state's chief in</div>

HOW DO YOU MAKE the insurance industry more profitable? James P. Corcoran, New York state's chief in

<div class="phx-topic">HOW DO YOU MAKE the insurance industry more profitable? James P. Corcoran, New York state's chief insurance regulator, gave a suggestion that makes a lot of sense. Speaking at the American Bar Association meeting in New York last week, Mr. Corcoran said the industry would improve the quality of its underwriting and, perhaps, its net income if it began paying underwriters as much or more than insurance company investment officers. Confused? Not if you think about it.The emphasis in a business is directly related to what people get paid to do. By paying investment officers more than underwriters, Mr. Corcoran contends, the insurance industry has been pushing investments to the detriment of its primary business. The current insurance crisis, Mr. Corcoran said, is due in large part to "cash flow underwriting. The investment officers, who have more clout in insurance companies as reflected in their pay, have encouraged the underwriters to write policies to generate income for investment instead of policies that the underwriters can justify on the basis of historical risk.Mr. Cocoran said the industry should "stop playing games and get back into the insurance business. That makes sense to us.</div>

HOW DO YOU MAKE the insurance industry more profitable? James P. Corcoran, New York state's chief insurance regulator, gave a suggestion that makes a lot of sense. Speaking at the American Bar Association meeting in New York last week, Mr. Corcoran said the industry would improve the quality of its underwriting and, perhaps, its net income if it began paying underwriters as much or more than insurance company investment officers. Confused? Not if you think about it. The emphasis in a business is directly related to what people get paid to do. By paying investment officers more than underwriters, Mr. Corcoran contends, the insurance industry has been pushing investments to the detriment of its primary business. The current insurance crisis, Mr. Corcoran said, is due in large part to "cash flow underwriting. The investment officers, who have more clout in insurance companies as reflected in their pay, have encouraged the underwriters to write policies to generate income for investment instead of policies that the underwriters can justify on the basis of historical risk.Mr. Cocoran said the industry should "stop playing games and get back into the insurance business. That makes sense to us.

PAY UNDERWRITERS MORE

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Nationalists from the English-speaking Caribbean are writing a report card on 25 years of independe</div>

Nationalists from the English-speaking Caribbean are writing a report card on 25 years of independe

<div class="phx-topic">Nationalists from the English-speaking Caribbean are writing a report card on 25 years of independence from Britain. The final document should tell a grim tale about life for the region's 5.5 million inhabitants.Even so, the current depressed state of the Caribbean is no blight on its history, nationalists say.The way they see it, Caribbean Community members have had a mere 25 years to shift from a one- or two-industry economy - with no infrastructure to support economic diversification - to a sovereign global player. And all this with two severe world recessions in the last ten years.Prices for export commodities are at record lows, choking off foreign exchange earnings needed to expand development projects, further exploit natural resources and repay foreign debts.The region owes foreigners amounts ranging from $3 billion in Jamaica to $22 million in St. Vincent. While these figures pale beside the debt of Brazil alone, the burden of repayment is greater for islands nations with dwindling income.To qualify for additional credit from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, or foreign commercial banks, the Caribbean must adopt economic policies that often ramrod domestic attempts to cushion the draining effects of recession.True, there is some measure of trade relief in arrangements like the Caribbean Community, with its Caribbean Development Bank and Caribbean Multilateral Clearing Facility, President Reagan's Caribbean Basin Initiative, Caribcan - Canada's equivalent to the CBI, the Lome Conventions and the British Commonwealth.But, as they say in the Caribbean: A hungry man is an angry man."As competition for world markets intensifies, so does protectionism. This in turn diminishes Caribbean access to significant markets for textiles and apparel, sugar, petroleum products, bauxite - the region's biggest export earners.With the days of suffocating interest rates and oil prices came what people who live in the Caribbean call dog-eat-dog-ism.Guyana ran up huge debts with the Multilateral Clearing Facility, putting it on the road to bankruptcy. Then Jamaica gave another kick to the already- downed facility by introducing a parallel tiered exchange rate that, coupled with trade barriers, removed most of the country's market from Caricom suppliers. The smaller states in the eastern Caribbean, led by the redoubtable Dominican Prime Minister Eugenia Charles, latched on to the United States, winning precious finances denied to troublesome" nations too friendly with Russia, like Guyana.Soviet or U.S. alliances notwithstanding, the economic crunch in the Commonwealth Caribbean shows no sign of letting up in the near future, what with some economists predicting another global recession.So nationalists in the region are beginning to make loud noises about reviving the short-lived West Indian Federation. The hope is that a politically unified Caribbean will curb any mismanagement of the region's resources.Thus the clamor for economic cooperation has been raised with renewed vigor. There is a move to reverse the five-year decline in intra-regional trade with the re-establishment of the Clearing Facility.Individually, Caribbean countries are grappling with the foreign currency dilemma through countertrade and barter arrangements. Some are luring sizable hard currency deposits by offering offshore banking facilities to multinational corporations.Many now look beyond Britain and the United States - the region's traditional partners in trade and aid.Caribbean delegations have been wending their way to Africa, Asia, and the Arab world in quest of capital and industrial investment. The nearness of North American markets has pushed manufacturers from newly industrializing Pacific nations to set up production facilities in the region.While the economic future of the Caribbean is gloomy, it is by no means hopeless. The fall in oil prices should slash the cost of energy imports, affording extra funds for development; lower interest rates in the United States and Europe should ease debt payments.Income from tourism has already increased in the wake of the terrorist threats in Europe. And, like it or not, drug trafficking has become a principal means of raking in the dollars in the Caribbean.At a recent panel discussion sponsored by the University of Hartford's African-American Studies Program, the West Indian Independence Celebration Committee and the Caribbean Action Lobby, the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada was fingered as a turning point in the history English-speaking Caribbean.The invasion nearly caused the breakup of Caricom, as bitter slurs flew between supporters and opponents of the U.S. move. But Washington's readiness to pump more dollars into the militarization of the Caribbean since the invasion bolsters longstanding nationalist arguments that the superpowers care less about economic advancement of the Third World than their own hegemony over developing nations.U.S. military assistance to the eastern Caribbean alone jumped to over $7.2 million in 1984 from $1.2 million in 1982.The Soviet Union brought its own chickens home to roost with its soft stance on Third World development at the June 1984 Comecon summit in Moscow. The Soviet bloc is not part of the Third World's economic problems, the summit communique said, and is therefore not part of the solution.</div>

Nationalists from the English-speaking Caribbean are writing a report card on 25 years of independence from Britain. The final document should tell a grim tale about life for the region's 5.5 million inhabitants. Even so, the current depressed state of the Caribbean is no blight on its history, nationalists say.The way they see it, Caribbean Community members have had a mere 25 years to shift from a one- or two-industry economy - with no infrastructure to support economic diversification - to a sovereign global player. And all this with two severe world recessions in the last ten years. Prices for export commodities are at record lows, choking off foreign exchange earnings needed to expand development projects, further exploit natural resources and repay foreign debts. The region owes foreigners amounts ranging from $3 billion in Jamaica to $22 million in St. Vincent. While these figures pale beside the debt of Brazil alone, the burden of repayment is greater for islands nations with dwindling income. To qualify for additional credit from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, or foreign commercial banks, the Caribbean must adopt economic policies that often ramrod domestic attempts to cushion the draining effects of recession. True, there is some measure of trade relief in arrangements like the Caribbean Community, with its Caribbean Development Bank and Caribbean Multilateral Clearing Facility, President Reagan's Caribbean Basin Initiative, Caribcan - Canada's equivalent to the CBI, the Lome Conventions and the British Commonwealth. But, as they say in the Caribbean: A hungry man is an angry man." As competition for world markets intensifies, so does protectionism. This in turn diminishes Caribbean access to significant markets for textiles and apparel, sugar, petroleum products, bauxite - the region's biggest export earners. With the days of suffocating interest rates and oil prices came what people who live in the Caribbean call dog-eat-dog-ism. Guyana ran up huge debts with the Multilateral Clearing Facility, putting it on the road to bankruptcy. Then Jamaica gave another kick to the already- downed facility by introducing a parallel tiered exchange rate that, coupled with trade barriers, removed most of the country's market from Caricom suppliers. The smaller states in the eastern Caribbean, led by the redoubtable Dominican Prime Minister Eugenia Charles, latched on to the United States, winning precious finances denied to troublesome" nations too friendly with Russia, like Guyana. Soviet or U.S. alliances notwithstanding, the economic crunch in the Commonwealth Caribbean shows no sign of letting up in the near future, what with some economists predicting another global recession. So nationalists in the region are beginning to make loud noises about reviving the short-lived West Indian Federation. The hope is that a politically unified Caribbean will curb any mismanagement of the region's resources. Thus the clamor for economic cooperation has been raised with renewed vigor. There is a move to reverse the five-year decline in intra-regional trade with the re-establishment of the Clearing Facility. Individually, Caribbean countries are grappling with the foreign currency dilemma through countertrade and barter arrangements. Some are luring sizable hard currency deposits by offering offshore banking facilities to multinational corporations. Many now look beyond Britain and the United States - the region's traditional partners in trade and aid. Caribbean delegations have been wending their way to Africa, Asia, and the Arab world in quest of capital and industrial investment. The nearness of North American markets has pushed manufacturers from newly industrializing Pacific nations to set up production facilities in the region. While the economic future of the Caribbean is gloomy, it is by no means hopeless. The fall in oil prices should slash the cost of energy imports, affording extra funds for development; lower interest rates in the United States and Europe should ease debt payments. Income from tourism has already increased in the wake of the terrorist threats in Europe. And, like it or not, drug trafficking has become a principal means of raking in the dollars in the Caribbean. At a recent panel discussion sponsored by the University of Hartford's African-American Studies Program, the West Indian Independence Celebration Committee and the Caribbean Action Lobby, the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada was fingered as a turning point in the history English-speaking Caribbean. The invasion nearly caused the breakup of Caricom, as bitter slurs flew between supporters and opponents of the U.S. move. But Washington's readiness to pump more dollars into the militarization of the Caribbean since the invasion bolsters longstanding nationalist arguments that the superpowers care less about economic advancement of the Third World than their own hegemony over developing nations. U.S. military assistance to the eastern Caribbean alone jumped to over $7.2 million in 1984 from $1.2 million in 1982. The Soviet Union brought its own chickens home to roost with its soft stance on Third World development at the June 1984 Comecon summit in Moscow. The Soviet bloc is not part of the Third World's economic problems, the summit communique said, and is therefore not part of the solution.

ENGLISH CARIBBEAN'S REPORT CARD

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">This is a year that economists have much to be modest about. They have repeatedly promised a busines</div>

This is a year that economists have much to be modest about. They have repeatedly promised a busines

<div class="phx-topic">This is a year that economists have much to be modest about. They have repeatedly promised a business pickup - an economic rally that has yet to come. If it does come, it will remove some tarnish from their repute as forecasters. But it had better come soon. Better late than never!Seven successive months of dispirited economic growth have become worrisome: What's holding up the pickup? The latest survey of the National Federal of Independent Business is not encouraging. The NFIB comprises a cross section of 500,000 small businesses. The optimism and plans of members to expand have contracted noticeably in recent months . Oomph is lacking.However, economists regard the January-July economic doldrums as a forerunner of long-lived expansion through this year and next. They're a bit less optimistic than in January, but few foresee a recession.And why shouldn't they hold fast to optimism? Didn't Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul A. Volcker say reassuringly to the House Banking Committee, "I think the signals, the harbingers, that one normally associates with a near- term recession are generally absent, but we live in a much more complex world than even a few years ago"?Economists have construed favorably news that skeptics could construe unfavorably. Here are three examples:One: Lower oil prices. They are equivalent to a tax cut. They lower costs of users of heating fuel and gasoline and thus increase the spending power of consumers and business firms.Two: Lower interest rates. They'll stimulate the economy. Business firms will be able to borrow more cheaply. This will increase profit margins and encourage expansion. People who are debtors also will be beneficiaries. So an interest rate cut can also be likened to a tax cut. It, too, buoys spending.Three: The lower-priced dollar will enable U.S. exporters to cut the prices of products they sell in foreign markets and will force foreign enterprises that sell goods in the United States to raise their prices. Thus it will improve the competitiveness and sales of U.S. companies both in their home market and abroad.The three economic "lowers" became one big glorious economic "upper", and they fostered the long bull market in Wall Street - the rise in the Dow Jones industrials above 1,900. Yes, the July break in stock prices shook confidence a bit, but the trip of Mr. Volcker to West Germany was a restorative.Ostensibly, Mr. Volcker went to the funeral service for Otmar Emminger, a former head of the German Bundesbank. But he wasn't idle. He met the present Bundesbank head, Karl Otto Pohl. Wall Streeters concluded that he had persuaded German officials to reduce interest rates so as to stimulate German economic growth and assist the United States in reducing interest rates here.Expansion in Germany would have desirable worldwide repercussions. Germans would increase consumption and buy more from the United States and other nations. Furthermore, Japan too would lower interest rates, and the burden of debt everywhere would be lessened. This would help over-indebted nations. Sales everywhere would increase. As a result, U.S. stock prices shot up.The three "lowers" that made an "upper" for economists have bearish aspects. True, the drop in oil prices bullishly entered econometrician's computers as a "tax cut," but the losses that were subsequently suffered by oil companies and banks escaped measurement. An oil glut was mistakenly treated as a gloat.The drop in interest rates similarly has a negative aspect. If business were robust, loan demand would increase and interest rates would rise. Thus, the interest rates cuts were the Federal Reserve's response to political and Wall Street exhortation to do something - don't stand aloof from the doldrums.The drop in the price of the dollar also is not an unmitigated plus. It raises the prices of foreign automobiles, clothing, and other imported products. Thus, living expenses in the United States go up.But all misgivings wash away when economists look beyond the current ''growth recession." It has been assumed that U.S. efforts to obtain German and Japanese collaboration on lower interest rates would succeed and provide a worldwide economic lift.Lower interest rates are a powerful propulsive economic force. Not only do they alleviate the debt costs of over-indebted less-developed nations, but they encourage economic growth. Hence Wall Street's exultant response to Mr. Volcker's German visit. Mr. Volcker wants an economic pickup, and what Mr. Volcker wants, he often gets. So, Mr. Volcker may be the savior of economists.Still, this can be written: 1986 isn't a year that economists can be proud of. The pickup, when and if it comes, will have been disappointingly slow.</div>

This is a year that economists have much to be modest about. They have repeatedly promised a business pickup - an economic rally that has yet to come. If it does come, it will remove some tarnish from their repute as forecasters. But it had better come soon. Better late than never! Seven successive months of dispirited economic growth have become worrisome: What's holding up the pickup? The latest survey of the National Federal of Independent Business is not encouraging. The NFIB comprises a cross section of 500,000 small businesses. The optimism and plans of members to expand have contracted noticeably in recent months . Oomph is lacking.However, economists regard the January-July economic doldrums as a forerunner of long-lived expansion through this year and next. They're a bit less optimistic than in January, but few foresee a recession. And why shouldn't they hold fast to optimism? Didn't Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul A. Volcker say reassuringly to the House Banking Committee, "I think the signals, the harbingers, that one normally associates with a near- term recession are generally absent, but we live in a much more complex world than even a few years ago"? Economists have construed favorably news that skeptics could construe unfavorably. Here are three examples: One: Lower oil prices. They are equivalent to a tax cut. They lower costs of users of heating fuel and gasoline and thus increase the spending power of consumers and business firms. Two: Lower interest rates. They'll stimulate the economy. Business firms will be able to borrow more cheaply. This will increase profit margins and encourage expansion. People who are debtors also will be beneficiaries. So an interest rate cut can also be likened to a tax cut. It, too, buoys spending. Three: The lower-priced dollar will enable U.S. exporters to cut the prices of products they sell in foreign markets and will force foreign enterprises that sell goods in the United States to raise their prices. Thus it will improve the competitiveness and sales of U.S. companies both in their home market and abroad. The three economic "lowers" became one big glorious economic "upper", and they fostered the long bull market in Wall Street - the rise in the Dow Jones industrials above 1,900. Yes, the July break in stock prices shook confidence a bit, but the trip of Mr. Volcker to West Germany was a restorative. Ostensibly, Mr. Volcker went to the funeral service for Otmar Emminger, a former head of the German Bundesbank. But he wasn't idle. He met the present Bundesbank head, Karl Otto Pohl. Wall Streeters concluded that he had persuaded German officials to reduce interest rates so as to stimulate German economic growth and assist the United States in reducing interest rates here. Expansion in Germany would have desirable worldwide repercussions. Germans would increase consumption and buy more from the United States and other nations. Furthermore, Japan too would lower interest rates, and the burden of debt everywhere would be lessened. This would help over-indebted nations. Sales everywhere would increase. As a result, U.S. stock prices shot up. The three "lowers" that made an "upper" for economists have bearish aspects. True, the drop in oil prices bullishly entered econometrician's computers as a "tax cut," but the losses that were subsequently suffered by oil companies and banks escaped measurement. An oil glut was mistakenly treated as a gloat. The drop in interest rates similarly has a negative aspect. If business were robust, loan demand would increase and interest rates would rise. Thus, the interest rates cuts were the Federal Reserve's response to political and Wall Street exhortation to do something - don't stand aloof from the doldrums. The drop in the price of the dollar also is not an unmitigated plus. It raises the prices of foreign automobiles, clothing, and other imported products. Thus, living expenses in the United States go up. But all misgivings wash away when economists look beyond the current ''growth recession." It has been assumed that U.S. efforts to obtain German and Japanese collaboration on lower interest rates would succeed and provide a worldwide economic lift. Lower interest rates are a powerful propulsive economic force. Not only do they alleviate the debt costs of over-indebted less-developed nations, but they encourage economic growth. Hence Wall Street's exultant response to Mr. Volcker's German visit. Mr. Volcker wants an economic pickup, and what Mr. Volcker wants, he often gets. So, Mr. Volcker may be the savior of economists. Still, this can be written: 1986 isn't a year that economists can be proud of. The pickup, when and if it comes, will have been disappointingly slow.

ECONOMIC RALLY REMAINS ON HOLD

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">THE PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN steamship line made a startling proposal (considering the source) to one </div>

THE PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN steamship line made a startling proposal (considering the source) to one

<div class="phx-topic">THE PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN steamship line made a startling proposal (considering the source) to one of our editors the other day.He was talking about the way Japanese products have come to dominate U.S. markets, at a time when Japan's import rules are so labyrinth and restrictive that U.S. products get very little chance to compete in Japanese markets. As a result, he said, a vast array of Japanese products ranging from cameras to video cassette recorders to automobiles have become commonplace in the United States. Yet U.S. goods are largely shut out of the Japanese marketplace.The solution, he suggested, would be to impose the same requirements on a foreign importer's products that the importer's country imposes on U.S. products. In other words, he said, if the Japanese require that each U.S. car imported into Japan be individually inspected - a process that can add $1,000 or more to the price - then we should insist that each Japanese car be individually inspected. Such regulations would not be designed to be retaliatory - they would simply be identical to those already in place in countries that rack up trade surpluses with the United States year after year.Had that plan been suggested by a dyed-in-the-wool protectionist, thundering about the need to save the jobs of people in his home district, we might have dismissed it as out of hand. But here was a chief executive who had devoted a long and distinguished career to the shipping business, speaking openly about the need to force Japan to grant U.S. exporters greater access to its markets.Some might argue that such non-tariff barriers, by any other name, are still contrary to the principles of free trade. Others, however, might suggest - as he did - that translated regulations wouldn't necessarily limit trade, and might in fact promote trade. The requirement of individual inspection of automobiles, for example, would be set up to dissolve immediately when Japan eliminated its own rule for inspection of U.S. autos exported to Japan.A foreign government would be somewhat hard-pressed to attack regulations that were nothing more or less than translations of its own policy. Such a plan would not arbitrarily limit growth in trade to fixed percentages. Japan could quickly eliminate a translation rule it didn't like by eliminating the same rule for U.S. imports.We recognize that it might be difficult to make translated trade regulations practical. Fights over even small details in trade bills turn into major battles in Congress. It seems unlikely the federal government could decide any more simply on which foreign trade restrictions to translate and impose. In the current context of trade legislation, it alsoseems unlikely that there would be any groundswell of support for a trade czar free to carry out surgical strikes against unreasonable foreign restrictions.Yet the idea of action to seek greater U.S. trade in the Far East cannot be summarily cast aside. We believe it might be wise to consider translated regulations as one of a range of options available when urging trading partners to be more open to U.S. exports.There is a precedent for this suggestion. Back at the turn of century, the Conservative Party in Britain sought to protect the country's threatened economic pre-eminence behind tariff barriers. Winston Churchill became so incensed that he left the Conservative party and became the outspoken champion of the Tory free traders. Seeking a compromise, the great British statesman Arthur J. Balfour, famed for his Balfour Declaration pledging British support for a Jewish home in Palestine, suggested that Britain impose the same duties and regulations on imports of those countries that imposed them on the United Kingdom. Thanks largely to Sir Winston's barbed tongue, Mr. Balfour's suggestion went nowhere. And we are all aware what happened to the United Kingdom's economic pre-eminence.</div>

THE PRESIDENT OF A FOREIGN steamship line made a startling proposal (considering the source) to one of our editors the other day. He was talking about the way Japanese products have come to dominate U.S. markets, at a time when Japan's import rules are so labyrinth and restrictive that U.S. products get very little chance to compete in Japanese markets. As a result, he said, a vast array of Japanese products ranging from cameras to video cassette recorders to automobiles have become commonplace in the United States. Yet U.S. goods are largely shut out of the Japanese marketplace.The solution, he suggested, would be to impose the same requirements on a foreign importer's products that the importer's country imposes on U.S. products. In other words, he said, if the Japanese require that each U.S. car imported into Japan be individually inspected - a process that can add $1,000 or more to the price - then we should insist that each Japanese car be individually inspected. Such regulations would not be designed to be retaliatory - they would simply be identical to those already in place in countries that rack up trade surpluses with the United States year after year. Had that plan been suggested by a dyed-in-the-wool protectionist, thundering about the need to save the jobs of people in his home district, we might have dismissed it as out of hand. But here was a chief executive who had devoted a long and distinguished career to the shipping business, speaking openly about the need to force Japan to grant U.S. exporters greater access to its markets. Some might argue that such non-tariff barriers, by any other name, are still contrary to the principles of free trade. Others, however, might suggest - as he did - that translated regulations wouldn't necessarily limit trade, and might in fact promote trade. The requirement of individual inspection of automobiles, for example, would be set up to dissolve immediately when Japan eliminated its own rule for inspection of U.S. autos exported to Japan. A foreign government would be somewhat hard-pressed to attack regulations that were nothing more or less than translations of its own policy. Such a plan would not arbitrarily limit growth in trade to fixed percentages. Japan could quickly eliminate a translation rule it didn't like by eliminating the same rule for U.S. imports. We recognize that it might be difficult to make translated trade regulations practical. Fights over even small details in trade bills turn into major battles in Congress. It seems unlikely the federal government could decide any more simply on which foreign trade restrictions to translate and impose. In the current context of trade legislation, it alsoseems unlikely that there would be any groundswell of support for a trade czar free to carry out surgical strikes against unreasonable foreign restrictions. Yet the idea of action to seek greater U.S. trade in the Far East cannot be summarily cast aside. We believe it might be wise to consider translated regulations as one of a range of options available when urging trading partners to be more open to U.S. exports. There is a precedent for this suggestion. Back at the turn of century, the Conservative Party in Britain sought to protect the country's threatened economic pre-eminence behind tariff barriers. Winston Churchill became so incensed that he left the Conservative party and became the outspoken champion of the Tory free traders. Seeking a compromise, the great British statesman Arthur J. Balfour, famed for his Balfour Declaration pledging British support for a Jewish home in Palestine, suggested that Britain impose the same duties and regulations on imports of those countries that imposed them on the United Kingdom. Thanks largely to Sir Winston's barbed tongue, Mr. Balfour's suggestion went nowhere. And we are all aware what happened to the United Kingdom's economic pre-eminence.

MODEST TRADE SUGGESTION

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The "British disease" has been cured. The popular image, both at home and abroad, of factories manne</div>

The "British disease" has been cured. The popular image, both at home and abroad, of factories manne

<div class="phx-topic">The "British disease" has been cured. The popular image, both at home and abroad, of factories manned by strike-happy workers ready to seize on the flimsiest excuse to walk out is outdated.The number of working days lost through strikes in the 12 months to May fell to the lowest level since 1967, according to the latest government statistics. The days lost last year were less than a quarter of the total in 1984 and just under half the average for the previous 10 years.Worldwide press and television coverage of the violent year-long miners' strike in 1983-84 confirmed foreign perceptions of a country being dragged into anarchy by militant labor unions.But the miners failed to enlist the support of other workers, and their eventual defeat probably signaled the end of the major set-piece labor disputes that have earned the UK its unhappy title as the world's most strike- prone society. Earlier strikes by locomotive engineers, dockers and steelworkers, the vanguard of the labor movement, also ended in humiliating defeats.The ebb of union militancy results from several factors: the decline of the smokestack industries such as steel and shipbuilding where militancy was a way of life, the rise of employment in new high-technology and service industries that unions have failed to penetrate and probably most important of all: the growing fear of unemployment.Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was carried to power in 1979 on a wave of public revulsion at an outbreak of strikes in the so-called winter of discontent, also played a major role by drastically curbing union power. Legislation on secret strike ballots was her most powerful weapon, shifting power away from union leaders and activists to the less politically-motivated rank and file members.The opposition Labour Party, which won only 40 percent of the votes of trade union members in the last election, is committed to repealing the Conservative legislation but will bring in its own controls on unions - something that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.The weakening of union power has been accompanied by tougher attitudes by British management, which had earned a reputation for giving in to union demands at any price to avoid a strike.The arrival of foreign managements, particularly Japanese, also quickened the pace of change, notably by obtaining no-strike, single-union agreement - again, something that was unthinkable a few years ago.The unions, in retreat, adopted a more pragmatic stance, rapidly shedding their ideological baggage, as evidenced in the loss of power by the left-wing candidates in recent union elections.The Trades Union Congress, the central organization of the labor movement, speaks earnestly about the "new realism" in its ranks. Says Gavin Laird, a moderate leader of the engineers and a pioneer of the single union, no-strike agreements: "trade unions are a mirror image of the production process. If industries change, so must we. When workers' aspirations and needs alter we must reflect this too."Dramatic evidence of the change in the industrial climate in the United Kingdom came when Komatsu, the Japanese earth-moving equipment company, announced that the 250 employees at its new plant in northeast England will have to perform five minutes of exercise every day before work. A few years ago this would have been dismissed as a joke.Meanwhile, the latest propaganda booklet from the Invest in Britain Bureau entices foreign companies with a vision of a "skilled and adaptable" work force geared to working in close cooperation with its employers.</div>

The "British disease" has been cured. The popular image, both at home and abroad, of factories manned by strike-happy workers ready to seize on the flimsiest excuse to walk out is outdated. The number of working days lost through strikes in the 12 months to May fell to the lowest level since 1967, according to the latest government statistics. The days lost last year were less than a quarter of the total in 1984 and just under half the average for the previous 10 years.Worldwide press and television coverage of the violent year-long miners' strike in 1983-84 confirmed foreign perceptions of a country being dragged into anarchy by militant labor unions. But the miners failed to enlist the support of other workers, and their eventual defeat probably signaled the end of the major set-piece labor disputes that have earned the UK its unhappy title as the world's most strike- prone society. Earlier strikes by locomotive engineers, dockers and steelworkers, the vanguard of the labor movement, also ended in humiliating defeats. The ebb of union militancy results from several factors: the decline of the smokestack industries such as steel and shipbuilding where militancy was a way of life, the rise of employment in new high-technology and service industries that unions have failed to penetrate and probably most important of all: the growing fear of unemployment. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was carried to power in 1979 on a wave of public revulsion at an outbreak of strikes in the so-called winter of discontent, also played a major role by drastically curbing union power. Legislation on secret strike ballots was her most powerful weapon, shifting power away from union leaders and activists to the less politically-motivated rank and file members. The opposition Labour Party, which won only 40 percent of the votes of trade union members in the last election, is committed to repealing the Conservative legislation but will bring in its own controls on unions - something that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. The weakening of union power has been accompanied by tougher attitudes by British management, which had earned a reputation for giving in to union demands at any price to avoid a strike. The arrival of foreign managements, particularly Japanese, also quickened the pace of change, notably by obtaining no-strike, single-union agreement - again, something that was unthinkable a few years ago. The unions, in retreat, adopted a more pragmatic stance, rapidly shedding their ideological baggage, as evidenced in the loss of power by the left-wing candidates in recent union elections. The Trades Union Congress, the central organization of the labor movement, speaks earnestly about the "new realism" in its ranks. Says Gavin Laird, a moderate leader of the engineers and a pioneer of the single union, no-strike agreements: "trade unions are a mirror image of the production process. If industries change, so must we. When workers' aspirations and needs alter we must reflect this too." Dramatic evidence of the change in the industrial climate in the United Kingdom came when Komatsu, the Japanese earth-moving equipment company, announced that the 250 employees at its new plant in northeast England will have to perform five minutes of exercise every day before work. A few years ago this would have been dismissed as a joke. Meanwhile, the latest propaganda booklet from the Invest in Britain Bureau entices foreign companies with a vision of a "skilled and adaptable" work force geared to working in close cooperation with its employers.

BRITAIN CURES ITS LABOR AILMENT

Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

Arm your team with the most trusted information portal for the international container shipping industry.

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM26GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

GET INTO A GROUP SUBSCRIPTION: Arm your team with unlimited Journal of Commerce content

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

START A FREE TRIAL: Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

An in-depth analysis of transport trends in the multipurpose and heavy-lift fleet segment

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

A premium access index of savings using domestic intermodal vs. OTR 

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

An extensive dashboard of charts organized by trade lane, mode, and topic

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">U.S.-MEXICAN RELATIONS, badly frayed only two months ago, now appear to be on the mend. Both Preside</div>

U.S.-MEXICAN RELATIONS, badly frayed only two months ago, now appear to be on the mend. Both Preside

<div class="phx-topic">U.S.-MEXICAN RELATIONS, badly frayed only two months ago, now appear to be on the mend. Both President Reagan and Mexican President Miguel de la Madrid said all the right things on the south lawn of the White House last Wednesday.The two leaders pledged intensified efforts to stop drug trafficking, a move one U.S. official termed a joint declaration of war against the production and consumption of narcotic drugs. The tone of these remarks was much different from the accusations of complicity and corruption that senior administration aides have been hurling at Mexico recently.The Reagan administration now seems to recognize that renewed efforts at cooperation - not public invective - are the best way to try to resolve thedrug, migration, economic and other problems besetting U.S.-Mexican relations.How the two governments will follow up the Reagan-de la Madrid meeting bears close watching. For starters, the United States will intensify its Mexican border controls to combat illegal immigration, drug and arms traffic. And the two countries may negotiate a mutual legal assistance treaty, for the exchange of financial data, which could aid in prosecuting drug dealers. The two governments also may strengthen their bilateral commission as a way to improve policy coordination on an array of issues, from border crossings to the environment to trade and investment.State and local officials from both countries may be included in these consultations, an idea whose time surely has come.The most pressing - and overriding - problem for now, however, concerns the Mexican economy, and in particular the new rescue package the Reagan administration has done so much to assemble. President Reagan touched only briefly on this matter in his remarks Wednesday. He said he hoped Mexico's creditor banks will move quickly to commit new money for Mexico - a more restrained statement than might have been expected.The banks, of course, are the key to the package. Without their providing substantial new loans, the Mexican economy likely will deteriorate further, heightening the chances of political turmoil.With that sort of threat, the banks must cooperate, first by contributing to a proposed $1.5 billion short-term loan to Mexico and then by providing the $6 billion or so in new credits outlined in the Mexican rescue package. The commercial banks, in cooperating with this plan, still will be collecting much more funds from Mexico this year and next than they will provide to Mexico.As Richard Feinberg of the Overseas Development Council recently noted, Mexico's creditor banks (which are mostly U.S.) are due to receive $12 billion to $13 billion in Mexican interest payments in 1986-87 - roughly twice the amount of new loans called for in the aid package.Once the aid program is working, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United States and other governments, it will be up to Mexico to carry out the economic reforms it has promised. These include a paring of the public budget deficit, realistic exchange and interest rate policies and a liberalization of trade and investment.The proposed U.S.-Mexican agreement setting forth each country's trade and investment rules could help buttress such initiatives.</div>

U.S.-MEXICAN RELATIONS, badly frayed only two months ago, now appear to be on the mend. Both President Reagan and Mexican President Miguel de la Madrid said all the right things on the south lawn of the White House last Wednesday. The two leaders pledged intensified efforts to stop drug trafficking, a move one U.S. official termed a joint declaration of war against the production and consumption of narcotic drugs. The tone of these remarks was much different from the accusations of complicity and corruption that senior administration aides have been hurling at Mexico recently.The Reagan administration now seems to recognize that renewed efforts at cooperation - not public invective - are the best way to try to resolve the drug, migration, economic and other problems besetting U.S.-Mexican relations. How the two governments will follow up the Reagan-de la Madrid meeting bears close watching. For starters, the United States will intensify its Mexican border controls to combat illegal immigration, drug and arms traffic. And the two countries may negotiate a mutual legal assistance treaty, for the exchange of financial data, which could aid in prosecuting drug dealers. The two governments also may strengthen their bilateral commission as a way to improve policy coordination on an array of issues, from border crossings to the environment to trade and investment. State and local officials from both countries may be included in these consultations, an idea whose time surely has come. The most pressing - and overriding - problem for now, however, concerns the Mexican economy, and in particular the new rescue package the Reagan administration has done so much to assemble. President Reagan touched only briefly on this matter in his remarks Wednesday. He said he hoped Mexico's creditor banks will move quickly to commit new money for Mexico - a more restrained statement than might have been expected. The banks, of course, are the key to the package. Without their providing substantial new loans, the Mexican economy likely will deteriorate further, heightening the chances of political turmoil. With that sort of threat, the banks must cooperate, first by contributing to a proposed $1.5 billion short-term loan to Mexico and then by providing the $6 billion or so in new credits outlined in the Mexican rescue package. The commercial banks, in cooperating with this plan, still will be collecting much more funds from Mexico this year and next than they will provide to Mexico. As Richard Feinberg of the Overseas Development Council recently noted, Mexico's creditor banks (which are mostly U.S.) are due to receive $12 billion to $13 billion in Mexican interest payments in 1986-87 - roughly twice the amount of new loans called for in the aid package. Once the aid program is working, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United States and other governments, it will be up to Mexico to carry out the economic reforms it has promised. These include a paring of the public budget deficit, realistic exchange and interest rate policies and a liberalization of trade and investment. The proposed U.S.-Mexican agreement setting forth each country's trade and investment rules could help buttress such initiatives.

SOUTH OF THE BORDER

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was inst</div>

THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was inst

<div class="phx-topic">THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was instituted 73 years ago (if you believe the Wall Street Journal) or since World War II (if you believe The New York Times) was approved by House and Senate conferees late Saturday night.But it took six years, if you deal in the short term, and many more than that if you never believed in a federal income tax in the first place. It was on Aug. 5, 1982, that Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., introduced their tax overhaul plan.As you can see in The Journal of Commerce on page 3A, the effect of the new tax approach on the businesses we concentrate on - transportation, insurance, trade, energy, petrochemicals, financial services and commodities - will not be as positive as for the more consumer-oriented industries.Yes, this bill will make income tax law simpler and do away with loopholes. But most of those loopholes helped reduce taxes for industry and especially those industries The Journal of Commerce reports on.The point is we cannot afford to wait another six years if this tax structuring proves to be more detrimental to these essential industries of the United States than expected. This is especially true given the $170 billion trade deficit the country should rack up in 1986 and the federal budget deficit that continues to exceed all expectations.One suspects more tax revenue is going to be needed. If so, action should be taken quickly. One suspects that greater incentives to encourage industries to invest in new plants and equipment also will be needed. Again close scrutiny of the effects of the new tax code is needed and quick action is required from Congress to make the tax code not only simpler but better.</div>

THE MOMENT SHOULD BE SAVORED. The most comprehensive tax restructuring since the income tax was instituted 73 years ago (if you believe the Wall Street Journal) or since World War II (if you believe The New York Times) was approved by House and Senate conferees late Saturday night. But it took six years, if you deal in the short term, and many more than that if you never believed in a federal income tax in the first place. It was on Aug. 5, 1982, that Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., introduced their tax overhaul plan.As you can see in The Journal of Commerce on page 3A, the effect of the new tax approach on the businesses we concentrate on - transportation, insurance, trade, energy, petrochemicals, financial services and commodities - will not be as positive as for the more consumer-oriented industries. Yes, this bill will make income tax law simpler and do away with loopholes. But most of those loopholes helped reduce taxes for industry and especially those industries The Journal of Commerce reports on. The point is we cannot afford to wait another six years if this tax structuring proves to be more detrimental to these essential industries of the United States than expected. This is especially true given the $170 billion trade deficit the country should rack up in 1986 and the federal budget deficit that continues to exceed all expectations. One suspects more tax revenue is going to be needed. If so, action should be taken quickly. One suspects that greater incentives to encourage industries to invest in new plants and equipment also will be needed. Again close scrutiny of the effects of the new tax code is needed and quick action is required from Congress to make the tax code not only simpler but better.

BEWARE OF TAX ELAN

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since </div>

The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since

<div class="phx-topic">The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since 1963, were quite different from those surrounding the recent administration decision to expand the Export Enhancement Program to include limited offers to subsidize Soviet purchases.The current decision was indeed a political one, but it deals only indirectly with the fall elections. It was reported in Washington to have been instituted in an effort to buy votes to defeat the then highly possible House override of the president's veto of a textile bill. Just as the Export Enhancement Program, which subsidizes exports to selected countries, was itself instituted to buy votes for a tax measure, neither of them was instituted directly for agriculture.It is incorrect, at least as yet, even to speak of subsidized sales to the Soviets, for there have as yet been no sales. The offer that was made includes an insufficient subsidy amount to make U.S. wheat competitive with other world wheat, and the Soviets are reported to have turned up their noses at it. The Soviets have, furthermore, issued a new list of shipping terms that are considered by the exporters to be at the very least extremely difficult if not impossible for the United States to live with. It is doubtful that any U.S. exporter would be able to offer any wheat - or other grains, for that matter - unless these terms can be modified.The concept of a subsidy is, furthermore, a cloudy issue and one that is very little understood. Is it a subsidy when world prices are lower than the domestic prices, and the United States maintains the domestic price but makes its export prices compatible with the world wheat prices by paying the difference from the Treasury? And, who is actually paid the subsidy if it is not the farmer who continues to receive the domestic price when his grain is sold abroad at a lower price? The customer pays a price for the grain that is the same as the price he would pay for wheat from any other country in the world. And in the current instance, there are many who not only have grains available but are anxiously attempting to sell it to the Soviet Union.The U.S. government's Export Enhancement Program also has had mostly unfortunate results. It has offended certain buyers of U.S. grain for whom the subsidy does not apply. These customers are, in turn, buying from the U.S. competitors at the lower prices, which they then bid to undercut the prices quoted under the Export Enhancement Program.It has been suggested that the Soviets have reneged on their agreement to buy wheat from the United States. This agreement calls for the Soviets to buy specific quantities at world prices. The Soviets maintain that the United States has not been offering them the lower world prices but a higher U.S. price.One of the most significant differences today as compared with early 1972 is that the United States is no longer in control of the agricultural market. Back in 1972, the United States had virtually the only stocks left in the world. Other countries' stocks were reduced to almost nothing. The United States stocks were large and could easily have accommodated even large purchases had the Soviets bought more than the 400 million bushels. U.S. prices did not rise appreciably until well after the Soviets had finished buying, and they rose then on the sharply increased buying from other U.S. customers. Japan, for example, increased its buying from the United States by more than 100 percent that year, and other countries all rushed here to buygrains. The big mistake the United States made was in the large and very expensive acreage reduction program it undertook for the 1972 crop. It was farmers who had pressured the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do this. And, subsequently, it was a farmers' organization that then criticized the administration for having exercised poor judgment in enacting the acreage reduction program.Today the United States has lost control. Other nations have expanded their farm production and have surpluses that they offer at lower prices than ours. The world's competition has been so fierce that wheat prices have been quoted as much as $40.00 a ton under U.S. prices.The United States can no longer force an issue in the world grain trade. But this is not apparent from the U.S. attitude toward the world markets. The problem stems from the U.S. pride in its agriculture. The incorrect understanding that "we feed the world. That the world cannot eat without us. The arrogance here that by withholding food shipments we can make other nations conform to the United States' wishes. That might have been the case in the past. But it is not true today. Even the balance of U.S. trade in agriculture is now deficit, whereas in the past agriculture was one of the most important earners of foreign exchange for the United States.Problems began for the United States when it began export embargoes principally against the Soviet Union, although the first one in 1973 was practiced against all nations. Following that, there were the embargoes of 1974 and 1975. Finally after the 1975 embargo, the United States entered into a long-term agreement with the Soviet Union.U.S. production continued to increase and so did our trade in grain with the Soviets. This reached its peak in 1980, when the infamous embargo in which the United States in one fell swoop decided it would not permit the export of about 17 million tons of grain already on order from the Soviets.The U.S. grain industry - and, indeed, world agriculture - has not yet recovered from that blow. It took the other nations one year to increase their production to cover the quantities the Soviets were then buying from them plus sales to their "traditional" customers. The United States finds that it has since that time been left out in the cold more and more, chiefly because of the restrictive practices of its own government. When a nation declines to sell food to another nation that needs it, that nation and the other nations immediately increase their production to make up the shortfall. This is what has happened in the world, and it is why the world is awash in grains.Joseph Halow is executive director North American Export Grain Association, Washington, D.C.</div>

The circumstances surrounding the 1972 sale of U.S. wheat to the Soviets, the first such sale since 1963, were quite different from those surrounding the recent administration decision to expand the Export Enhancement Program to include limited offers to subsidize Soviet purchases. The current decision was indeed a political one, but it deals only indirectly with the fall elections. It was reported in Washington to have been instituted in an effort to buy votes to defeat the then highly possible House override of the president's veto of a textile bill. Just as the Export Enhancement Program, which subsidizes exports to selected countries, was itself instituted to buy votes for a tax measure, neither of them was instituted directly for agriculture.It is incorrect, at least as yet, even to speak of subsidized sales to the Soviets, for there have as yet been no sales. The offer that was made includes an insufficient subsidy amount to make U.S. wheat competitive with other world wheat, and the Soviets are reported to have turned up their noses at it. The Soviets have, furthermore, issued a new list of shipping terms that are considered by the exporters to be at the very least extremely difficult if not impossible for the United States to live with. It is doubtful that any U.S. exporter would be able to offer any wheat - or other grains, for that matter - unless these terms can be modified. The concept of a subsidy is, furthermore, a cloudy issue and one that is very little understood. Is it a subsidy when world prices are lower than the domestic prices, and the United States maintains the domestic price but makes its export prices compatible with the world wheat prices by paying the difference from the Treasury? And, who is actually paid the subsidy if it is not the farmer who continues to receive the domestic price when his grain is sold abroad at a lower price? The customer pays a price for the grain that is the same as the price he would pay for wheat from any other country in the world. And in the current instance, there are many who not only have grains available but are anxiously attempting to sell it to the Soviet Union. The U.S. government's Export Enhancement Program also has had mostly unfortunate results. It has offended certain buyers of U.S. grain for whom the subsidy does not apply. These customers are, in turn, buying from the U.S. competitors at the lower prices, which they then bid to undercut the prices quoted under the Export Enhancement Program. It has been suggested that the Soviets have reneged on their agreement to buy wheat from the United States. This agreement calls for the Soviets to buy specific quantities at world prices. The Soviets maintain that the United States has not been offering them the lower world prices but a higher U.S. price. One of the most significant differences today as compared with early 1972 is that the United States is no longer in control of the agricultural market. Back in 1972, the United States had virtually the only stocks left in the world. Other countries' stocks were reduced to almost nothing. The United States stocks were large and could easily have accommodated even large purchases had the Soviets bought more than the 400 million bushels. U.S. prices did not rise appreciably until well after the Soviets had finished buying, and they rose then on the sharply increased buying from other U.S. customers. Japan, for example, increased its buying from the United States by more than 100 percent that year, and other countries all rushed here to buy grains. The big mistake the United States made was in the large and very expensive acreage reduction program it undertook for the 1972 crop. It was farmers who had pressured the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do this. And, subsequently, it was a farmers' organization that then criticized the administration for having exercised poor judgment in enacting the acreage reduction program. Today the United States has lost control. Other nations have expanded their farm production and have surpluses that they offer at lower prices than ours. The world's competition has been so fierce that wheat prices have been quoted as much as $40.00 a ton under U.S. prices. The United States can no longer force an issue in the world grain trade. But this is not apparent from the U.S. attitude toward the world markets. The problem stems from the U.S. pride in its agriculture. The incorrect understanding that "we feed the world. That the world cannot eat without us. The arrogance here that by withholding food shipments we can make other nations conform to the United States' wishes. That might have been the case in the past. But it is not true today. Even the balance of U.S. trade in agriculture is now deficit, whereas in the past agriculture was one of the most important earners of foreign exchange for the United States. Problems began for the United States when it began export embargoes principally against the Soviet Union, although the first one in 1973 was practiced against all nations. Following that, there were the embargoes of 1974 and 1975. Finally after the 1975 embargo, the United States entered into a long-term agreement with the Soviet Union. U.S. production continued to increase and so did our trade in grain with the Soviets. This reached its peak in 1980, when the infamous embargo in which the United States in one fell swoop decided it would not permit the export of about 17 million tons of grain already on order from the Soviets. The U.S. grain industry - and, indeed, world agriculture - has not yet recovered from that blow. It took the other nations one year to increase their production to cover the quantities the Soviets were then buying from them plus sales to their "traditional" customers. The United States finds that it has since that time been left out in the cold more and more, chiefly because of the restrictive practices of its own government. When a nation declines to sell food to another nation that needs it, that nation and the other nations immediately increase their production to make up the shortfall. This is what has happened in the world, and it is why the world is awash in grains. Joseph Halow is executive director North American Export Grain Association, Washington, D.C.

GRAIN EMBARGOES HAUNTING US

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money. The former chairm</div>

Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money. The former chairm

<div class="phx-topic">Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money.The former chairman of a major company held $200,000 of Krugerrands in his IRA rollover account, even though gold coins produce no income to shield from taxes.Another executive with a $450,000 annual base salary didn't know publicly traded bonds could be sold prior to maturity.A retiree of another major firm took the funds from his benefit plans in a lump sum, forgoing the option of 10-year averaging.E. Deane Kanaly, chairman and chief executive of Kanaly Trust Co., Houston, says it's amazing how many executives can't manage their personal finances. Corporate finance is a lot easier than personal finance, he claims.The above examples are all taken from "The Kanaly Concept," (220 pages. 1986, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. $20). Mr. Kanaly says he wrote the book to help untold numbers of Americans who are cheated by unlicensed financial managers and counselors who almost flaunt their conflicts of interest."Consider the widow whose banker advises her to put the insurance money in CDs - in his own bank of course - instead of in a carefully designed investment program," he says, adding that trust departments should be separated completely from banks to avoid such "terrible conflicts of interest."A Senate committee estimated U.S. citizens lose $91 billion a year because of poor financial advice. Mr. Kanaly says the biggest hazard faced by people who come into substantial sums of money is the predators who purport to be there to help with management or decisions - or with both."Millions will inherit billions in the next several decades," he points out. "It is a revolutionary socioeconomic phenomenon never before witnessed."But at the same time, financial counselors aren't being trained, and universities aren't offering financial planning courses. When it comes to finances, Mr. Kanaly says, Americans are ignorant.The costs of this neglect, in terms of money and human suffering, are staggering. "There is a close connection between personal health andfinancial health," Mr. Kanaly says."You go to the dentist every six months. And you go to the doctor once a year for a checkup. You should also visit your financial counselor at least once a year for a financial checkup," he said in a recent interview.A financial counselor, he says, should be similar to a general practitioner. "Know the difference between the doctor and the pharmacist who is selling the drugs," he cautions."Consider the Certified Financial Planner who conducts free seminars as a vehicle to tout specific investments, ostensibly the 'best' available in today's market, but in fact securities, syndications or tax shelters which yield the highest commissions to the seller at the moment."Mr. Kanaly recommends state or local licensing of financial planners and counselors, as well as required classes in personal finance for every college student."We should equip people to understand the effects of selling a business and of retiring, realizing that there is an unfortunate pattern that most people fall into when they inherit money, retire or sell a business. Most of these people have no experience dealing with liquid assets. They become the victims of the community at large, which oftentimes does not act in their best interest in selling products and services," he says."When an M.B.A. places his IRA in Krugerrands, it is clear that the educational process is incomplete," he says.Mr. Kanaly says the aggregate of assets held in trust by trust institutions in this country would be measured in the trillions of dollars, ''if we could ever get together and measure it. Trust assets would dwarf the national debt."If Americans are ever to get their financial affairs in order, he says, it must start at the household level. "We can't wait for the politicians to straighten out the mess."He hopes, however, that the tax shelter business will go down the drain if tax reform legislation is enacted."Tax shelters in oil and real estate have been the biggest waste of money and talent. Without them, billions of dollars will be freed up for productive investment," Mr. Kanaly says.What this country needs, he says, is well-trained, professional financial counselors, instead of "self-styled financial planners whose single credential may be little more than a desk in a brokerage office or a shingle on the door."Financial planners must customize their services to meet individual needs, he adds."What you do with your money depends on whether you have kids to put through college or an elderly parent in a nursing home to support," he says.Financial decisions also must be made in the context of the personalfinancial life cycle, which progresses from the formation stage to orientation, survival, accumulation and preservation of assets, he explains.Finally, he adds, it is important to understand the "megatrends" affecting our society, including the shift to a service economy, the new federalism, the retreat from the notion that more is always better and the increasing interdependence of the world economy."The Kanaly Concept" is essential reading for anyone hoping to achieve and maintain excellent financial health.</div>

Smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to managing money. The former chairman of a major company held $200,000 of Krugerrands in his IRA rollover account, even though gold coins produce no income to shield from taxes.Another executive with a $450,000 annual base salary didn't know publicly traded bonds could be sold prior to maturity. A retiree of another major firm took the funds from his benefit plans in a lump sum, forgoing the option of 10-year averaging. E. Deane Kanaly, chairman and chief executive of Kanaly Trust Co., Houston, says it's amazing how many executives can't manage their personal finances. Corporate finance is a lot easier than personal finance, he claims. The above examples are all taken from "The Kanaly Concept," (220 pages. 1986, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. $20). Mr. Kanaly says he wrote the book to help untold numbers of Americans who are cheated by unlicensed financial managers and counselors who almost flaunt their conflicts of interest. "Consider the widow whose banker advises her to put the insurance money in CDs - in his own bank of course - instead of in a carefully designed investment program," he says, adding that trust departments should be separated completely from banks to avoid such "terrible conflicts of interest." A Senate committee estimated U.S. citizens lose $91 billion a year because of poor financial advice. Mr. Kanaly says the biggest hazard faced by people who come into substantial sums of money is the predators who purport to be there to help with management or decisions - or with both. "Millions will inherit billions in the next several decades," he points out. "It is a revolutionary socioeconomic phenomenon never before witnessed." But at the same time, financial counselors aren't being trained, and universities aren't offering financial planning courses. When it comes to finances, Mr. Kanaly says, Americans are ignorant. The costs of this neglect, in terms of money and human suffering, are staggering. "There is a close connection between personal health and financial health," Mr. Kanaly says. "You go to the dentist every six months. And you go to the doctor once a year for a checkup. You should also visit your financial counselor at least once a year for a financial checkup," he said in a recent interview. A financial counselor, he says, should be similar to a general practitioner. "Know the difference between the doctor and the pharmacist who is selling the drugs," he cautions. "Consider the Certified Financial Planner who conducts free seminars as a vehicle to tout specific investments, ostensibly the 'best' available in today's market, but in fact securities, syndications or tax shelters which yield the highest commissions to the seller at the moment." Mr. Kanaly recommends state or local licensing of financial planners and counselors, as well as required classes in personal finance for every college student. "We should equip people to understand the effects of selling a business and of retiring, realizing that there is an unfortunate pattern that most people fall into when they inherit money, retire or sell a business. Most of these people have no experience dealing with liquid assets. They become the victims of the community at large, which oftentimes does not act in their best interest in selling products and services," he says. "When an M.B.A. places his IRA in Krugerrands, it is clear that the educational process is incomplete," he says. Mr. Kanaly says the aggregate of assets held in trust by trust institutions in this country would be measured in the trillions of dollars, ''if we could ever get together and measure it. Trust assets would dwarf the national debt." If Americans are ever to get their financial affairs in order, he says, it must start at the household level. "We can't wait for the politicians to straighten out the mess." He hopes, however, that the tax shelter business will go down the drain if tax reform legislation is enacted. "Tax shelters in oil and real estate have been the biggest waste of money and talent. Without them, billions of dollars will be freed up for productive investment," Mr. Kanaly says. What this country needs, he says, is well-trained, professional financial counselors, instead of "self-styled financial planners whose single credential may be little more than a desk in a brokerage office or a shingle on the door." Financial planners must customize their services to meet individual needs, he adds. "What you do with your money depends on whether you have kids to put through college or an elderly parent in a nursing home to support," he says. Financial decisions also must be made in the context of the personal financial life cycle, which progresses from the formation stage to orientation, survival, accumulation and preservation of assets, he explains. Finally, he adds, it is important to understand the "megatrends" affecting our society, including the shift to a service economy, the new federalism, the retreat from the notion that more is always better and the increasing interdependence of the world economy. "The Kanaly Concept" is essential reading for anyone hoping to achieve and maintain excellent financial health.

THE BASICS OF MONEY MANAGEMENT

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the Brit</div>

As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the Brit

<div class="phx-topic">As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the British were coming, two lanterns in the window of Boston's North Church steeple were the signal to alert him that the British troops were coming by water and one lantern was the signal that they were coming by land. Two lanterns appeared and he was off on a gallop. But if Revere were looking at North Church steeple today, he might see three lanterns in the window. The British are coming by land and sea. And they are staying to buy and sell.The United States is the biggest debt and equity market in the world today, says Keith R. Harris. "And, if I may take some license with a well-known comment by that famed U.S. banker, Mr. Willie Sutton, you go where the money is.Mr. Harris is the epitome of a new breed of Big Bang British bankers who are bursting into the arena of global banking business. With brains and bravado and spurred on by the fast-approaching Oct. 27 Big Bang deregulation of the British securities markets, these bankers are sopping up investment, securities and financing business here and elsewhere in the world. Only 33, Mr. Harris is the managing director of Morgan Grenfell Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the 148 year-old British merchant bank Morgan Grenfell &amp; Co. Ltd.I have a hunch. What the Japanese have done to U.S. manufacturing industries, the British may well do in the U.S. financial industries. The British are certainly primed for it.After October, British bankers will be free to operate as commercial and investment banks, stock brokerage houses and stockjobbers, which is somewhat equivalent to those who make a market in the United States. In other words, the British financial market will be wide open. In anticipation of this, Morgan Grenfell Group PLC, the London-based parent company, recently has purchased a stock brokerage house, Pember &amp; Boyle, and a stockjobber, Pinchin Denny, and added some 400 new employees to handle this business. And in September last year, it sent the energetic Mr. Harris to New York to head up their U.S. operations.They could not have picked a better person, it would appear.Mr. Harris received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Surrey at the age of 24. One assumes he would have gotten it even faster if the British educational system wasn't so stodgy. He knew what business he was going into even then. His doctoral thesis dealt with the role of financial intermediaries in mergers. Morgan Grenfell has executed twice as many mergers and acquisitions for its clients in recent years than its nearest U.K. competitor. Mr. Harris joined Morgan Grenfell in 1980 as an assistant director in its International Corporate Capital Market Division. By 1984, he became the youngest director in the history of the company.His job in the United States is to build Morgan Grenfell into a full- service U.S. investment banker. In other words, if you've got money, want money, need money or want to take away someone else's money, Morgan Grenfell will be more than happy to accommodate you. That's what you call full service. Willie Sutton was no fool.Mr. Harris explains the U.S. operations of Morgan Grenfell in more dignified terms. "We provide corporate finance service, asset-based financing and arbitrage. In addition, we are expanding our operations in international equity sales, investment management and capital markets. Nicely said, but his actions were a bit more blunt. Within six months of heading up the U.S. office, he invited (to use his language) Gregory T.K. Hsu, the head of Chemical Bank's capital markets, and five other member's of Chemical Bank's capital markets unit to establish a capital markets operation at Morgan Grenfell.Good-looking and wholesome in a surprisely American way, Mr. Harris is quite deferential when he speaks about U.S. financial institutions. What we British are doing is learning to play the game by American rules, he said. The assimilation and consolidation of financial institutions in the United States and Europe have put a lot of money into a few hands. The leverage can be startling. The need for quick investment decisions and immediate responses tofinancial opportunities demands that money managers throughout the world learn to operate quickly and decisively like Americans.The problem with that for the Americans, from a competitive point of view, is that the British are awfully good at international money management. What gave the Americans an advantage, or at least a good shot at competing with the British, was the latter's almost diffident approach to business. For the British, business was something one attempted to work into a hectic social life. A necessary evil to be done before and after lunch. This new breed of British banker is taking business seriously.I've always admired the money-motivation of Americans, says Mr. Harris. "I can relate to a money-oriented attitude. I'm like that, too. Too bad for the Americans.The assimilation and consolidation of Western financial institutions also demanded that institutions like Morgan Grenfell obtain more capital to compete with publicly held U.K. competitors and the foreign securities giants from the United States that are invading London's financial markets. In June, the parent corporation placed 32 million equity shares in the hands of the public and obtained $230 million. In July, it obtained another $200 million through a perpetual floating rate offering. The Japanese purchased a large portion of that offering. With those offerings, the bank has almost $1 billion in net assets to compete against the likes of Solomon Bros. and Goldman Sachs &amp; Co.Aside from making money, Mr. Harris doesn't have many hobbies. "My wife Judy is into riding, he says, so in the interest of family harmony I've taken it up a bit, too.The good news is that he rides English saddle. Any American riding Western saddle can easily shove an Englishman off his English saddle with little problem. That might indicate that Mr. Harris retains other British idiosyncrasies that make him vulnerable in business as well.</div>

As Paul Revere prepared to make his historic ride to warn the American revolutionaries that the British were coming, two lanterns in the window of Boston's North Church steeple were the signal to alert him that the British troops were coming by water and one lantern was the signal that they were coming by land. Two lanterns appeared and he was off on a gallop. But if Revere were looking at North Church steeple today, he might see three lanterns in the window. The British are coming by land and sea. And they are staying to buy and sell. The United States is the biggest debt and equity market in the world today, says Keith R. Harris. "And, if I may take some license with a well-known comment by that famed U.S. banker, Mr. Willie Sutton, you go where the money is.Mr. Harris is the epitome of a new breed of Big Bang British bankers who are bursting into the arena of global banking business. With brains and bravado and spurred on by the fast-approaching Oct. 27 Big Bang deregulation of the British securities markets, these bankers are sopping up investment, securities and financing business here and elsewhere in the world. Only 33, Mr. Harris is the managing director of Morgan Grenfell Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of the 148 year-old British merchant bank Morgan Grenfell & Co. Ltd. I have a hunch. What the Japanese have done to U.S. manufacturing industries, the British may well do in the U.S. financial industries. The British are certainly primed for it. After October, British bankers will be free to operate as commercial and investment banks, stock brokerage houses and stockjobbers, which is somewhat equivalent to those who make a market in the United States. In other words, the British financial market will be wide open. In anticipation of this, Morgan Grenfell Group PLC, the London-based parent company, recently has purchased a stock brokerage house, Pember & Boyle, and a stockjobber, Pinchin Denny, and added some 400 new employees to handle this business. And in September last year, it sent the energetic Mr. Harris to New York to head up their U.S. operations. They could not have picked a better person, it would appear. Mr. Harris received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Surrey at the age of 24. One assumes he would have gotten it even faster if the British educational system wasn't so stodgy. He knew what business he was going into even then. His doctoral thesis dealt with the role of financial intermediaries in mergers. Morgan Grenfell has executed twice as many mergers and acquisitions for its clients in recent years than its nearest U.K. competitor. Mr. Harris joined Morgan Grenfell in 1980 as an assistant director in its International Corporate Capital Market Division. By 1984, he became the youngest director in the history of the company. His job in the United States is to build Morgan Grenfell into a full- service U.S. investment banker. In other words, if you've got money, want money, need money or want to take away someone else's money, Morgan Grenfell will be more than happy to accommodate you. That's what you call full service. Willie Sutton was no fool. Mr. Harris explains the U.S. operations of Morgan Grenfell in more dignified terms. "We provide corporate finance service, asset-based financing and arbitrage. In addition, we are expanding our operations in international equity sales, investment management and capital markets. Nicely said, but his actions were a bit more blunt. Within six months of heading up the U.S. office, he invited (to use his language) Gregory T.K. Hsu, the head of Chemical Bank's capital markets, and five other member's of Chemical Bank's capital markets unit to establish a capital markets operation at Morgan Grenfell. Good-looking and wholesome in a surprisely American way, Mr. Harris is quite deferential when he speaks about U.S. financial institutions. What we British are doing is learning to play the game by American rules, he said. The assimilation and consolidation of financial institutions in the United States and Europe have put a lot of money into a few hands. The leverage can be startling. The need for quick investment decisions and immediate responses to financial opportunities demands that money managers throughout the world learn to operate quickly and decisively like Americans. The problem with that for the Americans, from a competitive point of view, is that the British are awfully good at international money management. What gave the Americans an advantage, or at least a good shot at competing with the British, was the latter's almost diffident approach to business. For the British, business was something one attempted to work into a hectic social life. A necessary evil to be done before and after lunch. This new breed of British banker is taking business seriously. I've always admired the money-motivation of Americans, says Mr. Harris. "I can relate to a money-oriented attitude. I'm like that, too. Too bad for the Americans. The assimilation and consolidation of Western financial institutions also demanded that institutions like Morgan Grenfell obtain more capital to compete with publicly held U.K. competitors and the foreign securities giants from the United States that are invading London's financial markets. In June, the parent corporation placed 32 million equity shares in the hands of the public and obtained $230 million. In July, it obtained another $200 million through a perpetual floating rate offering. The Japanese purchased a large portion of that offering. With those offerings, the bank has almost $1 billion in net assets to compete against the likes of Solomon Bros. and Goldman Sachs & Co. Aside from making money, Mr. Harris doesn't have many hobbies. "My wife Judy is into riding, he says, so in the interest of family harmony I've taken it up a bit, too. The good news is that he rides English saddle. Any American riding Western saddle can easily shove an Englishman off his English saddle with little problem. That might indicate that Mr. Harris retains other British idiosyncrasies that make him vulnerable in business as well.

THREE LANTERNS IN THE WINDOW

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citr</div>

The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citr

<div class="phx-topic">The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citrus-pasta trade accord reached a week ago.This week,the United States plans to rescind the 30 percentand 40 percenttariffs it imposed on EC pasta, while the EC will withdraw the tariff increases it applied in reprisal on U.S. lemons and walnuts.But it won't be before next month that the EC and the United States will implement other provisions in the accord. First,the EC's Council of Ministers must approve the pact and right now Europe is on holiday.Not until the EC Council clears the accord will the United States sign an agreement with the EC increasing the present import quota on EC semi-finished steel.The EC had expected that the United States would sign the steel pact immediately.Similarly,the United States will not enlarge EC cheese import quotas until the EC acts to lower its duties on U.S. citrus products,almonds and groundnuts.There is even a chance that the United States might not enlarge the cheese quotas until October, because of procedural factors.The United States held another round of talks last week with the United Kingdom on future ground rules for air service between the two countries.But as of Friday negotiators still had not agreed on how to replace the capacity accord that expired in July. A State Department official said the capacity issue was discussed early last week. Thursday and Friday discussion turned to pricing issues. The United States is seeking a more liberal agreement,allowing for greater competition,than the one just expired.It's becoming clear that Congress may not get an acid rain bill to the White House this year.The House Energy Committee met briefly last week to prepare for final consideration on the measure. It adjourned without taking any votes. The bill won't be considered again by the House panel until at least September.The House Ways and Means Committee, which had been making noise about holding hearings of its own on the revenue-raising aspects of the proposal, has scheduled nothing.It's taken two years, but the government is a bit closer to appointing commissioners to look into shipbuilding and national defense.A staff from the Navy has been mobilized for the so-called BennettCommission, named after its sponsor Rep. Charles E. Bennet, D-Fla., chairman of the House Armed Services' Seapower Subcommittee.But the executive branch decided months ago that naming representative commissioners from industry, as required by the 1984 law, would constitute a conflict of interest. So, no members have been named.The House took the initiative and passed legislation in May to exempt members of this public-private industry commission from the conflict of interest requirements.The Senate ignored the matter. But, to get things rolling, the House attached the substance of its bill to the defense authorization measure last week. That at least will put the issue before a House-Senate conference committee after the recess.One of those little-noticed-and-tucked-away provisions that tax bills are famous for would strike a blow against insurance company use of gender-based mortality tables.The provision would kill the $1,000 annual tax exclusion that widows and widowers receive on the interest payments from the insurance policies of their spouses.The Senate provision, agreed to by the House, would require sex neutral mortality tables be used for determining what portion of the payments are actually interest.The Water Resources Development Act hasn't made the progress congressional staff and industry sources predicted earlier this year.But action on the port and waterway plan after Congress returns from its August recess still is a possibility.Proposals have been bouncing back and forth between the House and Senate, one staffer said.Senate Public Works Committee Chairman Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., still is hopeful Congress will pass the long-standing attempt to reform funding for port and waterways development and dredging projects before the legislative body recesses for the year Oct. 3.All commercial airlines flying between the United States and Manila, capital of the Philippines, now are required to notify passengers that the U.S. government considers there to be inadequate security at Manila International Airport.The notice requirement was imposed last week by Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole following a review of preliminary findings about security at Manila airport by the Federal Aviation Administration in May.Notice of inadequate security must be written and included in, or on, tickets issued to Manila-bound travelers.The House floor flurry last week over whether the Great Lakes should be allocated defense cargoes looked like it might cut straight through the Port of Baltimore.Rep. Helen Delich Bentley, R-Md., spoke and voted against the amendment, offered by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. Her usual staunch advocacy was in the face of the position of her new ranking minority member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Rep. Robert W. Davis of Michigan, who favored it.Rep. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., another protector of the interests of the Port of Baltimore, kept silent during debate but, in the end, was recorded as voting against the measure.</div>

The United States and the European Community still are trying to smooth out the wrinkles in the citrus-pasta trade accord reached a week ago. This week,the United States plans to rescind the 30 percentand 40 percenttariffs it imposed on EC pasta, while the EC will withdraw the tariff increases it applied in reprisal on U.S. lemons and walnuts.But it won't be before next month that the EC and the United States will implement other provisions in the accord. First,the EC's Council of Ministers must approve the pact and right now Europe is on holiday. Not until the EC Council clears the accord will the United States sign an agreement with the EC increasing the present import quota on EC semi-finished steel. The EC had expected that the United States would sign the steel pact immediately. Similarly,the United States will not enlarge EC cheese import quotas until the EC acts to lower its duties on U.S. citrus products,almonds and groundnuts. There is even a chance that the United States might not enlarge the cheese quotas until October, because of procedural factors. The United States held another round of talks last week with the United Kingdom on future ground rules for air service between the two countries. But as of Friday negotiators still had not agreed on how to replace the capacity accord that expired in July. A State Department official said the capacity issue was discussed early last week. Thursday and Friday discussion turned to pricing issues. The United States is seeking a more liberal agreement,allowing for greater competition,than the one just expired. It's becoming clear that Congress may not get an acid rain bill to the White House this year. The House Energy Committee met briefly last week to prepare for final consideration on the measure. It adjourned without taking any votes. The bill won't be considered again by the House panel until at least September. The House Ways and Means Committee, which had been making noise about holding hearings of its own on the revenue-raising aspects of the proposal, has scheduled nothing. It's taken two years, but the government is a bit closer to appointing commissioners to look into shipbuilding and national defense. A staff from the Navy has been mobilized for the so-called Bennett Commission, named after its sponsor Rep. Charles E. Bennet, D-Fla., chairman of the House Armed Services' Seapower Subcommittee. But the executive branch decided months ago that naming representative commissioners from industry, as required by the 1984 law, would constitute a conflict of interest. So, no members have been named. The House took the initiative and passed legislation in May to exempt members of this public-private industry commission from the conflict of interest requirements. The Senate ignored the matter. But, to get things rolling, the House attached the substance of its bill to the defense authorization measure last week. That at least will put the issue before a House-Senate conference committee after the recess. One of those little-noticed-and-tucked-away provisions that tax bills are famous for would strike a blow against insurance company use of gender-based mortality tables. The provision would kill the $1,000 annual tax exclusion that widows and widowers receive on the interest payments from the insurance policies of their spouses. The Senate provision, agreed to by the House, would require sex neutral mortality tables be used for determining what portion of the payments are actually interest. The Water Resources Development Act hasn't made the progress congressional staff and industry sources predicted earlier this year. But action on the port and waterway plan after Congress returns from its August recess still is a possibility. Proposals have been bouncing back and forth between the House and Senate, one staffer said. Senate Public Works Committee Chairman Robert T. Stafford, R-Vt., still is hopeful Congress will pass the long-standing attempt to reform funding for port and waterways development and dredging projects before the legislative body recesses for the year Oct. 3. All commercial airlines flying between the United States and Manila, capital of the Philippines, now are required to notify passengers that the U.S. government considers there to be inadequate security at Manila International Airport. The notice requirement was imposed last week by Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole following a review of preliminary findings about security at Manila airport by the Federal Aviation Administration in May. Notice of inadequate security must be written and included in, or on, tickets issued to Manila-bound travelers. The House floor flurry last week over whether the Great Lakes should be allocated defense cargoes looked like it might cut straight through the Port of Baltimore. Rep. Helen Delich Bentley, R-Md., spoke and voted against the amendment, offered by Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio. Her usual staunch advocacy was in the face of the position of her new ranking minority member of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Rep. Robert W. Davis of Michigan, who favored it. Rep. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., another protector of the interests of the Port of Baltimore, kept silent during debate but, in the end, was recorded as voting against the measure.

WASHINGTON REPORT US-EC PASTA PACT STILL COOKING

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the Uni</div>

The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the Uni

<div class="phx-topic">The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the United States launches commercial satellites. If executed, the plan would open the door to the development of a U.S. private sector launch industry. It also would help reduce much of the satellite launch backlog that has resulted from the loss of the Challenger space shuttle, the grounding of the remaining three orbiters and the serious technical problems with the United States' three unmanned rocket systems.The plan calls for barring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from using space shuttles to launch commercial satellites except when the shuttle is the only vehicle capable of doing so, or where there is an overwhelming foreign policy or national security interest. The Economic Policy Council proposal also would require NASA to terminate six current agreements to launch commercial satellites.The Council's proposals would boost the private launch industry by eliminating the fear within the investment community that private launch firms would have to compete with heavily subsidized government launch services. This concern has been the principal obstacle to raising money for private launch services.A private launch industry would ease the enormous backlog of unlaunched private and government satellites. Most of the 43 commercial and foreign satellites waiting to be launched could be carried by unmanned rockets (known as Expendable Launch Vehicles, or ELVs). This would leave the three remaining space shuttles free for manned missions or those involving national security.Because private firms entering the launch business would be investing their own capital to reopen the ELV production lines, NASA and the taxpayer would be relieved of the need to spend between $200 million and $400 million to open those lines. Creating strong price competition in a market where none exists, moreover, would increase launch options available to firms wishing to deploy satellites and costs would fall.Finally, the firms initially offering launch services would become the nucleus of a new full-scale commercial space industry, promising untold commercial possibilities. There could be, for example, enormous export potential as carriers for foreign payloads.The proposed new policy is essential for private launches. Regrettably, NASA is lobbying vigorously against it. The space agency was the only dissenting vote in the Economic Policy Council meeting that set the new launch initiative, and it consistently has opposed attempts to reduce its domination of space-related activities.This has been particularly true in the area of launch services using ELVs, despite a 1984 presidential directive mandating cooperation in efforts to privatize these unmanned rockets. In recent weeks, as the likelihood of a cabinet-level decision in favor of ELV privatization became apparent, NASA intensified its obstruction, encouraging members of the House and Senate to introduce legislation blocking it. NASA also has been issuing press statements questioning the viability of private launch services and dragging its feet on finalizing agreements to privatize ELV systems.NASA ignores that fact that there really is no option to ELV privatization if the United States is to solve the current launch shortage.Ronald Reagan must ensure that NASA stops undermining his space commercialization initiative.</div>

The Cabinet-level Economic Policy Council recently proposed sweeping changes in the way that the United States launches commercial satellites. If executed, the plan would open the door to the development of a U.S. private sector launch industry. It also would help reduce much of the satellite launch backlog that has resulted from the loss of the Challenger space shuttle, the grounding of the remaining three orbiters and the serious technical problems with the United States' three unmanned rocket systems. The plan calls for barring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from using space shuttles to launch commercial satellites except when the shuttle is the only vehicle capable of doing so, or where there is an overwhelming foreign policy or national security interest. The Economic Policy Council proposal also would require NASA to terminate six current agreements to launch commercial satellites.The Council's proposals would boost the private launch industry by eliminating the fear within the investment community that private launch firms would have to compete with heavily subsidized government launch services. This concern has been the principal obstacle to raising money for private launch services. A private launch industry would ease the enormous backlog of unlaunched private and government satellites. Most of the 43 commercial and foreign satellites waiting to be launched could be carried by unmanned rockets (known as Expendable Launch Vehicles, or ELVs). This would leave the three remaining space shuttles free for manned missions or those involving national security. Because private firms entering the launch business would be investing their own capital to reopen the ELV production lines, NASA and the taxpayer would be relieved of the need to spend between $200 million and $400 million to open those lines. Creating strong price competition in a market where none exists, moreover, would increase launch options available to firms wishing to deploy satellites and costs would fall. Finally, the firms initially offering launch services would become the nucleus of a new full-scale commercial space industry, promising untold commercial possibilities. There could be, for example, enormous export potential as carriers for foreign payloads. The proposed new policy is essential for private launches. Regrettably, NASA is lobbying vigorously against it. The space agency was the only dissenting vote in the Economic Policy Council meeting that set the new launch initiative, and it consistently has opposed attempts to reduce its domination of space-related activities. This has been particularly true in the area of launch services using ELVs, despite a 1984 presidential directive mandating cooperation in efforts to privatize these unmanned rockets. In recent weeks, as the likelihood of a cabinet-level decision in favor of ELV privatization became apparent, NASA intensified its obstruction, encouraging members of the House and Senate to introduce legislation blocking it. NASA also has been issuing press statements questioning the viability of private launch services and dragging its feet on finalizing agreements to privatize ELV systems. NASA ignores that fact that there really is no option to ELV privatization if the United States is to solve the current launch shortage. Ronald Reagan must ensure that NASA stops undermining his space commercialization initiative.

BOOST PRIVATE SPACE LAUNCHES

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlin</div>

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlin

<div class="phx-topic">THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlines must tighten up their enforcement of the carry- on baggage rules. These require that baggage carried aboard a commercial flight fit either under the passenger's seat or in an overhead bin.Observing what every air traveler knows - that the rules are often honored only in the breach - the FAA has ordered each airline to submit a plan to limit carry-on baggage and thus, hopefully, to cut down on the abuses.The airlines don't like the idea because, they say, the FAA's proposal would require training a ground employee who would be required before each flight to certify that all baggage had been stowed properly.This would mean delays and extra costs, say the airlines. It also would mean that some travelers would be inconvenienced, as their excess baggage was off-loaded to be transferred from the cabin to the baggage hold. One frequent flyer who would be so inconvenienced is the syndicated columnist William F. Buckley Jr.Mr. Buckley said the new rules would prevent him from carrying his working tools - typewriter, computer, files, reading materials, etc. - with him in the aircraft cabin. Including essential personal items, Mr. Buckley said his carry-on baggage usually weighs 50 pounds.What is needed are more trolleys to help him get his baggage from the plane to the connecting flight, he said in a recent column.Certainly air travelers need a better way of transferring their carry-on baggage between connecting flights than the small trolleys that many persons find essential.These are unsafe - the shock cord used to secure bags on them can come lose and cause serious injury - and only aggravate the problem insofar as they are one more additional item to maneuver along crowded aisles.Given this much agreement with Mr. Buckley, we cannot help but feel that those travelers like him who somehow feel that they can single-handedl y revive the days of the steamer trunk owe their fellow-travelers more consideration. The airlines may not like what the FAA is doing, but no one - not even Mr. Buckley - denies that an excess of baggage under the seats and in the overhead bins can compromise air safety.One solution would be to require, as some airlines already are doing, that all carry-on luggage fit into a measured container. This would assure that over-sized pieces would be carried as checked baggage. Another would be to limit bags to under the seat stowage and reserve overhead bins for overcoats, hats and other items of clothing.The FAA's solution may not be the best, but at least it is a start.Air travelers like the solipsistic Mr. Buckley need to be reminded that in conditions as crowded as they are aboard today's jet aircraft, space needs to be shared in as equitable a way as possible.</div>

THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, concerned about passenger safety in turbulence, says the airlines must tighten up their enforcement of the carry- on baggage rules. These require that baggage carried aboard a commercial flight fit either under the passenger's seat or in an overhead bin. Observing what every air traveler knows - that the rules are often honored only in the breach - the FAA has ordered each airline to submit a plan to limit carry-on baggage and thus, hopefully, to cut down on the abuses.The airlines don't like the idea because, they say, the FAA's proposal would require training a ground employee who would be required before each flight to certify that all baggage had been stowed properly. This would mean delays and extra costs, say the airlines. It also would mean that some travelers would be inconvenienced, as their excess baggage was off-loaded to be transferred from the cabin to the baggage hold. One frequent flyer who would be so inconvenienced is the syndicated columnist William F. Buckley Jr. Mr. Buckley said the new rules would prevent him from carrying his working tools - typewriter, computer, files, reading materials, etc. - with him in the aircraft cabin. Including essential personal items, Mr. Buckley said his carry-on baggage usually weighs 50 pounds. What is needed are more trolleys to help him get his baggage from the plane to the connecting flight, he said in a recent column. Certainly air travelers need a better way of transferring their carry-on baggage between connecting flights than the small trolleys that many persons find essential. These are unsafe - the shock cord used to secure bags on them can come lose and cause serious injury - and only aggravate the problem insofar as they are one more additional item to maneuver along crowded aisles. Given this much agreement with Mr. Buckley, we cannot help but feel that those travelers like him who somehow feel that they can single-handedl y revive the days of the steamer trunk owe their fellow-travelers more consideration. The airlines may not like what the FAA is doing, but no one - not even Mr. Buckley - denies that an excess of baggage under the seats and in the overhead bins can compromise air safety. One solution would be to require, as some airlines already are doing, that all carry-on luggage fit into a measured container. This would assure that over-sized pieces would be carried as checked baggage. Another would be to limit bags to under the seat stowage and reserve overhead bins for overcoats, hats and other items of clothing. The FAA's solution may not be the best, but at least it is a start. Air travelers like the solipsistic Mr. Buckley need to be reminded that in conditions as crowded as they are aboard today's jet aircraft, space needs to be shared in as equitable a way as possible.

BAGGAGE BROUHAHA

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads. Legis</div>

NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads. Legis

<div class="phx-topic">NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads.Legislation signed recently by Gov. Mario Cuomo requires railroads with freight operations in the state that are valued at more than $10 million a year to provide sanitary drinking water and private toilet facilities on board locomotives. The problem, it seems, isn't that existing facilities haven't been private or sanitary. The problem is that facilities don't exist.According to one report, the only reason for such an oversight in engineering is that the Occupational Safety and Health Act has no jurisdiction over moving equipment on railroads. Now New York State, whose high standard of cleanliness has earned it national fame, is seeking to rein in the railroads in the same way that New York City residents curb their dogs.What a relief. Never mind that locomotives have been running for well over 100 years without toilets. Never mind that in most locomotive cabs there's scant room to sit behind the controls, much less anywhere else. Never mind that New York is a state where tens of thousands of buses and subways ride the roads and rails without any such amenities. The state has to start somewhere. Who knows? If this experiment with the rails works out, it might someday make a pass at the parks or even city streets.Where will New York's passion for cleanliness end? And why does it seem to be singling out rail freight carriers on an issue of such minuscule public impact? Certainly, scores of cargo aircraft fly into and out of New York every day. Are their accommodations less important than those of railroads?It's hard to imagine that the new regulations will ever amount to more than a drop in the bucket in the overall health and safety of the industrial work place. Meanwhile, they will inconvenience rail carriers. Certainly, Gov. Cuomo could find more pressing problems that deserve the state's attention.</div>

NEW YORK STATE IS ATTEMPTING to bring an entirely new kind of regulation to railroads. Legislation signed recently by Gov. Mario Cuomo requires railroads with freight operations in the state that are valued at more than $10 million a year to provide sanitary drinking water and private toilet facilities on board locomotives. The problem, it seems, isn't that existing facilities haven't been private or sanitary. The problem is that facilities don't exist.According to one report, the only reason for such an oversight in engineering is that the Occupational Safety and Health Act has no jurisdiction over moving equipment on railroads. Now New York State, whose high standard of cleanliness has earned it national fame, is seeking to rein in the railroads in the same way that New York City residents curb their dogs. What a relief. Never mind that locomotives have been running for well over 100 years without toilets. Never mind that in most locomotive cabs there's scant room to sit behind the controls, much less anywhere else. Never mind that New York is a state where tens of thousands of buses and subways ride the roads and rails without any such amenities. The state has to start somewhere. Who knows? If this experiment with the rails works out, it might someday make a pass at the parks or even city streets. Where will New York's passion for cleanliness end? And why does it seem to be singling out rail freight carriers on an issue of such minuscule public impact? Certainly, scores of cargo aircraft fly into and out of New York every day. Are their accommodations less important than those of railroads? It's hard to imagine that the new regulations will ever amount to more than a drop in the bucket in the overall health and safety of the industrial work place. Meanwhile, they will inconvenience rail carriers. Certainly, Gov. Cuomo could find more pressing problems that deserve the state's attention.

Commentary