2012年10月5日 星期五

Vaclav Klaus on the Czechs' Lessons for the Euro Zone

We are junior members in the European Union, but we’re not part of the euro zone currency system. Our central bank, together with our government, opposes fiscal union. We entered the EU when many things were a given. When you want to join the local golf club, you can’t say, “Well, I’m ready to enter your club on condition you change the rules.” Joining the monetary system was one of the conditions that we accepted with some reluctance. Monetary union is an extreme case of a fixed exchange-rate regime. To start one is easy, when all the parameters more or less fit together. But then economies grow differently, and the real issue is to maintain the arrangement. Milton Friedman said the euro would not survive the first real crisis. That’s been proved to be a reality.

I have a unique position being the last minister of finance of a dissolving monetary union. When we dissolved Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, we prepared 25 intergovernmental agreements. Our idea was to keep an open free-trade area and a single currency. When we divided the country on Jan. 1, 1993, and we still had the Czechoslovak crown, we discovered it was impossible without politics and fiscal union. Slovaks put their money in the Czech Republic, where the economy was stronger. This is not a criticism of Slovakia, or a criticism of their behavior. It’s just criticism of entering the monetary union. After several weeks, we had an overnight meeting in Prague with the prime minister, the governor of the Central Bank, and the ministers of finance of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. We more or less accepted that it wasn’t working. At 4 a.m. we made a decision that it would be technically possible to create two currencies.

We announced it and did it. For most Czechs, it was a nonevent. It’s not true, what all the politicians are saying about the disaster in exiting the euro. You have to do it in a prearranged, organized way.

I refuse to be called a euro skeptic. The European integration process is an experiment. I differentiate European integration from European unification. I have no objections to the opening up and liberalizing of Europe. But that doesn’t mean everyone is the same. — As told to Diane Brady


View the original article here

Bloomberg View: Has the Fed Declared War on Brazil?

Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, and her finance minister, Guido Mantega, are attacking the U.S. Federal Reserve for embarking on a third round of quantitative easing. By aggressively buying bonds, the Fed aims to push interest rates lower, and that will nudge the dollar down as well.

This will hurt Brazil and other developing-country exporters, Mantega says, and what’s more, it’s meant to. To him, the U.S. has declared “currency war.”

The Fed’s primary goal, however, is not to manipulate the dollar but to expand demand at home. It hopes to do this mainly by lowering interest rates and convincing investors that rates will stay low for a good while. This should encourage consumers to spend and companies to hire and invest. If these things happen, U.S. imports will rise, and exporters such as Brazil can expect to benefit.

Although Mantega is wrong about QE3, his wider concern about currency manipulation is right. Indeed, it’s an issue over which Brazil and the U.S. should make common cause.

Let’s be a bit more precise about who manipulates currency. The charge is best limited to nations that block the movement of currencies toward levels that would help balance global trade. If currency manipulation is defined this way, the leading offender is China. One measure is a country’s growth in foreign exchange reserves: Manipulators hold their currencies down by using domestic money to buy foreign assets. Recently, and especially over the past year, China has eased this policy, but its foreign exchange reserves still stand at a colossal $3.2 trillion.

We favor adding currency oversight (and the sanctions that might go with it) to the duties of the World Trade Organization or the International Monetary Fund. This makes excellent sense because currency manipulation can add to trade policy friction and vice versa, in a cycle of mutually assured disadvantage.

Currency manipulation already violates WTO and IMF rules, but there is no enforcement. This should change. Meanwhile, Mantega and other finance ministers need to be more careful about whom they accuse of waging currency war. The U.S. isn’t among them.

To read Edward Glaeser on privatizing government agencies and William D. Cohan on JPMorgan, go to: Bloomberg.com/view.


View the original article here

Where's the Shareholder Outrage at Hewlett-Packard?

Here’s a vastly boiled-down refresher on corporate governance: A public company’s management is accountable to its board of directors, which in turn answers to shareholders, who are, after all, the “owners” of said public company. These holders keep executives and directors honest by casting votes based on tens of millions of shares dispersed across individual brokerage accounts, pension plans, and mutual funds. A management that consistently does wrong by shareholders is liable to be evicted from its seat at the mahogany table. For elaboration, please see Gordon Gekko’s speech in the movie Wall Street.

How then have Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) shareholders largely remained so silent while board infighting, botched multi-billion-dollar acquisitions, multiple strategic false starts, and high C-Suite turnover have combined to lop off more than $90 billion of market valuation—the venerable tech company is now worth just $28 billion—since the end of 2009? After management asked on Wednesday for yet further patience as it restructures HP’s sprawling lines of business, shares plunged to where they traded 10 years ago. One prominent analyst observed in the New York Times that HP was the cheapest big-cap stock in 25 years. And that was before its Oct. 3 plunge.

Aggrieved shareholders, unite! (Cue crickets. …)

What gives?

Increased shareholder vigilance can only do so much to combat the bad business trends that are hitting HP all at once. Its personal computer business is losing out big in the broader trend of iPad and iPhone substitution. The profit pool of overpriced toner cartridges is shallower, and companies’ growing adoption of cloud computing—out of sight, out of mind—makes it harder to convince them to shell out for square-foot-hogging hardware.

But so much of what now ails HP has been self-inflicted—lots of it needlessly. Chief Executive Officer Meg Whitman is the company’s sixth CEO since 2005, a stretch that has seen its culture of corporate governance suborn hacking into the phone records of journalists—and even those of its own directors. With the board’s blessing, management in 2008 paid $13.9 billion to take out EDS, an acquisition so disastrous that HP recently had to write down $8 billion of its value. Mark Hurd, the CEO who sought that deal, got paid $43 million in fiscal 2008, en route to getting fired for questionable human-resources behavior two years later.

The HP board’s ham-fisted handling of that episode might have been forgivable had the directors not then hired a new CEO who hastily made a nearly $12 billion software acquisition and signaled to Wall Street that HP was looking to jettison its PC business. Leo Apotheker lasted less than a year as CEO; the (revamped) board wasted no time in lamenting the decision to hire him.

Meg Whitman, HP’s current CEO, has since been explaining the struggles brought on by Apotheker’s ill-spent billions for Autonomy, not to mention HP’s having squandered its $1.2 billion acquisition of Palm, a false start that has left it without a smartphone or tablet that can compete with Apple (AAPL). Meanwhile, come to think of it, you can rest assured that HP is keeping the PC business it wanted to sell when it was in better shape.

And the board? Earlier this year, in one of the more surreal pieces of business journalism I’ve ever seen, writers James Bandler and Doris Burke chronicled: “Dr. Phil could fill a month’s worth of shows just examining HP’s board, whose dynamics have resembled those of rival junior high school cliques more than what is supposed to be a sage guiding force. At times … HP directors have refused to be in the same room with one another and have accused each other of lying, leaking, and betrayal. Time and again they’ve failed in their choice of CEO—their most important task—selecting a new leader whose most salient trait is that he or she is the opposite of the last one.”

Again, where is the shareholder indignation? HP shares are down 44 percent this year, while the S&P 500 index is up 15 percent and tech-benchmarking Nasdaq is up 20 percent. That is precisely the kind of underperformance that should prompt bloodied shareholders to think board uprising.

According to Bloomberg data, San Francisco mutual fund house Dodge & Cox is the biggest institutional holder of HP stock, accounting for just under 140 million shares, or 7 percent of what’s outstanding, as of the latest filing date. Per company policy, and consistent with what you hear from just about every fund shop, Dodge & Cox won’t comment on individual holdings.

Fair enough. Shareholders can—and obviously have, in droves —vote with their feet on HP. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it, right?

At the same time, some of those holding shares must figure you cannot spell hope without HP. “Many investors are still hoping that we are looking at the early days of Lou Gerstner’s IBM (IBM) rescue in 1993 or Anne Mulcahy’s rescue of Xerox (XRX) in 2001,” says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. “I believe that informed investors appreciate that the board is finally much better, with key new directors and a revered chairman in Ray Lane.”

HP’s board already has restless blood—or the potential for it—coursing within. Director Marc Andreesen famously instituted a New York Times (NYT)Deathwatch to convey his displeasure with the newspaper’s family-based management. HP director Ralph Whitworth, the activist investor who shook up Home Depot (HD), has his hedge fund, Relational Investors, in 35 million shares of HP, according to regulatory filings. How long will he tolerate this era of reset after reset?

“HP seems like exactly the type of company that should have attracted the attention of activist investors,” says Jonathan Cohn, a finance professor at the University of Texas, Austin, who has studied (PDF) the new shape of activism. “I do think that its size might have made it difficult to target.” Cohn says that perhaps the addition of Whitworth to the board last year is a sign that shareholders will play a more active role in the company now, though he says Relational’s apparent agreement not to seek HP’s sale “takes away an important source of leverage.”

Activism requires time, money, and overhead that the investing world decreasingly wants to pay up for. Last year, HP retained Goldman Sachs (GS) to help it deal with activists or hostile bidders. The biggest single impediment to a shareholder revolt at HP could be the passive mandate of its now-dominant owners: cut-rate index funds and ETF heavies such as Vanguard, State Street (STT) (SPDRs), and Blackrock (BLK) (iShares). That style—be the market, don’t beat the market—has been killing the old business of active management. According to Morningstar (MORN), mutual funds whose managers pick domestic stocks experienced redemptions of $497 billion in the five years ended June 30, while index funds took in $117 billion.

Like it or not, you and I and most American investors increasingly have no choice but to own a piece of HP as it is currently run, boardroom dysfunction and all.

Farzad is a Bloomberg Businessweek contributor.

View the original article here

Charlie Rose Talks to Joseph Stiglitz

Is the economy finally on the mend?
It’s not really trending upward. There are two big gaps in our economy relative to, say, 2007. One is real estate. Real estate was the big sector. The bubble broke, and now real estate investment is half of what it was. No way that that’s going to recover soon. The only good news is that the houses were shoddily constructed—and in maybe 5 or 10 years we’ll have to reconstruct them. The second problem: consumption. Before the crisis, we were saving close to zero out of our disposable income. That wasn’t sustainable. Now, savings is between 4 and 5 percent. Hopefully, it won’t go lower. But with consumption weak and investment and real estate weak, it’s very hard to get a really robust economy.
You’ve written a book about rising inequality. Tell me why it pinpoints deregulation under Reagan as the turning point?
The Reagan administration did more than just deregulation. They lowered the taxes on the top. After World War II came decades in which the country grew much faster than it did after 1980. And the country grew together. Every group grew. After 1980, we grew apart. One of the things is, we lowered the tax rates on the top. That increased the divide. And the other one is, we deregulated, particularly in the financial sector, which continued under Clinton, under Bush.
You ran Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.
I opposed those deregulation movements.?…?Deregulation allowed the banks more scope for moving money from the bottom, all those kinds of predatory lending we saw. Move the money from the bottom to the top. And if you look, a disproportionately large number of people at the top, in that 1 percent, are from the financial sector.
How big has America’s financial-sector economy become?
One way of looking at it is, 40 percent of all corporate profits went to the financial sector. So that shows you, in a sense, that a set of institutions that are supposed to be servants?…?You don’t enjoy financial services directly. They’re supposed to facilitate. They’re supposed to enable the rest of the economy to do what it’s supposed to do. And yet this servant became the master.
How do you correct the income imbalance? With a Buffett Rule tax?
I think what Warren Buffett has argued is absolutely necessary. The consequence of that is that those at the top who are taking advantage of capital-gains rates would pay at least as much as those whose income is much lower.
What impact would that have on investing?
Negligible. Even if you were concerned about investment you could structure our tax code to encourage investment a lot better. Let me give you an example. Land speculation: If you get capital gains from land speculation, does it create more land? The banks that were speculating on credit-default swaps, when they won, they got the capital-gains rate. Does that make our economy grow? No. It makes our economy, in some sense, even more risky. Remember that AIG (AIG) got a $180 billion bailout out of that speculation. So if you wanted to encourage investment, I could see an argument saying corporations that invest in America will get tax preferences. Entrepreneurs that expand their investment and create new jobs will get a tax benefit. But it has to be linked to doing things that make our economy stronger, not to gambling, not to speculation, not to just being wealthy.
With the fiscal cliff ahead, what budget reforms would you focus on?
It turns out that Social Security is not a big problem. Change the age a little bit, change the contribution a little bit. That’s something we can solve fairly easily. The health-care programs are a significant concern. If we had a health-care system that was as efficient as some of the European systems, we’d have no deficit.
How do we put America back to work and make our economy grow?
Invest. The U.S. government can borrow at a negative real interest rate right now. And we have an ample supply of investment opportunities in infrastructure, technology, education.
So you think the deficit obsession is killing our economy?
That’s right. Over the long run we have to have fiscal responsibility. That’s why, during the Clinton administration, in good years, we had a surplus. But we opposed a balanced-budget amendment on the grounds that in good times you want to run surpluses. In bad times you want to run deficits. These are bad times.

Watch Charlie Rose on Bloomberg TV weeknights at 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET.

Emmy Award-winning journalist Charlie Rose is the host of Charlie Rose, the nightly PBS program.

View the original article here

2012年9月29日 星期六

The Four-Course Investment Menu - What Most People Don't Know About Investing

In the Pipeline

These are 24/7 days for oil production in the U.S. North Dakota now pumps more than Alaska (and Ecuador), and geologists estimate Oklahoma still has 80 percent of its reserves in the ground. All that crude has to be stored somewhere—and a good portion of it makes its way to tanks in the small Oklahoma town of Cushing through a vast network of pipelines.

Graphic by Bloomberg Businessweek

View the original article here

Deep Thoughts With the Homeless Billionaire

Twelve years ago, Nicolas Berggruen sold his apartment, which was filled with French antiques, on the 31st floor of the Pierre Hotel in Manhattan. He said he no longer wanted to be weighed down by physical possessions. He did the same with his Art Deco house on a private island near Miami. From that point on he would be homeless.

Now he keeps what little he owns in storage and travels light, carrying just his iPhone, a few pairs of jeans, a fancy suit or two, and some white monogrammed shirts he wears until they are threadbare. At 51, the diminutive Berggruen is weathered, but still youthful, with unkempt brown hair and stubble. There’s something else he hung on to: his Gulfstream IV. It takes him to cities where he stays in five-star hotels. In London, he checks into Claridge’s. In New York, he’s at the Carlyle Hotel. In Los Angeles, he takes a suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills.

His social calendar tends to be full no matter where he is. A dual citizen of Germany and the U.S. who speaks three languages, Berggruen makes a point of having lunch and dinner each day with someone intriguing. It could be an author, a famous artist, or a world leader. He prefers to meet them at restaurants near his hotel. He makes reservations for three even when he only plans to dine with one. That way he doesn’t get stuck at a small table. He leaves room for dessert. He adores chocolate.

In the evening, Berggruen is frequently photographed at parties with attractive women such as British actress Gabriella Wright. “You could easily look at his life and say, ‘Oh, my gosh, he’s always got a pretty girl on his arm. He’s at every party around the world. Is he just a giant playboy?’?” says his friend Vicky Ward, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair. Maybe. Every year, Berggruen throws a party at the Chateau Marmont in Hollywood during Oscar week and invites all his friends. They rub shoulders with Hollywood types such as Paris Hilton, Woody Harrelson, and Leonardo DiCaprio.

Berggruen can afford to live like this because he’s chairman of Berggruen Holdings, a New York-based private equity firm that buys troubled companies and fixes them up. Currently it owns more than 30, including an Australian farming operation, a British life insurer, a Portuguese book publisher, a German department store chain, and real estate development projects in Turkey, Israel, India, and Newark, N.J. According to its website, the privately held holding company’s annual revenue is $5 billion. It throws off $250 million in earnings each year. Berggruen’s personal worth is estimated by Bloomberg Markets to be $2.5 billion.

But Berggruen isn’t satisfied with mere wealth and glamour. He also wants to be taken seriously as an intellectual. As the financial crisis unfolded, he became convinced some political systems were failing in America and Europe. He thought he could help rescue them by using his disposable income to advance wonky reforms. By his own admission, he didn’t know much about such matters, but that didn’t stop him.

In 2009 he started the Nicolas Berggruen Institute, a think tank whose stated mission is to improve global governance, and promised to spend more than $100 million to further its goals. In California he’s pushing to overhaul the fiscally troubled state’s tax code, education system, and problematic initiative and referendum system. He would like to see greater political integration in crisis-plagued Europe, preferably under a single leader. He thinks it would be great if the Group of 20 nations become more of a permanent global policymaker.

That’s a large agenda for a balance sheet repairman who only recently began examining such matters. Nevertheless, he got prominent Californians and former world leaders to lend their names to his efforts.

Berggruen will need more than money, charm, and the right names for his think tanks to save the world. His transformation from pleasure seeker to policy guy is a work in progress. Some of his ideas are not exactly made for prime time. For instance, he argues there’s much that Western democracies can learn from autocracies such as Singapore. As he puts it admiringly, the political leaders there really know how to get things done.

“Can I do something really rude?” Berggruen asks in an accent that’s more French than anything else. “I cannot resist. Can I steal a French fry?”

It’s a Saturday afternoon in July. He’s at the Mark Restaurant by Jean-Georges, a block from the Carlyle. He’s finished his pea soup and a plate of artichokes. He becomes animated when he discovers there are French cream puffs on the dessert menu. “This is very unhealthy, but I love dessert,” he says. “Will you join me? Oh, my God, they have lots of bad stuff!” He asks for extra chocolate sauce, too.

For many years, Berggruen avoided the media. When a Dutch magazine profiled him in the 1990s, he bought up every copy of the issue to protect his privacy. Now, as a would-be policymaker, he frequently dines with reporters. Berggruen insists he isn’t interested in publicity for himself. He says he just wants support and attention for his think tank, which has a 12-person staff. “I will do anything to further the institute,” he says solemnly.

“I’m not that interested in material things,” says Berggruen. “As long as I find a good bed that I can sleep in, that’s enough”Photograph by Mark Peckmezian for Bloomberg Businessweek“I’m not that interested in material things,” says Berggruen. “As long as I find a good bed that I can sleep in, that’s enough”

Some of his appetites and ambitions are surely inherited from his father, the late Heinz Berggruen, a celebrated art dealer and collector who left Germany in 1936 to avoid persecution for being Jewish. After World War II, Berggruen moved to Paris, where he became one of Pablo Picasso’s dealers. He amassed an extensive collection of the artist’s work. Eleven years before his death in 2007, he sold much of it to the German state for a nominal fee. Today it’s housed in the Berggruen Museum in Berlin.

Nicolas Berggruen grew up in Paris. At a young age he immersed himself in French politics, history, and philosophy. Still, he didn’t care much for school. He attended the Institute Le Rosey in Switzerland, known as the “School of Kings” because so many alumni are members of royal families. Berggruen wasn’t destined to join them. He became a Marxist and refused to learn English, calling it the language of imperialism. The school asked him to leave. He ended up getting his high school diploma from the French government.

Unexpectedly, Heinz Berggruen thought his rebellious son had a future in business. He arranged a summer internship for him with his friend Max Rayne, a British real estate developer and member of the House of Lords. His father was right: It turned out that Nicolas liked capitalism after all. Berggruen learned English and got his undergraduate degree from New York University in 1981. After graduating, he spent almost two years working for the Bass brothers in Philadelphia. As soon as he could, he returned to New York. “He was out every night,” says his friend Jonathan Bren, another veteran of the Swiss boarding school circuit. “A lot of people just thought he was a rich European party guy.”

In 1988, Berggruen created Alpha Investment Management, a fund of hedge funds, with the late Julio Santo Domingo Jr., the scion of one of Colombia’s richest families. The firm handled more than $2 billion, but Berggruen wasn’t content with managing other people’s money. He sat in his office and chased his own deals with his own cash. After the savings and loan crisis, he bought discounted commercial real estate debt for himself from Resolution Trust Corp. and profited as the market recovered. He acquired a troubled Spanish soft-drink company, turned it around, and sold it to Schweppes.

Along the way, Berggruen assembled a collection of works by Andy Warhol and bought his private island hideout in Florida and a bachelor pad in the Pierre in New York. He never married. “He’s had some very nice girlfriends in the past,” says his brother Olivier. “We were somehow hoping that he would create a family.” The family didn’t know what to make of his decision to sell his homes in 2000, either. Berggruen says he simply got tired of his fancy digs. “I’m not that interested in material things,” he says. “As long as I find a good bed that I can sleep in, that’s enough.”

Berggruen began spending more time in Los Angeles, at the Peninsula Beverly Hills. There were plenty of deals to do in the mid-Aughts. He spent a decade assembling Portugal’s largest media company and sold it to Spain’s Prisa in 2006. He bought Foster Grant, the American sunglasses company, in 2003. He sold it in 2009 to a French eyewear manufacturer, making $400 million.

Such triumphs, however, no longer seemed to thrill him. He also sounds jaded about his Oscar parties, calling them “frivolous” and “stupid.” It became a chore for him to manage the guest list. “There are the people who don’t get invited and are mad,” he sighs. Berggruen found something to fill the void. He returned to the subjects that fascinated him as a youngster: philosophy and politics. “Frankly, I think I am a fool,” he says. “I never should have stopped.”

Berggruen concedes he had a lot of catching up to do. He turned his suite at the Peninsula into an intellectual salon. He drafted two professors from the University of California at Los Angeles to instruct him in Eastern and Western philosophy. “Broadly, I think Nicolas is interested in moral philosophy, having to do with questions of right and wrong, good and evil, purpose, agency, action, topics like that,” says Brian Copenhaver, a UCLA specialist in Renaissance philosophy who was one of the mentors.

On other afternoons, Berggruen sat with four local political science professors who tutored him in the fine points of Eastern and Western governments. As he digested Confucius and Plato and reread Sartre, he came up with his think tank’s mission. He believes developed countries are in crisis because their leaders are too focused on getting reelected. The result is political gridlock in such places as Washington, D.C., and California.

Berggruen believes at least part of the solution to Western political paralysis is the Asian equivalent of the smoke-filled room. “If you can do this behind closed doors, you can force or push decisions, which happens in autocracies like Singapore and China,” he says. “The disadvantage is that it’s not very transparent. The advantage is that the people in the room, even if they have ideological views that are not along the same lines, can come up with compromises and solutions.” With Nathan Gardels, one of the institute’s senior advisers, he’s co-written a book in which he explains this unorthodox notion. It’s called Intelligent Governance for the 21st Century: A Middle Way Between West and East.

Berggruen would like to test his ideas in California, which is famous for political paralysis. Governors of both parties come and go, but the state legislature remains in the hands of the Democratic Party, which answers to public employees’ unions. Meanwhile, voters approve mandates that largely dictate the budget process. Since the real estate market crashed in 2008, California has been plagued by deficits.

Berggruen was hardly a household name in California; he wasn’t even a resident. (He pays taxes in Florida.) The only thing he was known for was his yearly soiree at the Chateau Marmont. That didn’t seem to hurt him. He persuaded 15 prominent Californians to help draft a reform package. He wooed former Democratic Governor Gray Davis over lunch at the Peninsula. He won over Bob Hertzberg, a former California Assembly Speaker, at an airport in faraway Panama. He enlisted former Republican U.S. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and George Shultz. Berggruen also recruited business leaders such as former Yahoo! (YHOO) Chief Executive Officer Terry Semel and Google (GOOG) Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt. He assembled them in a group he called the Think Long Committee for California.

In a series of meetings, some of which Berggruen hosted at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., the committee came up with a plan released in November 2011. The members embraced his idea that the California legislature be policed by a “citizens council for government accountability” comprised of ex-politicians, university presidents, and business leaders. It would have the power to subpoena witnesses and place its own initiatives directly on the ballot.

Naturally, there are Californians who find the notion of an unelected advisory board in Sacramento questionable. “Berggruen assembled a blue-ribbon panel of notable Californians to come up with their vision for fixing California,” says Thad Kousser, an associate political science professor at the University of California at San Diego. “Lo and behold, the first big idea was California needs a big blue-ribbon panel that bypasses all the existing political processes.”

Others are more charitable. “You know, when you have those kinds of resources at your disposal, you can buy a football team, you can buy an island, or you can try to make government and politics work better,” says Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “I give him a lot of credit for trying.” Schnur, who was the communications director for John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, says Berggruen’s biggest challenge may be keeping the electorate awake when he pitches them his governance reform ideas. “It’s not the most scintillating stuff,” Schnur warns. Berggruen says Schnur has a point. Nevertheless, he hopes to begin putting his proposals on the state ballot next year, starting with the tax-reform plan.

He is concerned about Europe, too. Considering the Greek debt crisis and the euro area, Berggruen believes that more democracy is needed, not less. “In theory, Europe should be quite democratic,” he says. “It’s actually run by the heads of two countries, Germany and France. It’s incredibly dysfunctional.”

In 2010, Berggruen flew to the North Sea island of Boken to visit former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder at his vacation home. Schroder was eager to help him. “We talk quite often,” says Berggruen. “He calls up with ideas.” Berggruen was also able to persuade ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair and economist Nouriel Roubini to join the Berggruen Institute’s 27-member Future of Europe Committee. The Future of Europe Committee champions the establishment of a stronger Continental government. That way, economically powerful countries such as Germany and France might be more inclined to assist their weaker southern neighbors than they are now. Berggruen says he’s aware of how difficult it will be to prevent the dissolution of the European Union, but believes it’s worth fighting for. In the meantime, he gets to hang out with interesting people.

Over lunch in Beverly Hills in late July, Berggruen says he’s never enjoyed himself more. He finishes his grilled fish. He’s in no hurry to leave. He has nothing planned until dinner. Is he rushing off to a party after that? He shakes his head. “I don’t go to that many parties anymore,” he insists. “I’m really spending almost all my time on this.”

He checks his iPhone. “Oh, look,” he says. “It’s an invitation to a party later tonight.” It’s an awkward moment for a guy who wants to be taken seriously. “Well, I won’t go,” he says. “I can’t go.”


View the original article here