Why is Standard & Poor’s still in business?

Standard & Poor's jolted the world markets today by warning that the United States was taking on too much debt.

Duh. U.S. debt stands at $14.3 trillion.

Standard & Poor's changed its outlook on the United States from “stable” to “negative” and said the federal government could lose its AAA rating if officials fail to bring spending in line with revenue.

Great point, but where was such caution when S&P was giving glowing ratings to junk mortgage securities that caused the collapse of banks and threw our nation into a recession?

AT&T swallows T-Mobile. Again, getting big trumps all else in telecom

Eye-popping deal announced today in the telecom industry: AT&T says it's buying T-Mobile for $39 billion, as reported in Brier Dudley's Seattle Times blog.

Dudley correctly remarks this is a union of two companies who trace their roots to Seattle's own Craig McCaw, whose must-read (please!) biography, sadly, did not lead to a lucrative movie deal. (Memo to Harvey Wienstein: call me.)

So much of our media and public attention is captured by the dramatic stories in communications: the comeback of Steve Jobs and Apple, the stunning zero-to-goliath growth of Facebook, the emergence of Twitter and, lately, Groupon -- that we miss a continuing force in what deeply affects pricing, innovation and choice for consumers. For many of the players, the choice is to get bigger and swamp rivals who may have a better idea.

Underlying the AT&T-T-Mobile marriage of goliaths will be a host of details FCC approval, getting different technologies to work for customers, the nasty business of announcing that layoffs will be minimal before they become maximal. Now that Comcast has swallowed NBC Universal, we can reflect on the difficulties of getting real choice in the marketplace and the need for big players like Apple and others to serve shareholders by inducing customers to buy multiple products by limiting features in their individual product lines(iPhone tethering, iPad usb port to hard drive etc) so we have to buy more than we otherwise should. We can also ask successive presidents why our telecom choices are so limited and you can easily get much faster wireless systems in Asia and Europe when, never forget, the airwaves belong to the public and providers operate by license to use our air waves.

The final point is the sad apparent failure of Clearwire, yet another Craig McCaw brainchild, to succeed as a high speed wireless alternative for data and voice. Other remain who are pushing for wireless alternatives. Google has its plan for a giant test in some lucky city. But much as I admire Google's products and innovative culture, it's now another Goliath. My own preference would be for the FCC to put its thumb on the scale a bit so choice is favored and the U.S., inventor of cellular, moves to the edge of innovation. Yes, I want too much: lower prices and better service.

Another big thought on globalization

HONG KONG--A friend who grew apples in Manson, Washington, once complained about the vast acreage of orchards being planted in China, subsidized by the World Bank. Why would the U.S. government fund competition for our own farmers? he asked. Good question.

But on this trip, walking near the Temple Street Night Market, I spotted empty apple boxes from several grower cooperatives from Lake Chelan, including Trout-Blue Chelan. My late friend, John Picken, would have been pleased.

Can China Save The World?

HONG KONG -- A new issue of Time asks if China's roaring market can save the world by creating a "trickle around" effect for economies elsewhere. Of the biggest 10 economies, only China's is growing. The article raises some cautions about an economy dependent on government cash -- sound familiar? -- but notes that China is on track to overtake Japan as the world's second largest economy.

Beijing, before the crisis, was already rising, its global reach and influence expanding. As the rest of the world falters, that is truer than ever. China is not yet the leader of the global economy. But it's getting there.

Hong Kong is not the best place to see China's astonishing evolution. Hong Kong has long been a hustle-bustle city. To see the pace and scale of change, you must visit cities like Shanghai, where the equivalent of a Manhattan has been built in a decade, skyscrapers springing from rice paddies. Amazingly for such change, the architecture is good, a point made long ago by Rem Koolhaas.

Hong Kong nonetheless conveys the pulse of capitalism animating a culture and a nation. Here you see streets jammed with new cars, well-dressed business people crossing streets, jabbering into cell phones, ignoring the honks from impatient taxi drivers. You also notice a culture that sustains, side by side in jarring contrast, ultra modern subways and night markets where fortune tellers read palms and faces for signs of a person's personal and financial fate.

For the bird's eye vantage, Sally and I rode the tram to the top of Hong Kong island. Up there, the August sun broiled my skin. Smart vistors carried umbrellas as personal shade. A haze partially obscured the vista, but the image posted here shows one of the most amazing harbors in the world, China's second busiest in container shipping after Shanghai, only a relative blip in trade statistics 20 years ago.