France Peresidential Elections 2012: TV Debate

The Socialist François Hollande has emerged with the upper hand from a bruising TV duel with the rightwing president Nicolas Sarkozy, as the two held their last rallies in the final 24 hours of campaigning before Sunday's presidential vote.

The first opinion poll for LH2 Yahoo showed French viewers of the live TV debate found Hollande to be the more serious candidate and also the nicest, most sincere and closest to their daily concerns. Sarkozy was seen to have been more dynamic and competent. Hollande was most convincing on the issues that worry voters the most: jobs, making ends meet as well as education, while Sarkozy was seen to be better on Europe, immigration and reducing France's debt.

Over 17 million French people watched the almost three-hour live TV presidential debate, more than watch an X Factor final in the UK, but fewer than tuned in to watch Sarkozy take on the Socialist Ségolène Royal in 2007.

Sarkozy is trailing Hollande by five to eight points in the polls and a classic televised battle of the personalities had been seen as his last chance to turn the election around and win over the large majority of France's 6.4m far-right voters he needs to have a chance at re-election.

Pollsters were sceptical that Sarkozy, who at times had seemed riled and on the defensive, would have done so. French presidential debates do not usually yield an outright winner, and some called this a draw.

But most commentators felt Hollande had won on points, delivering the most memorable lines, including repeating: "I, as president of the republic …" 16 times in a bid to gain in leadership stature. Newspaper columnists felt the debate would not produce an "earthquake" for the struggling Sarkozy, the most unpopular president to seek re-election in France. Hollande was seen to have cemented his advance.

He was given a further boost when the centrist François Bayrou, who took 9% of the vote in the first round, broke with his party's tradition and said he would vote for him. This was a blow to Sarkozy, who needs to secure as many Bayrou voters as possible.

If the TV slanging match was full of bile – Sarkozy called Hollande "a little slanderer" and Hollande told him "you'd be hard pressed to pass yourself off as a victim" – the political reaction afterwards was just as laden with invective.

Nadine Morano, a rightwing minister and Sarkozy ally, said the exchange with Hollande had been like "extracting pus". Sarkozy's special adviser called Hollande "grotesque". Jean-Marc Ayrault, tipped as a possible Socialist prime minister, said Sarkozy had been aggressive. Hollande said the nature of the debate had reflected the fracture, aggressiveness and tensions in society "after five years of Sarkozy".

But Sarkozy insisted that the election was on a knife-edge and all was to play for. "The opinion polls are lying. An election has never been this open … It's even more open after the debate," he told French radio.

He then gave a highly personal interview seemingly to show himself as more human and close to the people, saying he was so "rubbish" at technology that he didn't know how to work the three TV remote controls at home, and suggesting if his wife, Carla Bruni, wasn't with him he could barely operate the television.

At his final major rally in Toulon, he said the "left and its laxity" had "ruined" France.

Hollande, before giving his final open-air rally in Toulouse, was deliberately cautious about Sunday's vote, warning that nothing was won. Some observers have predicted the result could be closer than polls suggest.

Meanwhile, media fact-checkers were poring over the highly technical parts of the TV debate, when the candidates hurled statistics at each other. One French site calculated that Sarkozy mentioned a figure every 47 seconds and Hollande mentioned one every 1 minute, 36 seconds, although not all were accurate.

The final runoff vote takes place on Sunday.

@Guardian

by Angelique Chrisafis

A Warning Shot For Putin

Russia's parliamentary election last Sunday saw Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's party, United Russia, receive slightly less than 50 percent of the popular vote. In most countries, this would be viewed as a stunning victory. Instead, it is being interpreted by the Russian and Western press as a rebuke by a restive Russian public to Putin and his policies.
Although the electoral results are undoubtedly a signal to Putin and his political protégé, President Dmitry Medvedev, that Russian voters will not blindly follow wherever the Kremlin leads, in reality they do not portend seismographic shifts in the Russian political landscape.
Some reports, including that of The New York Times earlier this week, have argued that with only 238 seats in the 450-seat Duma, as opposed to the 315 parliamentary seats it previously held, United Russia will now be unable to change the Russian constitution unilaterally. True enough -- but what they fail to mention is that the Kremlin has little need to make any significant constitutional changes in the foreseeable future. The constitution is already stacked in favor of the presidency, and even with a reduced number of seats in parliament for United Russia, the Duma will still be compliant, since no new parties have gained seats.
The Duma is already relatively powerless compared to what Russia watchers call the "super" presidency enshrined in the 1993 constitution that was hastily written by Putin's predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, Russia's first elected president. Between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and 1993, Yeltsin faced a recalcitrant parliament (then called the Congress of People's Deputies), whose members resisted his attempts to reform the country's troubled economy. The standoff reached its climax in the fall of 1993, when Yeltsin disbanded parliament. When Russian deputies trapped inside the parliament building broke out and attempted to take control of a national television station, Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the building, putting an end to the showdown.
The constitution that Yeltsin then forced through by popular referendum in December 1993 resolved the issue of legislative executive power in no uncertain terms. It allows the president to rule by decree in almost every area but the budget. At the same time, the president has the authority to disband the Duma and call new elections should parliament refuse three times to accept the president's choice of prime minister, and the executive branch has full control of the country's security and defense ministries.
The ruling tandem of Putin and Medvedev has made further constitutional changes to strengthen the executive's hand. In the constitution's original version, the president could serve a maximum of two consecutive four-year terms. In his first year as president, Medvedev changed the constitution, then approved by the United Russia-dominated Duma and the compliant Federation Council (Russia's appointed upper house of parliament), to allow for two consecutive six-year terms, paving the way for Putin to serve for a total of 12 years when he retakes the presidency (as he intends to do in the upcoming March 2012 presidential elections).
What is more, even if Putin and his allies decided they needed to change the constitution (and this is doubtful), they would still have little difficulty doing so. Sunday's election results, however dispiriting for United Russia, will not bring about any significant change to the composition of the Duma. The Communist Party (which finished second with just under 20 percent of the vote, translating into 92 seats in the Duma), the Just Russia party (13 percent and 62 seats), and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (11.7 percent and about 56 seats), are exactly the same parties that have sat in the pliant Russian Duma of the past four years.
Of the three, the Communist Party has taken the most oppositional positions toward United Russia -- at least relatively speaking -- but it has seldom voted against United Russia on legislation that actually mattered. It provided modest opposition on cuts to subsidized transportation fares for pensioners, for example, but strongly supported the invasion of Georgia in 2008.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democratic Party, which was created by the Kremlin in the 1990s, has not provided any true opposition in the last ten years. Its outspoken and flamboyant leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, is more concerned with attracting attention and outrage for his appearances on television than in having any substantive debate with Putin and those close to him.
Finally, although Just Russia did manage to increase its representation in the Duma over its 2007 standing, it, too, is a Kremlin construct. (The party was originally conceived as a social democratic alternative to United Russia, but one that would still vote with the ruling party on big issues.) Historically, it provided little opposition to United Russia and is unlikely to do so now.
In effect, the opposition parties that gained seats are no real opposition at all. Any true opposition forces were weeded out far in advance of Sunday's elections. Only seven political parties met the state's strict registration requirements; the courts simply did not permit other parties that represent more independent liberal alternatives to register. The leadership of some of these groups -- in particular, Boris Nemtsov of Solidarity -- are now leading street protests in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They have little nationwide support, however, and given the degree of state control over the media, their brave efforts this week will not bring about a popular revolution.
In the end, the biggest loser on Sunday was neither United Russia nor Putin, but rather his fall guy, Medvedev. At United Russia's party congress on September 24, Medvedev nominated Putin to take over again as president. Accepting the nomination in a well-choreographed exchange, Putin then nominated Medvedev to become his prime minister should he win the presidency next March. This "castling" of positions is evidently the straw that broke the back of many Russians' tolerance for Putin's growing autocracy. Medvedev, now the party's nominee for prime minister, was the only name that appeared on the United Russia electoral list in the Duma elections. The Kremlin's apparent logic was that Medvedev's personal popularity would carry the party to easy victory.
Given the effects within Russia of the global economic downturn, a decline in the fortunes of the ruling party was inevitable, at least relative to United Russia's high in 2007, when it captured 62 percent of the vote. But few predicted that the party would receive less than 50 percent of the vote; as of late last week, reputable Russian polling agencies were predicting that it would receive at least 53 to 55 percent. The fact that United Russia supporters resorted to ballot stuffing and other falsifications to boost their votes and still fell below 50 percent will likely affect Medvedev's political prospects the most, given that he headed the party's ticket. In a foreshadowing of exactly such a scenario, Putin late last week amended his offer of the office of prime minister to Medvedev, suggesting the post might be contingent on United Russia's performance in the Duma elections. Medvedev is now particularly vulnerable.
Despite the clear falsification of electoral results, international expressions of displeasure with the electoral process, public demonstrations in Moscow and St. Petersburg calling for "Russia without Putin," the new Duma will most likely be seated by the end of the month. Putin's largely successful efforts to control the country's media and curb freedom of expression and assembly eviscerated any meaningful opposition years ago. Further, Putin remains personally popular, still polling at slightly below 70 percent approval. And if the need for muscle arises, Putin has already shown willingness to use the security forces to put down any opposition activity; he is also adept at mobilizing the country's state-controlled media and government-created youth groups to counter protests.
Still, although there will be no immediate seismic shift in the balance of power in Russia today, the masses have fired a warning shot at Putin's presidential bid. Protests against the election may be relatively small and are unlikely to lead to a Ukrainian-style popular revolt, but should Putin and Medvedev not appear to listen to voters and be ready to make a few concessions, they may have to resort to the sporadic use of force to keep the regime afloat.

by: Kathryn Stoner-Weiss

Homeless Billionaire

As I walk into the lavish dining room of the Carlyle Hotel in New York, I notice a figure who looks vaguely like an elf. He is hunched on a very low red stool, partly behind a door, so close to the floor that his frame seems diminutive, with a slightly pointed face and watchful, intense manner. Is that Nicolas Berggruen, I wonder?
If I am unsure of what to expect, it is no surprise. Berggruen, 47, has spent most of his life in the shadows. The Paris-born investor is reportedly one of the world’s wealthiest, having conjured a $2.2bn-plus fortune buying real estate and stakes in companies such as Karstadt, the German retailing group, and Prisa, the Spanish media conglomerate that publishes El País and owns Le Monde. Normally, this kind of success comes with lavish houses, cars and paintings – maybe even a football club. And, until recently, Berggruen did own such toys, including plenty of art (a passion instilled by his father, Heinz, a renowned German Jewish art dealer who fled the Nazis and later became a friend of Pablo Picasso). But a few years ago, he apparently tired of what billions can buy. So he gave his art to museums, on long-term loans, sold his homes in New York and Florida along with most of his possessions. Except, that is, for a jet that now spirits him around the world, a “homeless billionaire” moving from hotel to hotel – or so the urban legend goes.
Berggruen (for it is he) springs to his feet, up to a normal height, and we are quietly ushered to the only free table in his current temporary “home”, in an annexe full of tapestries, cushions and mosaics. It is quite different from the austere sea of white marble found in the Carlyle’s main restaurant and feels like a slightly whimsical, magical place. Is it really true, I ask, that you don’t live anywhere.

“That’s the truth,” he replies, in an accent that is not entirely French or American or German (German is his family’s first language). “I spend time in London, New York, California and in, let us say, ‘standard’ places and much less standard places.” These, it transpires, include destinations ranging from Japan to the Congo.
So where does he keep his clothes? Today he is decked out in an understated but clearly expensive dark blazer and open-necked shirt. “Luckily, as a man you don’t need much,” he says, pointedly eyeing my dress. “I have very few possessions ... a few papers, a couple of books, and a few shirts, jackets, sweaters. It fits in a little thing, in a paper bag, so it’s very easy.”
My mind boggles; I cannot conceive of a 21st-century billionaire nomad carting his possessions about in a paper bag. Even on a private jet. “You seem very stern ... very disturbed by this,” he observes, searching my face with intense blue-grey eyes. “You are funny.”
I’m the funny one, I wonder indignantly; his Teutonic style of delivery is such that I cannot tell whether he is jesting, needling, or flirting.
“I don’t recommend this lifestyle for others,” he continues, explaining that he first started to turn “nomadic” 10 years ago. “I have always spent a lot of time in hotels, so it started to seem easier to do this, I feel happier. I am not that attached to material things. And the good thing is I can make choices.
“Now, si prego!” He summons a waiter, with the air of a man who always gets what he chooses. “The lady is going to have a lobster salad, right? Can I have a salade niçoise please, no anchovies. And the sauce, not the garlic sauce, you have a horrible garlic sauce. There is one sauce that is excellent but it’s not the garlic one. Thank you! Now, back to you ... ”
I suggest wine but it is summarily rejected: “I don’t drink, I don’t indulge. Quite sad. Boring.” We both order water and double espressos instead. He has just arrived from California and confesses to being “a little jet-lagged”.
Berggruen’s unusual approach to life began early. Born in 1961, with one brother and two half-sisters, he enjoyed a privileged childhood, courtesy of his father’s art business, and went to school in Paris, where he became a wildly leftwing teenager. “I wouldn’t learn a word of English [at school] because that’s the language of imperialism,” he recalls. He later attended a Swiss boarding school, to broaden his experience, but was expelled for sedition.
In 1978, still a teenager, he moved to London and a year later attended New York University to study business. “I decided to reverse. I said, ‘OK, let’s learn about the real world and capitalism.’ The real world for me was a game and I wanted to work out how to function in it, to use it as a platform.”
In 1988, he co-founded Alpha Investment Management, a fund of hedge funds, with Julio Mario Santo Domingo Jr, the eldest son of a Colombian tycoon. They later sold it to Safra Bank for an undisclosed sum. He also created Berggruen Holdings, a private vehicle that buys stakes in companies around the world. Berggruen has never explained in detail the secret of his investment success. Indeed, when a Dutch magazine ran a profile a few years ago, he tried to buy all the copies and destroy them. “I wanted to be private,” he says. But these days Berggruen Holdings has a website, which says that the group holds real estate and long-term stakes in ventures ranging from GLG hedge fund to Karstadt and La Prisa and, more recently, the British Resolution insurance group. These, he says, have created his wealth. “My father helped me through school but everything else I did on my own.”
And, having conjured a fortune, he has now a second more ambitious goal: a bold initiative to change the way that western politics and government is conducted. A few years ago, he started attending university courses and became fascinated with the flaws in western government systems. “I have always been very interested in history, so I sat down with a group of intellectuals and wrote a utopian constitution.”
He also used $100m of his money to create a think-tank, the Berggruen Institute, which promotes fresh debate about politics and constitutional reform. Then, four months ago, he used $25m to launch a more specific campaign to “save” California, a place where he spends several months each year, usually living at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills.
The institute is now promoting radical fiscal measures to tackle the state’s ballooning debt burden and to implement longer-term structural reforms, under the rubric of the “Think Long Committee for California”. Berggruen has so much clout that his committee is now backed by a formidable array of political and business heavyweights, such as Condoleezza Rice, former US secretary of state, Eric Schmidt, chief executive of Google, and Gray Davis, former governor of California.
But why does he care so much about the Golden State? Until now his most notable contribution to the region has been to throw a star-studded party each year for the Oscars (where he is usually photographed with a bevy of beautiful stars; he does not have a long-term companion).
“California is the kind of place where change is possible,” he explains. “California is in trouble – but I think California is ready.” More specifically, the severity of the debt problem in California – which is almost comparable to that of Greece or Ireland – makes it a bellwether for the rest of the US but has also bred a sense of crisis and receptiveness to change. And, since California has a constitution that allows politicians to introduce new reforms through a popular vote, Berggruen plans to put his ideas directly to the electorate. “California is worth saving,” he insists.
Our food arrives but Berggruen barely notices. Earnestly, he explains that since his teenage years he has always wanted to write a better constitution for the modern world, drawing on the best traditions of both east and west. “I feel very strongly that the two things that make a country good or not are culture and government ... my utopian constitution combines western values of the individual with the excellence of government and ideal of harmony that exists more in the east ... The key issue is: how good are the structures of government, how good are they at delivering to citizens?” And now, he argues, this issue is doubly relevant given that so many western government institutions appear to be hopelessly paralysed and deficient.
But if you want to fix something, I say, why not start with Germany? “If I went to Germany and said, ‘Listen, I’ve got a bag of reforms for you,’ they would throw me out. They would say, ‘We’re Germans, we’re wonderful, we’re perfect,’ ” he says. “But here [in the US] there is a very different attitude. The system is broken, people realise it’s very broken. In California they’re all unhappy.”
So what model does he want instead? Singapore? “I think it’s probably the best-run country in the world. It probably is on the authoritarian side and it needs to loosen up a little bit,” he observes. “But the ideal system is not necessarily the most exciting system. Probably, on average, boring is good for the average person.”
That medicine is presumably not intended for him, I observe; after all, he would not park in “boring” Singapore for long. “I am a hypocrite,” he admits. “But I am not thinking of me but what is good for most.”
I laugh but, as I eat my lobster salad, I feel torn. Is it just a crazy fantasy to hope that a billionaire could solve California’s fiscal woes simply by sprinkling about some intellectual fairy dust? Perhaps. Yet his passion is mesmerising; this is a man who truly believes that he can conjure a new future. And having worked in the US for the past year, I agree with Berggruen’s criticism of the modern political system. I am also impressed that he wants to do more than just grumble.
So, I ask, is this going to be your legacy? He confesses that these days he gets “bored” making billions through business ventures. He plans to continue with his investments but wants to put more effort into politics and philosophy; one model, he concedes, is George Soros, the financier and philanthropist. Since Berggruen does not have any children, he also plans to give his money away to his political think-tank and other reform causes. He is considering creating a media empire to provide an alternative to Rupert Murdoch’s, and promote civil society.
“The biggest problem is time, not enough time to do everything and not enough time to be bored,” he complains. “My greatest luxury is boredom, but it never happens.”
I glance at my watch and say that I should get the cheque; his plate is barely touched but I have eaten most of my salad.
“You seem to be in a rush, I’m much more relaxed than you,” he chides.
I point out that his office had told me that my allotted time was one hour.
“No, you had an hour and a half,” he insists. “In six minutes, I go.” Being a global nomad might sound bohemian, but a team of earthly staff is clearly organising his diary with Teutonic precision.
I gesture for the cheque, and he grabs it. Equally firmly, I lunge. But he pulls it away. “I live here, this is my house,” he declares, laughing. “I pay.”
No, I argue, I have to pay. It’s the rules of the article.
“I know. But in this case, we’ve bypassed the rules.”
We sit frozen in a stand-off, staring at each other. Then he glances at the bill: “Hold on – oh my God, it’s very expensive!” he says. “That’s very embarrassing.” I glance too: it is, indeed, startlingly expensive; though my lobster salad tasted very pleasant, it was not so extraordinary.
“See, I must pay,” he says.
I wonder whether I dare make a huge scene – and then give up. Being a homeless billionaire, I reflect, can clearly be a very expensive business; especially if you camp in places such as the Carlyle. But as I leave the ornate restaurant, without the bill, I also feel oddly cheered.
If Berggruen displays as much stubborn determination in pushing his ideas as he did with this bill, then maybe – just maybe – they might actually fly. In any case, I would like to dream so: right now, the western world certainly needs political magic.

Annie Hall Highlights

I could finally watch Annie Hall (1977).It was splended .The movie is a sharply critical comedy/drama  with some extreme opinions. It takes up a fortified position on some social,political or moral  issues.In my opinion it's a highly intellectual picture of a liberal culture in jeopardy.The screenplay is brilliant (written by Woody Allen and Marshall Brickman).Annie Hall won 4 oscars,deservedly including Diane Keaton as best actress in a leading role...Pedram

Alvy Singer:[narrating] After that it got pretty late, and we both had to go, but it was great seeing Annie again. I... I realized what a terrific person she was, and... and how much fun it was just knowing her; and I... I, I thought of that old joke, y'know, the, this... this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships; y'know, they're totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep goin' through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs. 

الگوی روسی

کماکان با مجله ی مهرنامه مهر ماه  مشغول هستم و باید بگویم که مجله ی ارزشمندیست و در حوزه ی علوم انسانی کاربسیاردرخشانی محسوب می شود.در بخش فلسفه ی ساسی در پنجمین شماره مهرنامه گفتگویی با خسرو ناقد درباره ی دیدگاه های پوپر انجام شده است. ..بسیار خواندنیست:          پدرام

جامعه ی باز تنها اقتصاد بازار آزاد نیست ، بلکه با حقوق مدنی شهروندان و نیز با دولت مبتنی بر قانون که طرفدار اصلاحات  اجتماعی است، پیوندی تنگاتنگ دارد . به نظر پوپر تنها وجود قوانین کافی نیست تا جامعه ای را "جامعه ی باز " بنامیم.

برپایی دولتی مبتنی برقانون که پایبند به چنین قوانینی باشد، از تدوین خود قوانین مهم تر و دشوارتر استف و از آن دشوارتر تحقق نظم حقوقی در سطح کشور است.این توصیه پوپر به خصوص برای روسیه و برخی کشورهای اروپای شرقی که صورتی زشت از سرمایه داری بی ریشه وبی هویت و افسار گسیخته در آنها در حال رشداست و فساد و دیوان سالاری نظام گذشته کمابیش بازتولید می شود و آزادی به معنای آزادی مافیای اقتصادی وصاحبان قدرت است،از اهمیت ویژه ای برخوردار است.

Fielding A Dream

The Boston Red Sox completed one of the most storied seasons in baseball history in 2004 by coming back from a 3-0 deficit to defeat the New YorkYankees and then sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series to break a“curse” dating back to 1918. As he has done with his trading, owner John Henry has infused his long-term thinking into the Red Sox system. It goes far beyond bringing in a left-handed pitcher to face a left-handed batter, to include selecting the right players and the right tactics for situations based on probabilities.

Henry is actively involved in both JWH, his money management firm, and the

Red Sox, but gives much of the credit for success in both areas to outstanding staff members such as Mark Rzepczynski, president of JWH, who has been with the firm since 1998, and the front office team of the Red Sox.Here's CME journal's interesting interview with John W. Henry:

CME: First of all, congratulations on your success with the Red Sox. It’s an amazing story. A lot of Clubs fans in Chicago wish they could have some of that magic.

JWH: Yes, it was a gratifying year.

CME: Let’s get right into your trading career.What got you interested in trading futures in the first place?

JWH: My father and mother were farmers in Arkansas. When my father died in thelate 1970s, I decided that I needed to understand agricultural markets. So I spent a few years studying markets, game theory and probability. I was immediately fascinated with market movements. I retain the same fascination today.

CME: You have been described in The New York Times and elsewhere as “a cerebral man with a head for mathematics.” But how did you learn to trade futures – books,trial-and-error . . . ?

JWH: Early on I read Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, the autobiography of Bernard Baruch, and the writing of W.D. Gann. I was particularly taken with Gann’s philosophy. I had been a student of philosophy and quickly began to find a bias toward trading philosophy over and above results. I always distrusted results in the commodity markets and eventually across all markets.Life is too dynamic to place a lot of credence in the past results of any program or any trader. I strongly felt that the key to success in markets over the very long term was in having a valid philosophy of the markets that could not be shaken by results over the short or intermediate term. I equated this with valid philosophies in other areas such as business principles that endure regardless of cycles. With any valid philosophy in any field, there are going to be periods in which doing the right thing every day appears to be counterproductive.

If Keynes said, “In the long run, we are all dead,” I would say, “Remaining true to your principles, if they are valid, will produce great results over the long run.”

CME: What were your early experiences in trading like? Did you start with big losses and then decide to figure out what trading was all about, as some well-known traders have done?

JWH: I started with a diversified portfolio called the “Original Program.” The first week of trading was in June of 1981. I was so confident in my research and philosophy that I left the country and left stops with my broker. After dinner one night in Oslo that first week, I saw a chart on the front page of the Financial Times. It was an amazing chart that showed the price of coffee had skyrocketed. I knew I was short.

I called my broker and he said, “You know, you are on to something. We’re limit up every day in coffee going against us, but we’ve made money every day you’ve been gone.”

CME: What markets did you trade in your early days?

JWH: Soybeans, 30-year U.S. bonds,gold, British pounds, Japanese yen,copper, wheat, sugar, coffee and cocoa at the very beginning.

CME: As you began to evolve as a trader, how did you develop your trend-following trading approach?

JWH: I did not have access to computers.PCs were just coming out. I didn’t have a desire to find the holy grail by testing different methodologies. I came up with a philosophy of very long-term trend-following. I knew the approach would be very profitable, but I also knew the nature of long-term trend-following is to have volatility.

CME: How has your basic approach changed over the years?

JWH: It hasn’t. Portfolios have changed as the markets have expanded. Programs have been added. But the basic philosophy is the same.

CME: How many different trading programs does JWH offer today?

JWH: JWH offers 11 different trading programs to investors. Our diversified portfolios are the Original Investment Program, Global Diversified Portfolio

and the Global Analytics Family of Programs. Our financial portfolios include the Financial and Metals Portfolio, Global Financial and Energy Portfolio and Worldwide Bond Program.

Our foreign exchange programs are the International Foreign Exchange Program, the G-7 Currency Portfolio and the Dollar Program. Additionally,we offer two trading programs that combine the others – the Strategic Allocation Program, which can invest in any of the other programs, and theCurrency Strategic Allocation Program,which limits itself to the foreignexchange-only programs.

CME: How do you “sell” your managed futures programs as an asset class to these clients?

JWH: The primary benefit of managed futures is the low historical correlation to traditional assets. Our programs have done especially well during periods of market stress or dislocation. This is when you have strong market trends. Our market selection and our investment methodology combine to give a return

stream that is unlike a traditional long only portfolio of equities and fixed income instruments.

CME: With the spectrum of instruments available, what is your view about trading futures instead of cash markets – specifically, in FX(Foreign Exchange)?

JWH: Futures offer a uniformity and transparency not found in many cash markets. That having been said, we have not been as active in FX futures markets. This is primarily due to the liquidity available in cash FX markets.Nevertheless, we have seen a significant increase in volume and liquidity at the CME from electronic trading. This is causing us to reevaluate our trading atthe CME, especially for any active trading program.

CME: What are the most significant changes that you have seen in futures trading and in managed futures since the early 1980s?

JWH: Electronic trading has been the most significant change in futures trading. It is so much easier to access the market and transact trades. The influx of competitors to the managed futures field has been significant to our industry. There are more managed futures managers and global macro managers who use futures as a means of diversification and profit opportunity.There also has been a shift of emphasis towards shorter time horizons for trading as a result of the decreasing execution costs. There is less emphasis on long-term trend-following, which is our specialty.

CME: What developments do you see coming in futures/options trading?

JWH: Technology’s emergence into a predominant position in our industry is something that is ongoing in our industry. Another development I see on the horizon is the return of markets that will look very different from the low-volatility situation to which many traders have become accustomed.

CME: What developments would you like to see in futures/options trading?

JWH: We are constantly looking for new markets to trade. With developments in electronics, the cost of entering new futures markets is much lower. We hope to see new products at CME.We also look forward to new market participants in futures trading. This clearly adds to liquidity,which is good for everyone.

CME: In view of your baseball success in addition to your trading success, we have to ask a couple of baseball questions.What was your baseball background as a player or coach?

JWH: I played second base in Little League. I set a strikeout record at the Chicago White Sox Boys Camp in 1960…as a hitter !

CME: What prompted you to get into baseball ownership?

JWH: The investment business can be very insular. Owning a baseball team deeply connects you to important aspects of a community. And if you are a sports fan, there can be no greater dream than to own a team and become a participant. Of course, I don’t make player decisions.I’m not qualified to run a baseball team. So I am fortunate to have a brilliant general manager and a tremendous CEO.

Buying the Red Sox and winning a World Series with great partners was a storybook opportunity and a great accomplishment for an organization that had come so close over many decades. I owned part of the Yankees for a decade, so I knew exactly what we were up against. It’s the greatest rivalry in sports. Being a lifetime baseball fan and having a great love for markets, I’m incredibly lucky to have the Red Sox and JWH.

CME: With such success in two diverse areas, what relationship do you see between successful trading and putting together a successful baseball team?

JWH: There are a number of dissimilarities that people don’t want to hear about. But there are a few principles that guide both the Red Sox and JWH.It’s important to have a plan, remain disciplined in executing that plan and pay attention to what is actually happening rather than what you expect to happen. We try to be as objective as possible in our analyses. I’m a stickler for that. Some may see objectivity as

impossible. But that’s why systematic approaches make sense. It’s not always easy for people who are involved every day to stay with a plan when misfortune occurs for a time.You always encounter the unexpected, and this can push discipline right out of the way in the name of prudence. But prudence almost always dictates staying with the approach that has made you successful. I see that as one of my primary roles. I often encourage everyone during difficult days to be patient.I don’t blame people for the unexpected.

Every time JWH struggles – and that is usually annually – people ask if the markets have changed. I always say,“Yes, the markets have changed. That is the nature of markets, and that is why we have been successful over the long term.The nature of trend-following is to adjust to changing market conditions.”

Ground Zero

The United States of America is and will be a free country ;
There's an  interesting aspect ;subcultures ,minorities are recognized ,respected and given chance to settle down.
It's a free competitive market. A natural selection .If you've got potentials to survive you'll be integrated into the main stream. 
9/11 was the crucial challenge and a lesson of tolerance to the world.An unmasking of a creeping immoral fundamentalism.
how to treat this aggressive ideology,doing a criminal act in your soil,killing thousands of innocent people...
I think 9/11 was a though test but eventually expanded the limits of tolerance, and hopefully brought a new horizon of immunity and peace. Blind extremism  will gradually turn out to be a rude and ineffectual game in the context of human civilization.


Now the souls deepen their belief in common humanistic values.
 United States always put aside the ethnic and religious differences and offered  its majestic weapon:
"Free Speech "

Pedram
September 11th 2010

The Great Stabilization

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15127608&source=hptextfeature