Research to kick-start the UK economy

Public release date: 22-Jan-2013
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Pressoffice
Pressoffice@esrc.ac.uk
Economic & Social Research Council

What will it take put the UK back on the path of sustained economic growth? A new report investigates the challenges the UK faces after the economic downturn and explores a range of initiatives across education, business, housing, industry, and innovation that could help kick-start growth.

Re-igniting Growth, published by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), includes a series of interviews with key academics funded by the ESRC. As well as giving the recession historical context, many of the interviews take unconventional approaches to a range of issues and provide responses to the economic problems the UK is experiencing.

Among the interviews are:

Professor Nick Bloom shows that the dramatic failures of banks, the European debt crisis and geopolitical concerns have left people more uncertain about what the future holds. Uncertainty about policy is a major factor in the current stagnation of growth in the UK.

Professor Paul Gregg looks at unemployment. The UK recession has seen unemployment to be far more focused on young people than in previous downturns imposing large costs on individuals and society. He examines strategies for getting the unemployed back into work and ensuring that those leaving school do not join the jobless.

Bad management practices hurt the economy and delivering major improvements would be a key ingredient to restarting growth. Professor John Van Reenen looks at why UK managers lag behind the US, Japan and Germany.

Professor Mariana Mazzucato explains how the state has traditionally funded the creation of key technologies but failed to reap the economic rewards. How can the financial eco system be reformed so that the collective system of innovation fits with a more collective distribution of the rewards to those that have contributed?

Globalisation has seen traditional manufacturing decline as a share of the UK economy in the face of low-cost competition from the Far East. Professor Andy Neely says that future UK economic growth lies in a radical change in the way firms offer their products - 'servitisation'.

Professor David Newberry believes that in the current economic environment the public sector should ensure it maintains or increases investment in projects that have a high benefit-cost ratio. But he thinks HS2 and a third London airport are unlikely to deliver economic benefits until 2030 and therefore a third runway at Heathrow should be a priority.

ESRC Chief Executive Paul Boyle said: "Re-igniting Growth offers new perspectives on many aspects of the economic problems facing the UK. It shows the range of expertise of the centres and experts funded by the ESRC, and the unique findings of the economic and social research they produce."

Many of the themes in Re-igniting Growth are being taken forward by the LSE Growth Commission, funded by the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the ESRC, and co-chaired by Professor Tim Besley and Professor John Van Reenen, Director of the ESRC's Centre for Economic Performance. The Commission's Report, Investing for Prosperity, is launched on 31 January 2013.

###

For further information contact:

ESRC Press Office:

Sarah Nichols
Email: sarah.nichols@esrc.ac.uk
Telephone: 01793 413122

Jeanine Woolley
Email: jeanine.woolley@esrc.ac.uk
Telephone: 01793 413119

Notes for editors

1. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is the UK's largest organisation for funding research on economic and social issues. It supports independent high quality research which has an impact on business, the public sector and the third sector. The ESRC's total budget for 2012/13 is 205 million. At any one time the ESRC supports over 4,000 researchers and postgraduate students in academic institutions and independent research institutes.

2. Download the full report.

---

[ | E-mail | Share ]

?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Public release date: 22-Jan-2013
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Pressoffice
Pressoffice@esrc.ac.uk
Economic & Social Research Council

What will it take put the UK back on the path of sustained economic growth? A new report investigates the challenges the UK faces after the economic downturn and explores a range of initiatives across education, business, housing, industry, and innovation that could help kick-start growth.

Re-igniting Growth, published by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), includes a series of interviews with key academics funded by the ESRC. As well as giving the recession historical context, many of the interviews take unconventional approaches to a range of issues and provide responses to the economic problems the UK is experiencing.

Among the interviews are:

Professor Nick Bloom shows that the dramatic failures of banks, the European debt crisis and geopolitical concerns have left people more uncertain about what the future holds. Uncertainty about policy is a major factor in the current stagnation of growth in the UK.

Professor Paul Gregg looks at unemployment. The UK recession has seen unemployment to be far more focused on young people than in previous downturns imposing large costs on individuals and society. He examines strategies for getting the unemployed back into work and ensuring that those leaving school do not join the jobless.

Bad management practices hurt the economy and delivering major improvements would be a key ingredient to restarting growth. Professor John Van Reenen looks at why UK managers lag behind the US, Japan and Germany.

Professor Mariana Mazzucato explains how the state has traditionally funded the creation of key technologies but failed to reap the economic rewards. How can the financial eco system be reformed so that the collective system of innovation fits with a more collective distribution of the rewards to those that have contributed?

Globalisation has seen traditional manufacturing decline as a share of the UK economy in the face of low-cost competition from the Far East. Professor Andy Neely says that future UK economic growth lies in a radical change in the way firms offer their products - 'servitisation'.

Professor David Newberry believes that in the current economic environment the public sector should ensure it maintains or increases investment in projects that have a high benefit-cost ratio. But he thinks HS2 and a third London airport are unlikely to deliver economic benefits until 2030 and therefore a third runway at Heathrow should be a priority.

ESRC Chief Executive Paul Boyle said: "Re-igniting Growth offers new perspectives on many aspects of the economic problems facing the UK. It shows the range of expertise of the centres and experts funded by the ESRC, and the unique findings of the economic and social research they produce."

Many of the themes in Re-igniting Growth are being taken forward by the LSE Growth Commission, funded by the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and the ESRC, and co-chaired by Professor Tim Besley and Professor John Van Reenen, Director of the ESRC's Centre for Economic Performance. The Commission's Report, Investing for Prosperity, is launched on 31 January 2013.

###

For further information contact:

ESRC Press Office:

Sarah Nichols
Email: sarah.nichols@esrc.ac.uk
Telephone: 01793 413122

Jeanine Woolley
Email: jeanine.woolley@esrc.ac.uk
Telephone: 01793 413119

Notes for editors

1. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is the UK's largest organisation for funding research on economic and social issues. It supports independent high quality research which has an impact on business, the public sector and the third sector. The ESRC's total budget for 2012/13 is 205 million. At any one time the ESRC supports over 4,000 researchers and postgraduate students in academic institutions and independent research institutes.

2. Download the full report.

---

[ | E-mail | Share ]

?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/esr-rtk012213.php

Green Coffee Bean Extract september 11 adam levine 9/11 Memorial 911 masterchef Dictionary.com

Close Encounter of Jupiter and Moon Wows Stargazers

A night sky meeting of Jupiter and the moon, called a conjunction, amazed skywatchers around the world last night (Jan. 21).

The waxing gibbous moon and Jupiter ? the two brightest objects in last night's sky ? appeared to be almost touching for part of the night before the moon crept below and past the gas giant, continuing on in its orbit.

Judging by the reactions of SPACE.com readers, the celestial pairing was a hit. Skywatchers from all over the world sent in photos of the moon and Jupiter in their own back yards, but it wasn't always easy to get the shot. [Gallery: Jupiter and the Moon Dazzle Stargazers]

"One of the most challenging things I've ever shot," Greg Diesel Walck in North Carolina wrote in an email. "Had to strap my tripod onto a pole so that it could be tilted back so far and duck tape my zoom lens so it would stay fully zoomed!? Also a very windy night as a cold front moves into N.C. making for tricky long exposures."

Weather was an issue for some observers, too.

"Snow flurries were rushing in from the northwest, so I had to wait to get shots between the clouds," Eric Teske of Bowling Green, Ohio wrote to SPACE.com. "When the clouds parted, I was able to grab two photos for a clean composite. I was out for about 20 minutes total and couldn't feel my fingers as I was packing up my gear and rushing back into my apartment!"

Some readers were caught by surprise when they looked up at the sky last night.

"I just went outside tonight to take a look at the stars," wrote Barbara Ash of Ridgecrest, Calif., "and saw an object in conjunction with the moon. I ran back in and grabbed my tripod and camera, and took some amateur shots."

And the sight wowed beyond North America, too.

"Partly cloudy evening and night here in central Italy, but the conjunction show was still captivating," Giuseppe Petricca wrote.

"They are close!" Christiane Lisboa wrote from Brazil.

In case you missed it, yesterday's conjunction won't be the last time Jupiter and the moon have a seemingly close encounter. On March 17, the two heavenly bodies will appear in the same part of the sky again.

Editor's Note: If you took a photo of last night's close conjunction of the moon and Jupiter that you'd like to share with SPACE.com for a possible story or gallery, please send it, along with your comments, to spacephotos@space.com.

Follow Miriam Kramer on Twitter?@mirikramer?or SPACE.com?@Spacedotcom. We're also on Facebook?&?Google+.?

Copyright 2013 SPACE.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/close-encounter-jupiter-moon-wows-stargazers-175155645.html

Aurora Colorado Rajesh Khanna friday the 13th toy story 4 toy story 4 steam kristin chenoweth

Ask A Questions Islamic Finance ? Part 2 (Business Ethics) by ...

Sheikh Hacene Chebbani was born in Algeria and has been living in Canada since 1997. Sheikh Hacene has completed a Master?s in Islamic finance (2012) from UK. In 1993 he graduated in Shar?ah (BA) from the Islamic University of Madinah. While there he took the opportunity to study Aq?dah, Fiqh and Had?th with some of the notable scholars of that blessed city. In Canada Sheikh Hacene has worked in Islamic schools teaching the Arabic language and Islamic studies and has served as Shar?ah consultant and head teacher for over 6 years. Sheikh Hacene is currently an Imam in Calgary where he gives regular classes and counseling, leading the prayers for a diverse community. He is married and has 5 children and enjoys sports and reading in his spare time.

This entry was posted in Finance. Bookmark the permalink.

Source: http://aquestions.com/islamic-finance-part-2-business-ethics-by-sheikh-hacene-chebbani.html/

mega millions winner holy thursday chris stewart evo 4g lte marlins new stadium arnold palmer augusta national

Twitter-Owned Posterous Is Not Accepting New Sign Ups To Blogging Platform Posterous Spaces

Posterous, the blogging platform that Twitter bought in March 2012 for an undisclosed sum, appears to have stopped taking registrations for new users for Posterous Spaces. One tipster noted to TechCrunch that this has been the case for at least a week now, and it was also noted by a poster on Y Combinator's Hacker News. Posterous was incubated and funded by YC in 2008.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/lDYHClsjcb8/

esperanza spalding jessica sanchez robert kennedy cardinals san diego weather north korea frances bean cobain

Noahpinion: How much value does the finance industry create?

That is the question asked by John Cochrane in this recent draft essay?(non-PDF version here), in response to a recent?Journal of Economic Perspectives article?by Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein.?Both should be required reading for any introductory finance class. There is so much in these essays that one blog post couldn't hope to adequately cover the topic, so don't expect this to be anything resembling a complete response.

Everyone knows that the finance industry has grown in America. In 1980, finance took home about 5% of all the income in America; in 2007, about 8%. This has led many people to question whether all this activity is worth what we pay for it; in other words, how much of the increase in finance-industry GDP is actually value added, and how much is "rent" extracted from the rest of the economy?

Cochrane makes the excellent point that the question of "How much value does industry X really create?" is always an incredibly difficult question to answer:

I don?t claim to estimate the socially-optimal ?size of finance? at 8.267% of GDP, so there...After all, if a bunch of academics could sit around our offices and decide which industries were ?too big,? which ones were ?too small,? and close our papers with ?policy recommendations? to remedy the matter, central planning would have worked. ?A little...modesty suggests we focus on documenting the distortions, not pronouncing on optimal industry sizes. ?Documenting distortions has also been, historically, far more productive than pronouncing on the optimal size of industries, optimal compensation of executives, ?global imbalances,? ?savings gluts,? ?excessive consumption,? or other outcomes.?

Cochrane also describes how we should go about documenting the distortions:

We start with the first welfare theorem: loosely, supply, demand and competition lead to socially beneficial arrangements. ?Yet the world around often doesn?t obviously conform to simple supply and demand arguments...First, maybe there is something about the situation we don?t understand. Durable institutions and arrangements, despite competition and lack of government interference, sometimes take us years to understand. Second, maybe there is a ?market failure,? an externality, public good, natural monopoly, asymmetric information, or missing market, that explains our puzzle. Third, we often discover a ?government failure,? that the puzzling aspect of our world is an unintended consequence of law or regulation. The regulators got captured, the market innovated around a regulation, or legal restrictions stop supply and demand from working.?

This list applies to almost any policy question in all of economics. Sometimes, policy fails. Sometimes, the market fails. And sometimes things are working better than we realize, with our limited data and models.

In casual discussions of finance in the media and blogs, we've heard all of these ideas before. The idea that finance is excessively large due to collusion with the government (policy failure) is probably the most prominent - this is the idea that big banks have the government in their pocket, allowing them to dump their risk onto the taxpayer (through bailouts) while keeping their gains for themselves. Market failure - "How does making 10 billion trades a minute benefit anyone?" - is also something you hear about. And of course, there is always the question of "If large parts of finance are valueless, why would people, especially rich people who are probably pretty savvy, pay for these things? Maybe value is being created and we just don't understand it."

It's important to belabor this last point. Economists know some things, maybe a lot of things, but this is absolutely dwarfed by the size of the things we don't know and don't understand. If this blog has had one "unifying theme," it would be the depth of our ignorance. So when economists urge caution in using policy to change large sectors of the economy, this doesn't necessarily mean "We know that the free market is always perfect and good and that policy can't help." (That is something that ideological libertarians often say, and I think it's extremely unhelpful for the econ profession when they say it.)

Instead, caution about policy is very similar to doctors' maxim of "first, do no harm." As a doctor, you wouldn't say "I can't figure out how this organ is helping the body function, so let's just take it out." Similarly, it would be foolish to say "I don't see how this finance industry is adding value, so let's regulate the heck out of it." We start with the presumption that things are there for a reason - in biology, because evolution put them there, and in economics, because...evolution put them there.

Of course, if the organ explodes and threatens the rest of the body, then you take it out. And when an industry explodes, like the finance industry did, you use policy to manage the damage. And if you can, you figure out why this organ, or this industry, tends to explode, and you figure out if there are ways you can prevent an explosion, or see it coming, without creating nasty side effects.

But the question of whether finance is unstable and tends to explode (and how to deal with that) is very different from the question of whether its compensation is equal to its value added. People should understand that difference!

Anyway, on to the meat of the issue. Again, there's way too much for one blog post, so I'll just add a few thoughts of my own. Really, you should go and read both. Twice.

In their JEP article, Greenwood and Scharfstein chart the well-known growth of the finance industry in America. They identify which areas of finance have grown. Basically, the big growth areas were 1) asset management, and 2) housing-related finance. Asset management grew because a lot of assets went up a lot in value (think of the stock boom in the 1990s), and asset managers continued to charge the same fees as before. When assets do better, the same percentage fee gets you a lot more money, so this caused the finance sector to grow. As for housing-related finance, this has been much-discussed in the media; it includes shadow banking and the entire apparatus that was developed to handle trading of mortgage-backed assets.

Greenwood & Scharfstein also briefly discuss ways that these expanded activities might cost more than their value-added. Cochrane's essay, on the other hand, is all about this question. Cochrane basically runs down the full list of finance-sector activities whose value has been called into question, and discusses the ways that each activity might add value. Handing your money to an asset manager and paying a proportional fee, for example, may be highly preferable to doing your own asset-picking, which research shows to be a losing game. Here's Cochrane:

Individual investors, many of whom actively manage their portfolios and whose decisions in doing so are the stuff [of] many behavioral biases, may be doing a lot better with 1% active management fee than actively managing on their own. As a matter of fact, individual investors are moving from active funds to passive funds, and fees in each fund are declining. Many of their fee advisers are bundling more and more services, such as tax and estate planning, which easily justify fees. At least naivet? is declining over time.?

Quite true. And I think Cochrane leaves out another possible function of money managers - the "money doctors" idea being promulgated by Andrei Schleifer. This is the idea that even if people are willing to take risks in exchange for returns, they have emotional fear of actually pulling the trigger and investing in long-term, high-return assets like stocks. Asset managers, by holding rich people's hands and appearing very professional and knowledgeable, calm this fear, much as doctors make people less afraid of taking pills. Even a money manager whose fees exceed his "alpha" may be creating value for society by overcoming human anxiety and stopping rich people's capital from sitting trapped in big stacks of gold bars in their basements. Voila - value creation.

Then again, I think Cochrane also leaves out a reason for concern. We know people are bad at picking stocks, in large part because they trade too much. What if people are bad at picking asset managers for exactly the same reason? If individual investors (or institutional investors like pension fund managers) act like "funds of funds", might they not switch their money rapidly from hedge fund to hedge fund, chasing recent performance, much like day traders ineptly picking stocks? This sort of "higher-level over-trading" could be very costly and bad for markets - after all, haven't we all heard the horror stories of hedge funds who saw a big opportunity coming, but had to close out their position and take a loss because their investors backed out too soon? That sort of thing could create large costs for asset managers, who are then forced to pass on those costs to investors via higher fees. Voila - value destruction.

As for the heavy trading we observe in financial markets, it seems to be necessary in order to incorporate information into the prices of financial assets. Of course, it could create problems as well. Cochrane sums up the dilemma very nicely:

I conclude that information trading...sits at the conflict of two externalities / public goods. On the one hand...?price impact? means that traders are not able to appropriate the full value of the information they bring, so there can be too few resources devoted to information production (and digestion, which strikes me as far more important). On the other hand, as Greenwood and Scharfstein point out, information is a non-rival good, and its exploitation in financial markets is a tournament (first to use it gets all the benefit) so the theorem that profits you make equal the social benefit of its production is false. It is indeed a waste of resources to bring information to the market a few minutes early, when that information will be revealed for free a few minutes later. ?Whether we have ?too much? trading, too many resources devoted to finding information that somebody already has in will be revealed in a few minutes, or ?too little? trading, markets where prices go for long times not reflecting important information, as many argued during the financial crisis, seems like a topic which neither theory nor empirical work has answered with any sort of clarity.

Exactly. Exactly.

Cochrane goes on to discuss "information trading" in great detail, and I encourage you to read everything else he has to say on the topic.

One related area of research that Cochrane doesn't mention, by the way, concerns the question of excess volatility, as famously discovered by Robert Shiller and demonstrated repeatedly since then. Even an asset market that is "efficient" in the academic-finance-prof sense of the word - i.e., unpredictable - may still swing more wildly than the real value of the assets. This can happen if people trade based on "noise" - if they believe that false information is actually true. A lot of the "information trading" people do may actually just serve to incorporate false information, rumors, and noise into the prices. That's clearly not a value-adding activity, and it does incur trading costs. This could be closely related to the tendency of investors to over-trade, but at an aggregate level instead of an individual level. If there's something coordinating the "noise traders" - some sort of fad or mass sentiment or herd behavior - then the same force that causes people to switch their stock holdings too often might cause markets to gyrate, racking up trading costs but destroying value. This is a separate issue from the issue of "tournaments", and also one that needs to be answered quantitatively (again, easier said than done!).

Cochrane also discusses the "shadow banking system" that was set up to do housing finance in the 2000s. I won't go over all that, but you should read it. I would, however, like to highlight this interesting point:

In any case, following the 2007-2008 financial crisis, and perhaps more importantly the collapse of short-term interest rates to zero and the innovation that bank reserves pay interest, this form of ?shadow banking? has essentially ceased to exist. RIP. ??

To drive home this point (and to complain about any analysis of the size of finance that stops in 2007), here are two graphs representing the size of the ?shadow banking system,? culled from other papers. From Adrian and Ashcraft (2012, p. 24), the size of the securitized debt market...?

?

And from Gorton and Metrick (2012), a different slice of securitized debt markets: ?

This highlights an interesting point that often gets lost in discussions like this: Value-destroying activities often get naturally eliminated over time. This is evolution at work.

There are other examples. For instance, in Liar's Poker, Michael Lewis describes his job as basically being the ripping off of fools. As a bond salesman for Salomon Brothers in the 80s, he basically had a rolodex full of fools, many of them in Europe. When a client wanted to rip off a fool, he would call up Salomon, and Michael Lewis would find a fool to take the bad end of the trade, earning middleman fees in the process. Or sometimes, Salomon traders themselves, doing "proprietary trades" with the firm's own portfolio, would do the ripping off. In any case, eventually the fools wised up, and Salomon collapsed and was bought out. That wasn't the end of "face-ripping," though, as the broker-dealer industry came to call the practice. If you believe Greg Smith, it was alive and well at Goldman Sachs in the 2000s. Note that it's perfectly legal to take a fool's money. Broker-dealers have no fiduciary duty to their clients when acting as middlemen. But it still seems like a value-destroying activity, and over time, a firm or industry that does it will lose its reputation and lose its clients. That is evolution in action.

The real questions here are, 1) how long will evolution take, 3) what will be the collateral damage when a value-destroying business dies out, and 3) can policy act faster than evolution, in a reliable manner, to curb value-destroying industries before nature curbs them?

In other words, the bar for policy intervention to curb value-destroying industries should be pretty high here. Eventually, swindlers, hucksters, and useless rentiers will be driven from the market. When we contemplate giving them a kick to speed them on their way out, not only must we ask ourselves "Is this activity value-creating?", but also "Can policy improve the situation fast enough, and safely enough, to justify the possibility that policy might make a mistake?" Just as in medicine, many treatments may not be wort the risk, even if they are effective.

Anyway, this is getting long, and I've barely even scratched the surface of the relevant issues. You can spend your entire life thinking about these issues, and barely even scratch the surface (though you may add lots of value to society!). If you are interested in the question of whether finance is worth it, go read Greenwood & Scharfstein, and go read Cochrane. But don't expect to come away satisfied that you know the answers! As in many areas of human endeavor, the size of our understanding is dwarfed by the size of our ignorance.

Source: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-much-value-does-finance-industry.html

luke bryan NBA jfk airport faith hill metro north Breezy Point Seaside Heights

Longer CPR improves survival in both chidren and adults

Jan. 21, 2013 ? Experts from The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia were among the leaders of two large national studies showing that extending CPR longer than previously thought useful saves lives in both children and adults. The research teams analyzed impact of duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients who suffered cardiac arrest while hospitalized.

"These findings about the duration of CPR are game-changing, and we hope these results will rapidly affect hospital practice," said Robert A. Berg, M.D., chief of Critical Care Medicine at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Berg is the chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of the American Heart Association's Get With Guidelines-Resuscitation program (GWTG-R). That quality improvement program is the only national registry that tracks and analyzes resuscitation of patients after in-hospital cardiac arrests.

The investigators reported data from the GWTG-Resuscitation registry of CPR outcomes in thousands of North American hospital patients in two landmark studies -- one in children, published January 2013, the other in adults, published in October 2012.

Berg was a co-author of the pediatric study, appearing online January 21 in Circulation, which analyzed hospital records of 3,419 children in the U.S. and Canada from 2000 through 2009. This study, whose first author was Renee I. Matos, M.D., M.P.H., a mentored young investigator, found that among children who suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest, more children than expected survived after prolonged CPR -- defined as CPR lasting longer than 35 minutes. Of those children who survived prolonged CPR, over 60 percent had good neurologic outcomes.

The conventional thinking has been that CPR is futile after 20 minutes, but Berg said these results challenge that assumption.

In addition to Berg, two other co-authors are critical care and resuscitation science specialists at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia: Vinay M. Nadkarni, M.D., and Peter A. Meaney, M.D., M.P.H.

Nadkarni noted that illness categories affected outcomes, with children hospitalized for cardiac surgery having better survival and neurological outcomes than children in all other patient groups.

The overall pediatric results paralleled those found in the adult study of 64,000 patients with in-hospital cardiac arrests between 2000 and 2008. Berg also was a co-author of that GWTG-R study, published in The Lancet on Oct. 27, and led by Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, M.P.H., M.D., of the University of Michigan. Patients at hospitals in the top quartile of median CPR duration (25 minutes), had a 12 percent higher chance of surviving cardiac arrest, compared to patients at hospitals in the bottom quartile of median CPR duration (16 minutes). Survivors of prolonged CPR had similar neurological outcomes to those who survived after shorter CPR efforts.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, via Newswise.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal References:

1. Matos et al. Duration of CPR and Illness Category Impact Survival and Neurologic Outcomes for In-Hospital Pediatric Cardiac Arrests. Circulation, Jan. 21, 2013
2. Zachary D Goldberger, Paul S Chan, Robert A Berg, Steven L Kronick, Colin R Cooke, Mingrui Lu, Mousumi Banerjee, Rodney A Hayward, Harlan M Krumholz, Brahmajee K Nallamothu. Duration of resuscitation efforts and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study. The Lancet, 2012; 380 (9852): 1473 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60862-9

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/most_popular/~3/GYLp06iu1oE/130121161749.htm

roman numerals superbowl halftime madonna madonna papa johns guacamole recipe ufc 143 results

Rebecca Sive: Beyonce Singing Two National Anthems But President Obama Only Listening to One

I understand why Barack Obama admires Beyonce. Like him, she is smart, hardworking, forthright and demands respect. Besides, his closest advisor likes her. A lot. But it strikes me that, hard as it may be to imagine, President Obama isn't totally enamored of Beyonce.

Think that's not possible? Think that doesn't matter? Think again. Even though even Beyonce is a feminist, the President isn't liking that idea so much these days.

"Who run the world? Girls! Who run this motha? Girls! Some of them men think they freak this like we do; but no they don't; disrespect us no they won't; my persuasion can build a nation," Beyonce sings.

And then she speaks: Here she is recently on the matter of equal pay for equal work: "You know, equality is a myth, and for some reason, everyone accepts the fact that women don't make as much money as men do. I don't understand that. Why do we have to take a backseat?"

The Oxford English Dictionary defines feminism this way: "...the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." No doubt, Beyonce stands on this ground as her feminist generation's most influential feminist standard bearer.

It is truly odd that President Obama isn't in sync with Beyonce and the rest of us feminists. After all, he is the only president who has appointed two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, a woman to run homeland security and two women as White House deputy chiefs-of-staff. His closest advisors are two incredibly strong and smart women whose feminist credentials are in good working order. Here is one, Valerie Jarrett, recommending today that women who care for this president: "Speak up," (Just the kind of thing us care-for-President-Obama, got-him-elected feminists do).

Valerie's is great advice and so I am wondering: Why is the president so out of sync these days?

Apparently because he prefers strategizing the game in the boys' locker room, notwithstanding that, during the fall 2012 campaign, he bragged he would do otherwise, no assist needed: "We don't have to order up some binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women...."

Maybe, it was the "young" that's gotten President Obama into this trouble. Like the men qualified for the highest level presidential appointments, qualified women have a lot of experience. They're just not young anymore.

But, I don't think so. I do think Jay Carney said what President Obama actually thinks: "White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president speaks with a number of diverse candidates for various positions and selects who he thinks is the right person for the job. 'It's not uniform, it's a broad sentiment and he believes the country is served by a process that does seek out the diverse talent in this country for different positions."

OK, Jay; that's all well and good, but we learned after these remarks that: "...among the big boy (Obama Cabinet) jobs, there are no girls," as Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus put it to NBC's Andrea Mitchell. The Post's Chris Cillizza then underscored Marcus's point, saying: "...all Cabinet jobs are not created equal." Indeed.

And then there is the matter of the chief-of-staff job. Not a "big boy" Cabinet job, but at least as big.

Historians report that most presidents spend their second term shoring up their legacy, by locking in first term domestic policy victories and focusing on foreign policy. The president's chief-of-staff is responsible for making sure this all happens. Now, there's a really, really "big boy job." It's been reported that Denis McDonough, a man with strong foreign policy credentials, will be named to it. He is a man who literally grew up in the boys' locker room.

Did Mich?le Flournoy's name ever come up publicly in the run up to McDonough's apparently imminent appointment? Not to my knowledge, though she was considered qualified enough on foreign policy matters to be Defense Secretary. Now, I'm not plumping for Flournoy, but she has advised Obama for years and possesses other credentials he seriously likes: a Harvard degree and experience in the Clinton administration.

I am saying that Flournoy's present status (no Obama "big boy job") highlights the problem with President Obama's current stance: commitment to listening to those who "speak up" and to "diversity," is one thing, but commitment to "run this motha" is quite another.

"...(D)iversity helps to create more effective policy making, and better decision making for me, because it brings different perspectives to the table," said President Obama on Monday. But all tables aren't equal. Yes, there will be women sitting at many of his tables. But the head official table will be only men.

Last time, President Obama promised his cabinet "...would look like America." This time, that isn't sufficient to the need. Been there. (Been everywhere, in fact.) Done that (Superbly, by all counts.) Proved our bonafides. (Literally, ad nauseum.) This time, we women want to be America. We want to "run this motha." As Beyonce points out: "(Our) persuasion can build a nation." And, boys, do you need us nation-building now.

?

Follow Rebecca Sive on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@RebeccaSive

"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-sive/beyoncesinging-two-anthem_b_2505017.html

capital gains tim thomas oral roberts les paul fred thompson fred thompson red hook