April 19, 2024

Media Decoder Blog: Lena Dunham to Create New Comedy Show

With a series that she stars in, produces, writes and occasionally directs, and a book she is contracted to deliver, Lena Dunham clearly does not have enough to do.

Now she has a new deal with HBO, the network that for her series “Girls,” to create yet another comedy show. Ms. Dunham is teaming with Jenni Konner, an executive producer on “Girls,” to write the pilot for a show about the life and work of a personal shopper in New York.

HBO has not officially announced the show but the network confirmed Ms. Dunham’s participation Thursday. The show will be based on a memoir by Betty Halbreich, “All Dressed Up and Everywhere to Go,” that told of her career working as a shopper for the Bergdorf Goodman department store, buying merchandise for the rich and famous of Manhattan. HBO had previously purchased the rights to the book.

News of the new series was first reported on the Web site Deadline Hollywood.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/lena-dunham-to-create-new-comedy-show/?partner=rss&emc=rss

News Analysis: In European Crisis, Little Hope for a Quick Fix

What is going on?

The problem, say close watchers of both the subprime financial crisis in 2008 and the European government debt crisis today, is that many investors think there is a quick and easy fix, if only government officials can agree and act decisively.

In reality, one might not exist. A best case in Europe is a bailout of troubled governments and their banks that keeps the financial system from experiencing a major shock and sending economies worldwide into recession.

The latest rescue package for Europe gained approval from Germany on Thursday, after Chancellor Angela Merkel won a vote in Parliament, throwing the financial weight of the Continent’s biggest economy behind a new deal.

But a bailout doesn’t wipe out the huge debts that have taken years to accumulate — just as bailing out American banks in 2008 didn’t wipe out the huge amount of subprime debt that homeowners had borrowed but couldn’t repay.

The problem — too much debt and not enough growth to ease the burden — could take many years to resolve.

“Everybody has been living beyond their means for nearly the last decade, so it is an adjustment that will be painful and long, and it will test the resilience of societies socially and politically,” said Nicolas Véron, a fellow at Bruegel, a Brussels research group.

This is not to say that the discussions in Europe are moot. If governments can’t agree on how to rescue Greece from its debilitating government debt, some fear the worst could happen — a collapse of the financial system akin to 2008 that would ricochet around the world, dooming Europe but also the United States and emerging countries to a prolonged downturn, or worse.

Just like the United States, Europe built up trillions in debts in past decades. What is different is that more of the United States borrowing was done by consumers and businesses, while in Europe it was mainly governments that piled on the debt, facilitated by banks that lent them money by buying up sovereign bonds.

Now, just as the United States economy is held back by households whose mortgages are still underwater and who won’t begin to spend again until they have run down their debts, Europe can’t begin to grow again until its countries learn to live within their means.

In short, it means years of painful adjustment.

“We have to adjust to lower growth,” said Thomas Mirow, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, referring to both Europe and America. “It is of course going to be very painful. But leaders have to speak frankly to their populations.”

The uncertainty about Europe’s future has been driving the gyrations of financial markets since the summer. Earlier this week, stocks rallied on euphoria that a new, more powerful bailout was near, but the rally fizzled Wednesday when cracks began to appear among European nations over the terms of money being given to Greece.

On Thursday, markets were mostly up again after the German approval of the 440 billion euro ($600 billion) bailout fund, intended to keep the crisis from spreading beyond Greece and Portugal to other European countries. Several other nations still have to ratify the agreement, but it now looks likely to be in place by the end of October.

Even this fund, however, is already seen as inadequate. Some worry that it still fails to fully address one of Europe’s most pressing needs: fully recapitalizing its banks.

Now there is talk of enhancing the fund’s firepower by allowing the European Central Bank to leverage its assets to buy up troubled government debt from the financial system. That would serve mostly to shift the debt from European banks to taxpayers.

 “Clearly something is cooking, but the markets will eventually choke on the taste,” said George Magnus, an economist at UBS in London. “It is about getting banks off the hook, but the darker side is it’s not doing anything real.”

Not everybody shares this view. Some argue that Europe is actually in better shape than the United States. Debt levels are painfully high in European countries like Italy, Ireland and Greece, but overall euro zone debt as a percentage of gross domestic product is 85 percent, less than the 93 percent level in the United States.

Also, European consumers did not go on the same borrowing binge, so their retrenchment need not be so severe.

Joshua Brustein contributed reporting.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 29, 2011

An earlier version of this article used an incorrect unit in converting Europe’s 440 billion euro bailout fund to dollars. It is $600 billion, not $600 million.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=fa35bf29a38b59a2af68ec6b0b2cee32

White House and Congress Clear Trade Deal Hurdle

Haggling over the modest and obscure benefits program had tied up the trade pacts for months, pitting Democrats concerned about the impact of competition on American workers against Republicans eager to increase foreign trade but loath to increase federal spending on another aid program.

But the deal does not assure that Congress will pass the pacts, which are crucial ingredients in the Obama administration’s recipe for reinvigorating economic growth. Indeed, Republicans quickly said they would continue to insist that the benefits program be considered separately from the trade agreements, a condition Democrats described as unacceptable.

The Obama administration, which had maintained for weeks that it would not submit the trade pacts to Congress until the deadlock was resolved, by Tuesday night found itself defending its new deal as an important step that might lead to a complete resolution.

“As a result of extensive negotiations, we now have an agreement on the underlying terms for a meaningful renewal of a strengthened” benefits program, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said in a statement. Other administration officials hastened to clarify that that deal did not extend to the question of how that agreement might be approved.

Senator Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, said that he would convene a hearing Thursday morning, starting a process that could end with the bills passing into law before the end of summer.

“We think this package can get the support needed to become law,” Mr. Baucus said. “American workers and our economy can’t afford for us to wait any longer to move forward.”

Senate Republicans, however, said they would seek to strip the benefits program from the legislation by asking the Senate parliamentarian to rule that its inclusion did not comply with Senate rules, because it was not sufficiently related to the main subject of the legislation.

Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said that the White House’s strategy “risks support for this critical job-creating trade pact in the name of a welfare program of questionable benefit at a time when our nation is broke.”

John Boehner, the House speaker, said he would hold separate votes on the free trade agreements and the benefits program. That step, even if all four pieces pass, would terminate a special process that allows for the rapid approval of trade agreements, leaving the package much more vulnerable to Senate opposition.

“We have long said that T.A.A. — even this scaled-back version — should be dealt with separately from the trade agreements, and that is how we expect to proceed,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, referring to the worker benefit program, Trade Adjustment Assistance.

The trade agreements would eliminate tariffs on the flow of goods and services between the United States and the other countries. The United States has similar agreements with Mexico, Canada and 15 other countries.

The free trade agreement with South Korea could increase annual sales of American goods to that country by up to $10.9 billion, according to a 2007 estimate by a federal agency, the United States International Trade Commission. Dairy products, pork and poultry, chemicals, rubber and plastics are among the goods in greatest demand.

The agreement with Colombia, a much smaller trading partner, would create annual demand for about $1.1 billion in American goods, the agency estimated. It said the impact of the Panama agreement would be even smaller. It did not provide an estimate.

Steven Greenhouse contributed reporting from New York.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a16b39b984cb1e50babe7b00a622f74e