The US Debt Ceiling Fiasco

by Jack Driscoll and Javi Halffter

The debt ceiling is the legal limit on borrowing by the federal government.[1] Since the 1980s, the debt ceiling has been raised from $985 billion dollars to a staggering $14.294 trillion.[2] After the 2008 financial crisis, the United States government took a great deal of responsibility to help the U.S. economy recover. Through various bank bailouts, stimulus programs, Federal Reserve rescue packages, and other financial initiatives, the United States Government committed over 11 trillion dollars, and has invested 3 trillion.[3] This action, along with the accumulated debt from previous budget deficits, has left the United States with a staggering 99% debt-to-GDP ratio. Raising the debt-ceiling is one of the least enjoyable things that Congress does, but it has been done without much trouble plenty of times in the past. However, in this case, both parties saw this time as an opportunity to gain votes for the upcoming elections. Problems began within the government last April when the tea-party faction of the Republican Party demanded at least $2 trillion in spending cuts, if the debt ceiling were to be raised. A couple weeks later, the US Treasury announced that the debt-ceiling had been reached and that if the problem wasn’t solved by August 2^, the country would default. Quickly, the issue evolved from finding ways to cut spending into a heated debate between partisan factions and their own ideologies. Republicans asked for major government spending cuts before agreeing to raise the ceiling, but they refused to increase taxes whatsoever. Meanwhile, Obama’s solution involved both increasing taxes and reducing government spending. Partisan politics and uncertainty harmed the reputation of the United States and the world economy as the deadline drew closer everyday. Negotiations persisted through August 1^st, but eventually the two parties came to terms and an agreement was reached to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion[4].

The deal approved by Congress was a short-term deal that only prevented the United States from defaulting. As a result of the political uncertainty and the unbalanced budget that the government still had after the plan was passed, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since 2008. The Dow Jones industrial Average dropped 2100 points, 16%, from its year high and the United States long-term credit rating was downgraded for the first time in the history of the country. We believe that unilateralism in Washington by both the Republicans and Democrats harmed the economy more and that the debt-ceiling plan was a fiasco. The stubbornness of both parties to implement the policies they believe in put the economy at great risk, and the United States cannot afford to have this problem again. In order to solve this current economic crisis and save the economy from dipping back into a recession, the White House needs to work together with the House of Representatives to find a long-term deal, which should include budget cuts and tax raises.

Sources:

Eunjung Cha, Ariana. "What's the debt ceiling, and why is everyone in Washington talking about it?." Washington Post (2011), http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whats-the-debt-ceiling-and-why-is-everyone-in-washington-talking-about-it/2011/04/15/AFSS4R1D_story.html (accessed October 17, 2011).

Federal Reserve, Treasury, FDIC, CBO, White House. "Follow the money: Bailout tracker." CNN. http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/ (accessed October 11, 2011).

Carlson, Margaret. "Obama, Boehner Look Smaller After Their Big Debt Deal: Margaret Carlson." Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/obama-boehner-look-smaller-after-their-big-debt-deal-margaret-carlson.html (accessed October 12, 2011).

---

[1] Eunjung Cha, Ariana. "What's the debt ceiling, and why is everyone in Washington talking about it?." Washington Post (2011), http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whats-the-debt-ceiling-and-why-is-everyone-in-washington-talking-about-it/2011/04/15/AFSS4R1D_story.html (accessed October 17, 2011).

[2] ibid

[3] Federal Reserve, Treasury, FDIC, CBO, White House. "Follow the money: Bailout tracker." CNN. http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/ (accessed October 11, 2011).

[4] Carlson, Margaret. "Obama, Boehner Look Smaller After Their Big Debt Deal: Margaret Carlson." Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/obama-boehner-look-smaller-after-their-big-debt-deal-margaret-carlson.html (accessed October 12, 2011).

Japan's Efforts to Stem the Yen's Appreciation

by Jacky Yang and Joni Guerrero

The Japanese government has been intervening in the currency market by buying dollars in order to increase demand for dollars and support its value to appreciate against the Japanese yen. The appreciated value of the dollar relative to the yen increases purchasing power of the US dollar, meaning Japanese goods will be cheaper for Americans. Therefore, the US will demand more imports from Japan and enable Japan to have a trade surplus, while the outflow will cause the US to have a trade deficit. Given that Japan is a major exporter, the Japanese do not want the yen to appreciate too much against their trading partners’ currencies. In the past year, Japan’s currency had been steadily appreciating. In August, the yen appreciated to a record high exchange rate of 75.94 yen per dollar.[1] As a result, Japan spent a record 4.5 trillion yen ($58 billion) in currency investment in an effort to weaken the currency.[2] The intervention pushed the exchange rate to above 80 yen per dollar but it quickly lost ground. The appreciating yen had caused Japanese exporters to suffer heavy profit losses. For example, Japanese automaker Mazda posted a 25 billion yen loss in a single quarter due to the appreciation of the yen, which makes exports more expensive for foreigners.[3] Although the Japanese government has intervened in the foreign exchange markets on numerous occasions over the years, many have argued that intervention only has a limited impact on the exchange market because roughly $4 trillion changes hands every day.

Japan has an export driven economy and it is crucial for Japan to keep an eye out for currency appreciation. Too much and sustained appreciation will be unsustainable for the export dependent economy as the stronger currency makes Japanese goods less competitive. So far, Japan has been using intervention in the currency market to stem the yen’s gains. But the problem with intervention is that the effects are most often seen as short term and sometimes ineffective, as seen in the Japanese government’s attempt in August. Another problem is that intervention is costly and it cannot be sustained. Japan’s current holdings of foreign exchange reserves totaled $1.2 trillion in September.[4] This means that Japan has been extensively buying dollars and other currencies at times when the yen appreciates too rapidly. But at some point, Japan may want to decrease its enormous foreign exchange holdings, as it did to rebuild after the earthquake in March, which would weaken the dollar and strengthen the yen.[5] It is unlikely that Japan will be able to repeat its huge scale interventions in the currency market. Plus, at times, the intervention does not come out as expected and the yen continues to appreciate. It comes down to deciding if intervention is the best solution or are there any other ways that could stem the yen’s appreciation? Or even to drive the Japanese economy away from being export-dependent?

Sources

· Deborah Levine, “Japan’s yen new high increases intervention risk - MarketWatch,” Market Watch, n.d., http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japans-yen-new-high-increases-intervention-risk-2011-08-19.

· Hibah Yousuf, “Yen slumps on Japan intervention - Aug. 4, 2011,” CNN Money, n.d., http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/markets/yen_intervention/index.htm.

· “Japanese foreign exchange reserves slips - UPI.com,” UPI.com, n.d., http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2011/10/06/Japanese-foreign-exchange-reserves-slips/UPI-97661317958397/.

· Thomson Reuters, “Japan Spent $58.8 Billion on August Yen Intervention - CNBC,” CNBS News, n.d.,

· http://www.cnbc.com/id/44338640/Japan_Spent_58_8_Billion_on_August_Yen_Intervention.

· http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33178.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2011)

---

[1] Deborah Levine, “Japan’s yen new high increases intervention risk - MarketWatch,” Market Watch, n.d., http://www.marketwatch.com/story/japans-yen-new-high-increases-intervention-risk-2011-08-19.

[2] Thomson Reuters, “Japan Spent $58.8 Billion on August Yen Intervention - CNBC,” CNBS News, n.d., http://www.cnbc.com/id/44338640/Japan_Spent_58_8_Billion_on_August_Yen_Intervention.

[3] Hibah Yousuf, “Yen slumps on Japan intervention - Aug. 4, 2011,” CNN Money, n.d., http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/markets/yen_intervention/index.htm.

[4] “Japanese foreign exchange reserves slips - UPI.com,” UPI.com, n.d., http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2011/10/06/Japanese-foreign-exchange-reserves-slips/UPI-97661317958397/.

[5] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33178.pdf (Accessed October 12, 2011)

Ceiling on Swiss Franc vs. Euro Exchange Rate

by Ben Foster and Caleb Pietrafesa

On Tuesday September 6^th, 2011 the Swiss National Bank set a ceiling of 1.2 Francs per euro in order to weaken the currency and avoid “deflationary development.”[1] The Swiss economy was in danger of “massive overvaluation” due to the major inflow of capital.[2] The Swiss currency and its economy is considered economically stable and low-risk, therefore investors moved their assets into Swiss investments in order to avoid the current volatility in the global market. The Swiss National Bank was adamant in its statement that it would not allow Swiss currency to appreciate further and risk hurting the economy, saying that it is willing to purchase “unlimited quantities” of foreign currency.[3]

The depreciated currency will not only benefit the Swiss economy by making Swiss products more appealing to foreigners and therefore increase exports, it will also benefit the citizens of many countries such as Hungary and Poland who are in massive debt to Switzerland.[4] Households in these countries are indebted in the Swiss franc, and because of the ceiling they will have to pay back a lesser value as well as a lower real interest rate due to the weaker purchasing power of the Swiss Franc.[5] This will stimulate both the Swiss and other countries’ economies avoiding the dip in economic activity that Switzerland would have faced had its currency continued to appreciate due to the increase in demand for the currency.

Switzerland’s attempt to sidestep the danger of “deflationary development” by implementing the ceiling on the currency is a bold and well thought out strategy. The devaluation of its currency should effectively stimulate exports and keep its currency affordable in foreign markets. The positive impact the weakened currency will have on the Swiss market as well as the markets of other European countries affirms the accuracy of the Swiss National Bank’s decision. So far in the first few months of Switzerland’s new monetary policy, the Central Bank has been successful in depreciating the Swiss Franc as the overvalued currency has weakened in comparison to the Euro and US dollar causing foreign investors to diversify their assets selling off Swiss Francs in order to do so.[6] This depreciation will continue and ensure that exports will remain high and thus Switzerland’s economic growth will not be hindered, as the overvaluation of the Swiss Franc will have been avoided.

Bibliography

Ball, Deborah. “Switzerland Caps Franc - WSJ.com”, September 7, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904900904576553923594598048.html.

Jolly, David. “Swiss Central Bank Acts to Put a Cap on Franc’s Rise.” The New York Times, September 6, 2011, sec. Business Day / Global Business. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/business/global/swiss-franc.html.

Kruk, Marynia. “Swiss Franc Ceiling Sends Zloty, Forint Surging - Emerging Europe Real Time - WSJ”, September 6, 2011. http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/09/06/swiss-franc-ceiling-sends-zloty-forint-surging/.

Meaken, Lucy. “Swiss Franc Strengthens Against Euro as Currency Cap Speculation Recedes - Bloomberg”, October 12, 2011. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-12/swiss-franc-strengthens-versus-euro-as-currency-cap-speculation-recedes.html.

“Swiss franc depreciation continues - still heavily overvalued as compared to the Euro and the Dollar”, August 27, 2011. http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2011/08/27/swiss-franc-depreciates-further-still-heavily-overvalued-as-compared-to-the-euro-and-the-dollar?blog=13.

---

[1] David Jolly, “Swiss Central Bank Acts to Put a Cap on Franc’s Rise,” The New York Times, September 6, 2011, sec. Business Day / Global Business, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/business/global/swiss-franc.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Marynia Kruk, “Swiss Franc Ceiling Sends Zloty, Forint Surging - Emerging Europe Real Time - WSJ”, September 6, 2011, http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2011/09/06/swiss-franc-ceiling-sends-zloty-forint-surging/.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “Swiss franc depreciation continues - still heavily overvalued as compared to the Euro and the Dollar”, August 27, 2011, http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2011/08/27/swiss-franc-depreciates-further-still-heavily-overvalued-as-compared-to-the-euro-and-the-dollar?blog=13.

US Trade Treaties with South Korea, Colombia and Panama

by Josh Kim and Fis Tang

On October 12, U.S. Congress passed free-trade-agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The accords, reached under President George W. Bush and revised by the Obama administration, had been stalled in a stalemate with Republicans over aid for workers who lose their jobs to foreign competition. The benefits are commercially significant: 87% of the Colombian tariffs on US products will be eliminated within five years; in case of South Korea, nearly 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products would become duty free within three years and most remaining tariffs will be eliminated within 10 years; over 87 percent of U.S. exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately, with remaining tariffs phased out over ten years. The agreements would also take steps to better protect intellectual property and improve access for American investors in those countries.

As a result, the US Department of Commerce estimates that the US-Colombia Trade promotion Agreement will bring about a 2.6 billion GDP increase as well as opportunities and jobs for the service and good providers. As the upcoming EU-Colombia and Canada-Colombia FTA will come into effect soon, it becomes crucial to maintain U.S. market share in the Colombia market, which imports more U.S. goods than does Spain, Indonesia and even Russia. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the reduction of Korean tariffs and tariff-rate quotas on goods alone would add $10 billion to $12 billion to annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product and around $10 billion to annual merchandise exports to Korea.

Overall, implementing the Free Trade Agreements allows the US to engage in trade with minimum dead-weight-loss created by tariffs and other intervening measures. Under a free trade policy, prices become the reflection of supply and demand and the sole determinant in resource allocation – further decreasing the costs of goods and services to both producers and consumers.

Bibliography

“Done Deal”, The Economist Online, Oct 11th 2011, 2:46

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/10/economist-asks-0

M. Angeles Villarreal, “The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Economic and Political Implications”, Congress Research Service, April 16, 2010

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/142763.pdf

Kevin Gallagher, “Trading Away Development: The US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement”, Truthout, Tuesday 4 October 2011

http://truth-out.org/trading-away-development-us-colombia-free-trade-agreement/1317748475

“Benefits from the U.S.‐Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement”, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, August 2011

http://www.trade.gov/fta/colombia/

“Korea - U.S. Free Trade Agreement”, Executive Office of the President, Office of the United States Trade Representative, October 2011

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta

“Panama Trade Promotion Agreement”, Executive Office of the President, Office of the United States Trade Representative, October 2011

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/panama-tpa

Eric Martin and William McQuillen, “Congress Begins Debate on Korea, Colombia, Panama Trade Accords”, Bloomberg Businessweek, October 12, 2011

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-12/congress-begins-debate-on-korea-colombia-panama-trade-accords.html

“Benefits Of The U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement”, Executive Office of the President, Office of the United States Trade Representative, October 2011

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/panama_trade_agreement_benefits.pdf

“Congress passes free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama”, Business, The Washington Post with Bloomberg, October 12^nd ,2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/worldbusiness/congress-prepares-to-vote-on-free-trade-agreements-with-south-korea-colombia-and-panama/2011/10/12/gIQAF1IdeL_story.html

Senator Schumer's Tariff Proposal Against the Yuan

by Molly Gibson and Matt Wappler

The U.S. Senate recently passed a bill to put a high tariff on Chinese imports until the Chinese government allows its currency to be market determined. China has been manipulating the exchange rate to keep the yuan undervalued, and thus has an unfair advantage in the world trade market. This advantage occurs because the undervalued yuan makes Chinese goods cheaper for foreigners and thus increases the amount that China exports. This has cost the United States billions of dollars in lost exports over the years. The idea of the tariff is to even out the playing field, giving a boost to American businesses and decreasing domestic unemployment. According to Ben Bernanke, the value of the yuan is slowing economic recovery worldwide. [1] This is because China is unfairly luring trade away from countries with fair, market-determined exchange rates.

Although the undervalued yuan is detrimental to the U.S. economy, many people are skeptical that a tariff will fix the situation. China spends $1 to $2 billion a day to keep its currency undervalued between twenty and thirty percent.[2] A tariff of 27.5% on Chinese imports sounds promising, but it is unlikely that the House will pass the bill. The U.S. government is afraid of starting a trade war with China that will ultimately be more detrimental to American trade than the undervalued currency; U.S. manufacturers who operate in China are skeptical. Senator Schumer argues that China depends on the U.S. to import its goods more than the U.S. depends on China, and therefore the benefits of the tariff outweigh the costs.

The undervalued yuan is detrimental to the US economy and to worldwide recovery. Therefore, China should be punished for manipulating the exchange rate, and this action will encourage the Chinese government to let it become market determined. However, a tariff of 27.5% may be too harsh and cause a trade war between the US and China—which would only further worsen economic conditions. With this being said, a lower tariff rate may be more acceptable. If the U.S. taxed Chinese imports at a lower rate, such as 15%, it would encourage the Chinese government to let the yuan float without inciting the Chinese to retaliate in a trade war.

Sources

“Bipartisan Support For China Tariffs Ahead Of Vote : NPR”, n.d., http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141097564/bipartisan-support-for-china-tariffs-ahead-of-vote.

“Schumer to revive China tariff legislation - MarketWatch”, n.d., http://www.marketwatch.com/story/schumer-to-revive-china-tariff-legislation-2011-01-16.

“Senate Nears Approval of Measure to Punish China Over Currency Manipulation - NYTimes.com”, n.d., http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/business/senate-nears-approval-of-measure-to-punish-china-over-currency-manipulation.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all.

---

[1] “Bipartisan Support For China Tariffs Ahead Of Vote : NPR”, n.d., http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141097564/bipartisan-support-for-china-tariffs-ahead-of-vote.

[2] Ibid.

China's Exchange Rate Manipulation

by Ben Della Rocca and Jennie Mu

For the past few years, China has been taking serious measures to keep its currency undervalued in relation to the United States dollar. China is currently the largest holder of US Treasury bonds: the People’s Bank of China possessed 1.1735 trillion US dollars in bonds as of July 2011. In addition to buying a large amount of US Treasury bonds, the Chinese government has implemented a policy that requires all its companies to exchange the US dollars they receive in the foreign exchange market for the Chinese Yuan. In this way, the Chinese government is manipulating its currency by increasing the supply of the Yuan, making the Yuan less scarce and thus lowering its exchange rate—the price of the Yuan in other currencies.

Other nations, particularly the United States and Japan, condemn China for its currency manipulation. By continuously devaluing the Yuan, China ensures that it maintains a large trade surplus with other nations. Keeping its currency cheap makes Chinese exports cheaper to foreign consumers. Such low export prices ensure that Chinese exports always remain high and that foreign firms cannot compete in prices, creating a significant trade imbalance. This trade imbalance has caused problems for nations like the United States by perpetuating the high unemployment and low economic growth already plaguing the country. Since firms of countries like the United States cannot sell exports at the same prices as China, foreigners do not import from the United States and aggregate demand for United States products remains low.

Truthfully China has allowed its currency to appreciate somewhat in recent years. But given the massive amount of demand for the Yuan illustrated by the United States’ trade deficit with China, the Yuan should have appreciated much more had China’s government not intervened. In light of this fact, the United States Senate passed a bill this past week that increases tariffs on Chinese goods to correct the artificially made trade imbalance; this decision was a good one. The Chinese government ultimately should not be intervening in the foreign exchange market in its own self interest when doing so causes significant harm to the United States, Japan, and other nations—such actions go against World Trade Organization agreements.

Sources

“China calls for firm opposition to U.S. legislation scapegoating yuan policy.” Xinhua, October 12, 2011. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-10/12/c_131187721.htm.

Eckert, Paul. “Senate passes China yuan bill, House fate unclear | Reuters.” Reuters, October 12, 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/12/us-usa-china-idUSTRE79A5AO20111012.

“Idea of the Day: Tackling China’s Exchange Rate Issue Isn’t Enough.” Center for American Progress, October 7, 2011. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ideas/2011/10/100711.html.

McQuillen, William and Eric Martin. “Senate Triggers China Backlash as Bill Targets Yuan’s Value - Businessweek.” Busnessweek, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-12/senate-triggers-china-backlash-as-bill-targets-yuan-s-value.html.

Department of the Treasury/Federal Reserve Board. “Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities.” September 16, 2011, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt.

Obama's Jobs Proposal

by Harris Weber and Curtis Kwan

In September 2011, President Obama introduced a 447 billion dollar package of tax cuts and new government spending in an attempt to create more jobs and stimulate the economy. Although this package would help stimulate the economy, the government must find a way to pay for the increase in government spending. As a result, the “Buffett” rule was included in the proposal and this rule would increase taxes on millionaires. This package is equivalent to almost 3% of the GDP and therefore should have a large impact on the 2012 economy[1].

By decreasing taxes and increasing government spending, President Obama is trying to increase the aggregate demand. Government spending increases the aggregate demand directly, while tax cuts take an indirect route by affecting consumption. Therefore, by using this expansionary fiscal policy, aggregate demand increases. Since aggregate demand increases, price levels increase, thus increasing the inflation rate. The increase in aggregate demand should lead to an increase in production, so firms will create jobs, and as shown on a Phillips curve graph, when inflation increases along the curve, unemployment decreases. Since unemployment decreases, the current proposal should be effective in generating new jobs and stimulating the economy. Jobs are also created because the government spending is being used primarily on public works, such as highways and infrastructure. This type of spending directly increases jobs, because people are needed in order to build these structures. However, there are also negatives to Obama’s job proposals. Although in theory the decrease in taxes will lead to an increase in demand and thus increase jobs, firms might still be hesitant. Because of the recent recession, the future economic conditions, such as real GDP growth, are uncertain. Since firms cannot predict future economic conditions, they will be more likely to save their tax cut dollars than hire more workers[2]. As a result, Obama’s job proposal plan may not be as effective as planned.

Congress should pass Obama’s job proposal, because in order to increase jobs, the government must increase aggregate demand. Although, as mentioned above, the tax cuts might prove to be ineffective, the government spending will nonetheless create some jobs and overall, will help improve the economic conditions in the United States. Since this proposal should create jobs, Congress should pass the bill.

Sources

1. “Breaking Down President Obama’s Jobs Plan : Innovation :: American Express OPEN Forum”, n.d. http://www.openforum.com/articles/breaking-down-president-obamas-jobs-plan.

2. Cooper, Helene. "Obama Offers Plan to Cut Deficit by Over $3 Trillion." Obama Deficit Plan Cuts Entitlements and Raises Tax on Rich. New York Times, 18 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. .

3. Landler, Mark. "Obama Challenges Congress on Job Plan." Obama, in Speech to Congress, Offers Plan for Economy. New York Times, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. .

4. Izzo, Phil. "Economists React: Gauging Impact of Obama Jobs Proposal." http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/08/economists-react-gauging-impact-of-obama-jobs-proposal/, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011. .

---

[1] Phil Izzo, "Economists React: Gauging Impact of Obama Jobs Proposal." http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/08/economists-react-gauging-impact-of-obama-jobs-proposal/, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.

[2] “Breaking Down President Obama’s Jobs Plan : Innovation :: American Express OPEN Forum.”