Providing the Prime Minister and the Government of Spain with information, analysis, studies or proposals that allow for the prevention and avoidance of any danger, threat or aggression against the independence or territorial integrity of Spain, its national interests and the stability of its institutions and the rule of law.

Der Spiegel reports that, as part of that mission, the agency is now investigating whether what it terms the “Anglo-Saxon media” (or English-language press) is conspiring to undermine the Spanish economy as part of its reporting on the potential downstream results of a Greek default. Although Spain isn’t facing the same debt crisis as Greece, it does have 19 percent unemployment, an over-reliance on construction for GDP growth and, reportedly, a mass of government debts not unlike Greece.

Citing unnamed sources, El Pais said the National Intelligence Center (CNI) was investigating “whether investors’ attacks and the aggressiveness of some Anglo-Saxon media are driven by market forces and challenges facing the Spanish economy, or whether there is something more behind this campaign.”

The Financial Times and The Economist are considered particularly critical of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s economic policies, and last week, Infrastructure Minister Jose Blanco all but specifically accused those publications of fomenting concern about Spain’s financial stability to allow others to profit. But last year, when John McCain called Zapatero someone who would “want to harm the United States,” no such investigations were started. Perhaps rather than investigating McCain, the Spanish decided to learn a lesson from his running mate and accuse the media of causing all their problems.

But then the Financial Times comes along to report that Citigroup suddenly hiked rates for as many as 15 million holders of cards it co-brands with retailers such as Sears. And Citi did so just months before provisions in the new law that would ban such a move take effect.

Citi isn’t entirely alone. Other card issuers have been gradually raising rates as well, in response to increasing default rates. But the FT said Citi’s hikes have been the sharpest. The paper cited sources close to the situation for its information, not any formal announcement of rate hikes by Citi.

Citi’s rate increases emerged on the day the government proposed legislation to create a new regulator with sweeping powers on consumer protection and a week after the bank was attacked by some politicians for raising employees’ salaries.

Holders of co-branded cards who failed to pay their balance in full at the end of the month saw their rates rise by an average 24 per cent – or nearly 3 percentage points – between January and April, according to a Credit Suisse analysis of data from the consultancy Lightspeed Research.

Citigroup told the FT that despite the fishy timing of the move, raising rates for no particular reason on millions of customers had nothing to do with a new law that would soon prevent it from such an action:

“We have adjusted pricing and card terms for some customers as part of our regular account reviews. This is an ongoing process to ensure we offer terms, interest rates, credit lines and products based on individual needs and risk profiles. [...]

“These changes also reflect the dramatically higher cost of doing business in our industry as we work to preserve the broad availability of credit.”

Yes, it’s that “availability of credit” argument again. For the past decade, whenever anyone dared to mention putting curbs on high interest rates for credit cards or mortgages, the lending industry always warned that any restrictions would lead to less availability of credit.

Things didn’t exactly turn out that way.

If Citi’s strategy of jacking up rates prior to a new law taking effect catches on, consumers with Citi cards would do best to vote with their feet and find another issuer who isn’t playing that game. But it’s not only consumers who might act. Citi famously remains the recipient of government largesse, and this new development has the potential to rank right up there with purchasing a luxury corporate jet right after being bailed out by taxpayers, in terms of public relations damage potential.

Maybe next time Congress takes on legislation to rein in the credit card firms, it should make sure its restrictions go into effect by the time the ink dries on the President’s signature — and not a minute later.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

YESTERDAY, we were more skeptical than most about the “populist” backlash against the $165 million in bonuses that went to some employees of government-owned AIG. The events of the past 24 hours have only confirmed our view. We don’t love the fact that the men and women of this disgraced company are insisting upon the compensation they signed up for before the company collapsed into the arms of the taxpayers. But whether they are being greedy, or simply human, is hardly relevant to what is in the public interest now. AIG’s demagogic critics in both parties should keep that in mind.

There is something to the argument that it’s in the best interest of the taxpayers and their money for AIG to do what it takes to strengthen the company’s bottom line — and if it means giving bonuses, so be it.

But at the Financial Times, of all places, investment editor John Authers takes another view: It’s wrong to dismiss the outrage. It’s genuine, and it highlights the fact that bonuses themselves represent a market failure that needs to be resolved.

According to the model of grief outlined by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, investors are in the second stage of a cycle in coming to terms with financial crisis. First comes denial. Next comes anger.

That anger is now everywhere and it is aimed at bonuses. While the UK tries to claw back the pension of Royal Bank of Scotland’s Sir Fred Goodwin, the US wants back the $165m paid in bonuses to AIG executives for last year. The amounts involved may be trivial given the scale of the crisis; the anger, however, is real and justified. It cannot be dismissed as cheap populism.

Going forward, Authers sees an opportunity to end the incentive structure that helped to create this crisis in the first place:

Basing rewards on one-year performance, with no ability to claw them back later, actively encourages the creation of bubbles. Pumping up gains on the back of excessive valuations, whether in internet stocks or credit, made total sense for anyone being paid this way.

When working for public companies, bonus recipients took capital from shareholders, who had no recourse when the profits backing the bonuses proved illusory.

While the going was good, the market failure was impossible to correct – anyone paying bonuses on a more long-term basis would have lost talent. But the current anger might force a resolution.

This might include a return to the private partnership model for investment banks. Partners would have a strong incentive to deter short-termist behaviour, and would be much more able to get their way than indirect shareholders.

Auther’s ideas are worth pondering, whether or not you agree. The Post, on the other hand, represents an elitist viewpoint that entirely misses the bigger problem. It’s true – the anger over the nation’s financial crisis often has descended into cheap populism, with banks and Wall Street as easy targets. But The Post and others dismiss as mindless an outrage that, while sometimes outsized, is based on something real — a system that has been deeply corrupted, to the detriment of just about everyone. You don’t have to be an elite to figure that out.

Brushing off the AIG backlash means more of business as usual. And people trying to save for retirement or college aren’t going to accept that anymore, regardless of how those in power try to rationalize it.

Der Spiegel reports on the shock that has rippled through the German-speaking world after Klaus Emmerich, the “Wolf Blitzer of Austria,” said on a TV talk show, “I wouldn’t want the Western world to be directed by a black man.” Emmerich has refused to apologize, arguing that “blacks aren’t as politically civilized” — but he did call Michelle Obama a “very good-looking woman.”

In Rome, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi asserted that Obama would have no problem establishing good relations with Russia because Obama is “handsome, young and sun-tanned.” In response to accusations of racism, Berlusconi called his critics “imbeciles without any sense of humor.”

El Pais, Spain’s leading paper, which has obsessively covered the U.S. presidential election for months, leads its “Estados Unidos” page with a long analysis of Michelle Obama’s election-night outfit.

And Le Monde of France calls Obama the first spammer president under the headline, “With Obama, ‘Yes they spam!’”

Take a look at these and other stories from the Old Continent. Bonus points if you’re bi- or trilingual:

Austrian Journalist Slammed for Racist Obama Rant (Der Spiegel International)

Gaffe su Obama, Berlusconi rilancia “Le critiche? Ci sono tanti imbecilli” (On Obama Gaffe, Berlusconi Retorts, “The Criticisms? They Are All Imbecilic”) (La Stampa)

El vestido de cambio (The Dress of Change) (El Pais)

Avec Obama, “Yes they spam!” (With Obama, “Yes they spam!”) (Le Monde)

Obama’s victory: a change the world should believe in (Financial Times)

Where’s Europe’s Obama? (Der Spiegel International)