Sunday, May 14, 2017

How to handle a computer hack such as RANSOMWARE Virus - Financial Times

How to handle a computer hack such as RANSOMWARE Virus
Sometimes a hack is obvious. When Sony Pictures employees arrived at work on the morning of November 24, 2014 they found their computers were inoperable and the screens displayed a creepy-looking red skull with the message: “Hacked by #GOP”. 
More often, attacks are harder to recognise. For TalkTalk, the UK telecoms company that discovered on October 21 2015 that it had been hacked, the truth sank in much more gradually. Dido Harding, the chief executive, explained in a television interview two days later that by “lunchtime all we knew was that our website was running slowly and that we had the indications of a hacker trying to attack us”. 
It took TalkTalk 36 hours after discovering the hack to release a statement saying it had been attacked and warning customers that their data may have been compromised — a delay for which it would later be criticised.
Most hacks follow warnings that were overlooked: emailed tip-offs, both internal and external, about a potential security risk that were never read, phone calls that were ignored. 
Richard De Vere, a consultant at cyber security company The AntiSocial Engineer, says he contacted TalkTalk about a separate problem two weeks before the hack was made public. He had discovered that several self-hosted websites that used the company’s talktalk.net domain were infected with malware and could be used to aid social engineering attacks, where criminals trick people into revealing confidential information. 
He felt TalkTalk did not take him seriously. “After a week of emails and calls, nothing seemed to happen,” he recalls. Frustrated with the lack of progress, on October 9 Mr De Vere published a blog making the matter public. TalkTalk’s head of IT then contacted him via LinkedIn and the company decommissioned the talktalk.net domain. 
‘Most of the time these calls are not serious’
Mr De Vere says he later alerted TalkTalk to the main attack. This time the company’s senior technicians were listening.
John Smith, who worked as a chief information security officer (CISO) for private sector companies for 14 years, says IT security professionals often do not give tip-offs the necessary attention straight away. “Most of the time these calls are not serious, but you need to pay attention every time,” says Mr Smith (who is quoted under an assumed name to protect the identity of the organisations he has worked for). 
Verifying that there really has been a breach can be difficult, says Tammy Moskites, chief information officer and CISO at Venafi, a Utah-based IT security company. Leaked credit card numbers, for example, can be checked. But if a mix of types of information appears to have been exposed — for example, emails, credit card numbers and passwords — it can be difficult to know for sure whether this is due to an attack on a company’s computer systems or if information has leaked in other ways. These include customers falling victim to a scam or another company, which stores similar customer data, being attacked.
Once the hack is confirmed, things begin to move very quickly. “This is the ‘golden hour’ where every minute counts,” says Jamie Saunders, who leads the UK’s National Crime Agency’s efforts to fight cyber crime. 
The company’s first call should be to its incident response unit — a dedicated team trained to deal with attacks. This can be an in-house group or an external company on retainer. Having an incident team makes the biggest difference in reducing the cost of an attack, says Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the US-based Ponemon Institute, a security research group. However, only 29 per cent of UK companies have formal written cyber security policies, according to a 2016 UK government survey. 
“Detecting [a cyber attack] early is key,” says James Hatch, director of cyber services at BAE Systems, who advises companies on how to defend themselves. “It could be the difference between losing 10 per cent of your [computers] and 50 per cent.” 
“You are trying to get everyone into the war room very quickly,” says Mr Smith. “You have a plan for this kind of incident, you may have practised it. But right now you are wondering if the right people are reachable. It always seems to happen at the start of a long weekend and no one is around.” Having 24-hour-a-day, seven-day a week rota for staff can be crucial, he says.
JPMorgan, for example, did not have a CISO when it suffered a security breach in 2014. Neither did Target, the US retailer, when it was hacked in 2013, exposing 40m customer records. The cyber attack against Sony Pictures also came at a particularly vulnerable time for the company, when a new CISO was less than three months into the job. 
“For the first few hours you are just trying to find out what happened. Are the hackers still in your system? Can you see data still being transferred out? Some companies panic and want to just pull the plug out of the socket at that point to protect their system, but you cannot simply switch off. It sends a bad message to the outside world and impacts business operations,” says Mr Smith. 
‘You are actually wetting your pants at this point. Your goal was to prevent something like this happening and that hasn’t worked. No one wants this kind of blot on their career.’ 
JOHN SMITH, A FORMER CHIEF INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER
It is reasonable for executives to be anxious. Both Gregg Steinhafel and Beth Jacob, Target’s former chief executive and ex-information officer respectively, lost their jobs following the data breach. The average tenure of a CISO at a company is a little more than two years, according to the Ponemon Institute. This is partly due to the fact that these professionals are in such high demand, but also due to job insecurity of those in the role.
At this stage, companies are often most concerned about making sure news of the hack does not spread. “You want as few people as possible talking about it,” says Mr Smith. “You call the CEO and tell him to keep his mobile phone switched on. You issue a gag order to everyone else.” 
There will be difficult discussions about which external bodies — from law enforcement and regulators to customers — must be told. “Nobody wants anyone else involved,” says Mr Smith. 
Another consideration is not wanting to let the hackers know they have been discovered, says Ms Moskites, the Venafi CISO. “If the hackers are still inside your system you may have to be creative about how you communicate if you don’t want to alert them.”
But complete secrecy may not be an option. If the cyber attack came from hacktivists who want to make a political statement, news is probably already leaking out. During the Sony hack, several Sony-related Twitter accounts were taken over and posted a picture showing Michael Lynton, chief executive of Sony Pictures, in an eerie environment, surrounded by skeletons and gravestones.
Most states in the US require companies to notify their customers, immediately or without unnecessary delay, if their personal data have been lost. In Europe, some countries, including Germany, Austria, Norway and the Netherlands, have introduced similar laws. EU data protection regulation, due to come into force in 2018, will extend this requirement across all member states. Under the new rules companies can face hefty fines for failing to disclose a loss of data. 
Even before the new rules come in, European telecoms companies are obliged to notify regulators about data breaches and if a company holds data on US citizens, it may be required to disclose the breach in the US. Disclosure rules in each US state differ slightly. 
“It is a potential nightmare,” says Antonis Patrikios, partner at Field Fisher Waterhouse, a UK-based law firm. “Companies are just starting to realise how complex this can be. It is important to think about your notification strategy before an incident happens. If you leave this to be decided when you are in the middle of dealing with an attack it can be a lot more complicated.” 
The company must also consider whether to call the police. Some 2.5m cyber crime offences take place in the UK each year, according to estimates by the government’s Office for National Statistics. “Almost every large organisation will have some kind of breach each year,” says Mr Hatch of BAE Systems. Only a fraction of these are ever reported to the authorities. 
“We are seeing companies that are more willing to engage us, but that is not the majority,” says Mr Saunders of the UK government’s National Cyber Crime Unit. “Some have had bad experiences. There are plenty of disincentives for companies on reporting. They don’t want PC Plod to come in and stop them from working. We are trying to become more sensitive to business priorities.” 
In the TalkTalk case, the police became involved immediately after the hack was detected, but there was tension over priorities.
“The advice we received from the Metropolitan Police was not to tell our customers,” said Baroness Harding, TalkTalk’s chief executive, in a testimony to the UK government’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee. “I totally understand why the police wanted us to stay quiet because they have a different objective. They want to catch the criminals. We had some constructive discussion with them … on how to marry the conflicting objectives.” 
Mr Smith admits he, like many corporate CISOs, believes pursuing criminals is a waste of time. “It is difficult to ascertain exactly where the hack came from — they are typically routed through so many countries,” he says. “Even if you found the computer that the attack was coming from, would you know you had really found the right people? If you have your business hat on you don’t really want to spend time on that.”
The company’s IT security team will be working around the clock at this stage. Some will have been in the office for 30 hours straight after the hack was discovered, surviving on takeaway pizza and strong coffee. 
The work will be tedious, often involving going through millions, if not billions, of log entries to find out exactly when and how the breach took place. 
The company should brace itself for unpleasant surprises — starting with finding out just how long the hackers have been in the system. “As you investigate you suddenly realise, ‘Oh my God, we were breached in April and it is now October — what happened?’” says Ms Moskites. 
It takes companies an average of 229 days — more than seven months — to discover a malicious attack, according to research by the Ponemon Institute. “It is not unusual for a problem to have been there a long time,” says Dave Palmer, director of technology at Darktrace, a UK-based cyber security company. “In one case we found that the problem had been there for eight years.”
‘You need a war room that has a washroom connected to it and a couple of sofas that people can sleep on. The team will bring in sleeping bags’
The way in which the company was breached may also be a surprise. Hardware that was not even considered an issue may have been the weak point. Mr Palmer gives the example of a law firm that discovered its video conferencing system had been compromised and had been livestreaming all the conversations to an unknown location from the boardroom for a week. 
Part of the challenge is keeping up security for an increasingly complex network. The IT team may have decommissioned old servers and simply forgotten to disconnect a couple. “It is like forgetting to get the old food from out of the back of the fridge,” says Ms Moskites. 
The attack may also have been embarrassingly simple. Former hackers themselves say that the skill level in many hacks is not high. “There is this joke in the hacker community that companies always say they got hit by an ‘advanced persistent threat’ to make it sound like it was something very complicated,” says Lauri Love, a British hacker who is accused of breaking into Pentagon computers and is currently fighting extradition to the US. Mr Love is now part of Hacker House, a social enterprise start-up that aims to encourage young computer experts to use their skills for positive ends. 
“There is a lot of code running on computers and some of it is kept up-to-date ... and some of it is not up to scratch. If you are persistent you will find it,” Mr Love says.
“It isn’t about Russia, China or GCHQ [the UK’s information security agency] launching outlandish, Mission Impossible-style attacks,” agrees Mr Palmer. “Mostly it is about routine, indiscriminate attacks.” Cyber attack tools can be bought on the black market by non-experts and criminals will often use these to target a wide range of companies, seeing which businesses are most vulnerable. 
In its review of the TalkTalk hacking case, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee noted that it was “no longer a defence” for a company to claim to be unaware of “established and in some cases routine” forms of cyber penetration. The committee recommended introducing an escalating series of fines if companies are caught out by basic attacks.
The average cost of a data breach is $4m, according to security researcher Mr Ponemon, or around $158 for each compromised record. In fact, the figure can vary considerably. Sony estimated in early 2015 that the combined cost of investigating its hack and offering remediation would be $15m, after recovering some losses from insurance. It will also pay up to $8m to settle a lawsuit brought by former employees whose personal data were stolen. 
By the end of 2015, according to Target’s financial statements, the company recorded costs of nearly $291m related to the 2013 data breach, including crisis communications, the forensic investigation and law suits.
The longer it takes to find a hack, the more costly it is to deal with. If a data breach can be identified within 100 days the cost to the company will on average be $3.2m, compared with an average of $4.4m to deal with hacks found after 100 days, according to the Ponemon Institute. 
TalkTalk has so far estimated that the October 2015 cyber attack will cost about £60m ($78m) to rectify. The company’s business has also taken a hit. Its pre-tax profit for 2016 fell to £14m, compared with £32m last year as about 100,000 customers left. 
TalkTalk's shares fell sharply in the aftermath of the hack and were down 30 per cent nearly a year later. The good news for companies is that the share price tends to recover relatively quickly following a cyber attack. 
Target, for example, saw its share price fall sharply in the immediate aftermath of the December 2013 attack. Nine months later, however, it had recovered. Even revelations that the company would have to pay more than $118m to settle lawsuits filed against it by banks, card issuers and customers failed to depress the share price. Sales growth and other corporate news gradually began to outweigh news of the hack. 
“People have short memories,” says Mr Palmer of Darktrace.
Insurance becomes a key consideration at this point. Insurance can cover the cost of the forensic investigation, the cost of notifying customers affected by the attack and even the cost of lawsuits. But companies must check carefully what they are buying, warns Sarah Stephens, head of cyber, technology and media at JLT Speciality, a UK-based insurance broker. 
‘Cyber insurance can cover the cost of dealing with the crisis, but not the extra work needed to fix the company’s security flaws’
“It can cover lost income from an attack, but not the longer-term impact on reputation,” says Ms Stephens. If cyber criminals transfer money from company accounts, this would not be covered by cyber insurance — but it should be covered under a different, criminal insurance policy. 
Documents leaked as part of the Sony Pictures hack suggest the company had at least $60m worth of cover at the time and Mr Lynton, the chief executive, told reporters the costs would be within insurance limits. 
Target was less lucky. Its cyber insurance policy will cover just $90m, less than a third of the costs. “They did have cyber insurance — just not enough,” says Ms Stephens.
After the hack, the company will typically have a serious review of its IT security. Meanwhile, the CISO, provided they are still in the job, will go on a shopping spree. “If you asked for $1m for a project before the hack and were turned down, you will now get $2m — no questions asked,” says Mr Smith, the former CISO.
“You do get more money. I have seen that quite a bit. But you have to move quickly because there are peaks and valleys in the spending and the further you get from the incident the more it will start to trickle off again,” says Ms Moskites, CISO at Venafi. 
Following the 2013 hack, for example, Target built a new cyber centre, bringing together all its IT security teams. 
But buying in technology will not on its own make companies safer. A complete change of tactics may be needed. TalkTalk is working not only with conventional security companies such as BAE Systems, but is looking for new ways to test its systems.
Mr Love of Hacker House says companies need to go back to basics. For example, they should review how reliant they are on third-party code they have not written themselves, which is probably more vulnerable. Companies must also train employees to become more vigilant and suspicious of emails that look unfamiliar, he says. 
Collaboration with other security professionals could also be improved. One idea that companies are increasingly exploring is so-called bug bounty programmes, where the company pays outsiders who notify it of security flaws. Big US technology companies such as Google and Facebook have operated such programmes for several years. More recently platforms such as Bugcrowd and HackerOne have created places where any company can ask independent security researchers to test its systems.
“After the first week you have a postmortem,” says Ms Moskites. “But when is it done? Just because you fixed the inside of the system, it doesn’t mean it is over. There is brand reputation and possibly many people who are impacted.” 
The fallout from the Sony Pictures hack was widespread. Employees had their social security numbers exposed and will have to be vigilant about identity theft for the rest of their lives. Leaked emails caused embarrassment to the studio, fuelling weeks of showbiz media stories. It ultimately led to the departure of Amy Pascal, co-chair of the film studio. 
Nearly three years after its attack, Target is still dealing with lawsuits.
TalkTalk says it is starting to see customer numbers growing again, but the investigation into the incident is continuing. London’s Metropolitan Police has so far arrested six people in connection with the data breach, ranging in age from 15 to 20 at the time of arrest. The young ages suggest the hackers were cyber vandals rather than career criminals.
The FBI and US President Barack Obama officially linked the Sony Pictures hack to North Korea, although some security professionals say the evidence presented by the FBI was scant. There has also been speculation it could have been an inside job by disgruntled employees. No one has yet been arrested in connection with the hack.








Is there such a thing is Trumponomics ? - Economist

Trumponomics
Donald Trump's economic policy is based on a picture of America that is out of date

From the print edition, May 13th 2017
DONALD TRUMP rules over Washington as if he were a king and the White House his court. His displays of dominance, his need to be the centre of attention and his impetuousness have a whiff of Henry VIII about them. Fortified by his belief that his extraordinary route to power is proof of the collective mediocrity of Congress, the bureaucracy and the media, he attacks any person and any idea standing in his way.
Just how much trouble that can cause was on sensational display this week, with his sacking of James Comey—only the second director of the FBI to have been kicked out. Mr Comey has made mistakes and Mr Trump was within his rights. But the president has succeeded only in drawing attention to questions about his links to Russia and his contempt for the norms designed to hold would-be kings in check.
Just as dangerous, and no less important to ordinary Americans, however, is Mr Trump’s plan for the economy. It treats orthodoxy, accuracy and consistency as if they were simply to be negotiated away in a series of earth-shattering deals. Although Trumponomics could stoke a mini-boom, it, too, poses dangers to America and the world.
AKLHk4sCSNmIQaYuMbV1.jpg

Trumponomics 101
In an interview with this newspaper, the president gave his most extensive description yet of what he wants for the economy. His target is to ensure that more Americans have well-paid jobs by raising the growth rate. His advisers talk of 3% GDP growth—a full percentage point higher than what most economists believe is today’s sustainable pace.
His target is to ensure that Americans have well-paid jobs by raising the growth rate
The Economist
In Mr Trump’s mind the most important path to better jobs and faster growth is through fairer trade deals. Though he claims he is a free-trader, provided the rules are fair, his outlook is squarely that of an economic nationalist. Trade is fair when trade flows are balanced. Firms should be rewarded for investing at home and punished for investing abroad.
The second and third strands of Trumponomics, tax cuts and deregulation, will encourage that domestic investment. Lower taxes and fewer rules will fire up entrepreneurs, leading to faster growth and better jobs. This is standard supply-side economics, but to see Trumponomics as a rehash of Republican orthodoxy is a mistake—and not only because its economic nationalism is a departure for a party that has championed free trade.
The real difference is that Trumponomics (unlike, say, Reaganomics) is not an economic doctrine at all. It is best seen as a set of proposals put together by businessmen courtiers for their king. Mr Trump has listened to scores of executives, but there are barely any economists in the White House. His approach to the economy is born of a mindset where deals have winners and losers and where canny negotiators confound abstract principles. Call it boardroom capitalism.
That Trumponomics is a business wishlist helps explain why critics on the left have laid into its poor distributional consequences, fiscal indiscipline and potential cronyism. And it makes clear why businessmen and investors have been enthusiastic, seeing it as a shot in the arm for those who take risks and seek profits. Stockmarkets are close to record highs and indices of business confidence have soared.
His approach to the economy is born of a mindset where deals have winners and losers
The Economist
In the short term that confidence could prove self-fulfilling. America can bully Canada and Mexico, into renegotiating NAFTA. For all their sermons about fiscal prudence, Republicans in Congress are unlikely to deny Mr Trump a tax cut. Stimulus and rule-slashing may lead to faster growth. And with inflation still quiescent, the Federal Reserve might not choke that growth with sharply higher interest rates.
Unleashing pent-up energy would be welcome, but Mr Trump’s agenda comes with two dangers. The economic assumptions implicit in it are internally inconsistent. And they are based on a picture of America’s economy that is decades out of date.
Contrary to the Trump team’s assertions, there is little evidence that either the global trading system or individual trade deals have been systematically biased against America. Instead, America’s trade deficit—Mr Trump’s main gauge of the unfairness of trade deals—is better understood as the gap between how much Americans save and how much they invest. The fine print of trade deals is all but irrelevant. Textbooks predict that Mr Trump’s plans to boost domestic investment will probably lead to larger trade deficits, as it did in the Reagan boom of the 1980s. If so, Mr Trump will either need to abandon his measure of fair trade or, more damagingly, try to curb deficits by using protectionist tariffs that will hurt growth and sow mistrust around the world.
Trumponomics draws on a blinkered view of America's economy
The Economist
A deeper problem is that Trumponomics draws on a blinkered view of America’s economy. Mr Trump and his advisers are obsessed with the effect of trade on manufacturing jobs, even though manufacturing employs only 8.5% of America’s workers and accounts for only 12% of GDP. Service industries barely seem to register. This blinds Trumponomics to today’s biggest economic worry: the turbulence being created by new technologies. Yet technology, not trade, is ravaging American retailing, an industry that employs more people than manufacturing. And economic nationalism will speed automation: firms unable to outsource jobs to Mexico will stay competitive by investing in machines at home. Productivity and profits may rise, but this may not help the less-skilled factory workers who Mr Trump claims are his priority.
The bite behind the bark
Trumponomics is a poor recipe for long-term prosperity. America will end up more indebted and more unequal. It will neglect the real issues, such as how to retrain hardworking people whose skills are becoming redundant. Worse, when the contradictions become apparent, Mr Trump’s economic nationalism may become fiercer, leading to backlashes in other countries—further stoking anger in America. Even if it produces a short-lived burst of growth, Trumponomics offers no lasting remedy for America’s economic ills. It may yet pave the way for something worse.

Economist

Cooking up an economic policy - Economist

Cooking up an economic policy
Donald Trump’s strategy is unimaginative and incoherent

From the print edition, May 13th 2017
“IF YOU want to test a man’s character, give him power.” To those sitting across the Resolute desk from Donald Trump, Abraham Lincoln’s dictum was less than reassuring. In his first interview with The Economist since taking office, which was dedicated to economic policy and took place five days before the sacking of FBI director James Comey, Mr Trump already seemed altered by the world’s most powerful job. The easy charm he displayed in his comfortable den on the 26th floor of Trump Tower when interviewed during last year’s campaign had acquired a harder edge. The contrast then visible between solicitous private Trump and public Trump, the intolerant demagogue of his rallies, was a bit less dramatic. Perhaps his advisers—including Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin, both of whom were in attendance in the Oval Office, and Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, and Vice-President Mike Pence, who drifted in for parts of the interview—are succeeding in their effort to keep the freewheeling president to a more precise schedule. When it comes to the president’s economic policy agenda, however, it seems only one voice counts: Mr Trump’s.
Is there such a thing, we asked the president at the outset, as “Trumponomics?” He nodded. “It really has to do with self-respect as a nation. It has to do with trade deals that have to be fair.”

That is an unusual priority for a Republican president, but not for Mr Trump. The president has argued opposing sides of most issues over the years. But in his belief that America’s trade arrangements favour the rest of the world he has shown rare constancy. That makes Mr Trump’s apparent lack of interest in the details of the trade arrangements he fulminates against all the more astonishing. At one point he ascribed the faults he finds with the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to American officials being in a perpetual minority on its five-member arbitration panel: “The judges are three Canadian and two American. We always lose!” But an American majority on any given panel is as likely as a Canadian one.
Opportunism and gut feeling tend to guide Mr Trump's thinking
The Economist
His feelings about the failure of America’s trade regime show how opportunism and gut feeling tend to guide Mr Trump’s thinking. For almost half a century, he has sold himself a master negotiator. Rubbishing the government’s dealmaking record (which he, disdainful of geopolitics, reduces to the zero-sum terms of a property transaction) is part of that shtick. He is not merely cynical, however. An outsider who clung to memories of his father’s building sites in New York’s outer boroughs long after he made it in Manhattan, Mr Trump appears not merely to understand, but to share, the unfocused resentment of globalisation, and its hoity-toity champions, harboured by many working-class Americans.
The result is an emotional and self-regarding critique of America’s imperfect but precious trade architecture that appears largely waterproofed against economic reality. Having been recently persuaded not to withdraw America from NAFTA—a bombshell he had planned to drop on the 100th day of his presidency, April 29th—Mr Trump now promises a dramatic renegotiation of its terms: “Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive!”
Among Mr Trump’s economic advisers, perhaps only Peter Navarro, an economist with oddball views, and Stephen Bannon, the chief strategist, are outright protectionists. Most are nothing of the sort. Mr Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, and Mr Cohn, the chief economic adviser, are former investment bankers and members of a White House faction led by Mr Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, known as the globalists. So it is a sign of the issue’s importance to Mr Trump that all his advisers nonetheless speak of trade in Trumpian terms. “I used to be all for free trade and globalisation,” says an ostensible globalist. “I’ve undergone a metamorphosis.” Kafka, eat your heart out.
Notwithstanding the president’s concern for national pride, the main aim of Trumponomics is to boost economic growth. On the trail, Mr Trump sometimes promised an annual growth rate of 5%; his administration has embraced a more modest, though perhaps almost as unachievable, target of 3%. This makes Mr Trump’s ambition to mess with America’s trade arrangements all the more obviously self-defeating. A restrictive revision of NAFTA, an agreement that has boosted trade between America and Mexico tenfold, would dampen growth.
Toothsome morsels
Trumponomics’ other main elements are familiar supply-side tools. The most important, deregulation and tax reform, have been Republican staples since the Reagan era (see timeline). They are much needed; but they also need to be done well. There are reckonedto be 1.1m federal rules, up from 400,000 in 1970. Mr Trump has signed an order decreeing that federal agencies must scrap two for every new one they issue, which is laudable. He has also appointed as director of the Environmental Protection Agency a climate-change sceptic, Scott Pruitt, who appears not to believe in regulating industrial pollution, which is not. “I’ve cut massive regulations, and we’ve just started,” Mr Trump says.

The tax code, similarly, is so tangled that America has more tax preparers—over 1m, according to a project at George Washington University—than it has police and firefighters combined. The president promises to restore sanity by reducing income-tax rates and cutting corporate-tax rates to 15% while scrapping some of the myriad deductions to help pay for it. “We want to keep it as simple as possible,” he says.
A fourth element, infrastructure investment, is more associated with the Democrats, and equally desirable. Mr Trump and his advisers have promised anywhere between $550m and a trillion dollars to make America’s “roads, bridges, airports, transit systems and ports…the envy of the world”. A fifth ambition, to enforce or reform immigration rules, is rarely spoken of by him or his team as an economic policy. But if Mr Trump’s promises in this area are credible, it should be. He has launched a crackdown on illegal border crossings and also made it easier to deport undocumented workers without criminal records—a category that describes around half of America’s farm workers. Again, Mr Trump’s economic nationalism and his promises of redoubled growth are at odds.
Trumponomics, despite some tasty ingredients, is guilty of worse than incoherence. It also suggests a dismal lack of attention to the real causes of the economic disruption imposing itself on Mr Trump’s unhappy supporters. Automation has cost many more manufacturing jobs than competition with China. The winds of change blowing through retailing will remove far more relatively low-skilled jobs than threats aimed at Mexico could ever bring back (see article).
Mr Trump never mentions the retraining that millions of mid-career Americans will soon need. He appears to have given no thought to which new industries might replace those lost jobs. Nowhere in his programme is there consideration of the changes to welfare that a more fitfully employed workforce may require. Eyeing the past, not the future, he fetishises manufacturing jobs, which employ only 8.5% of American workers, and coal mining, though the solar industry employs two-and-a-half times as many people. Growth is good; but Trumponomics is otherwise a threadbare, retrograde and unbalanced response to America’s economic needs.
Where is this heading? The S&P500 has gained 12% since Mr Trump’s election, suggesting that investors believe his promises of growth and discount his crazier rhetoric. In recent weeks he has seemed to vindicate that confidence, preferring to moderate his views than pay a price for them. He was persuaded not to withdraw from NAFTA after his agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, presented him with a map showing that many of the resultant job losses would be in states that voted for him. Where once he railed against legal, as well as illegal, immigration, he appears to have been persuaded of the economic damage restricting the influx would do. Asked whether he still meant to curb legal immigration, he protested: “No, no, no, no!...I want people to come in legally...We also want farm workers to be able to come in...We like those people a lot.”
Bitter aftertaste
Yet this drift to pragmatism should not be relied on. On trade, especially, Mr Trump has deeply held views, sweeping powers, a history of intemperance and a portfolio of promises he thinks he should keep. The fact that he has not yet fired the self-styled custodian of those campaign promises, Mr Bannon, who is at war with the president’s treasured son-in-law, Mr Kushner, is emblematic of that bind.
Another reason for caution is that Mr Trump is losing control over those parts of his economic agenda, including tax reform and infrastructure spending, where he is largely reliant on Congress. Given how little of anything gets done on the Hill these days, this looks like another check on the president—one for which his own behaviour is additionally to blame. To pass ambitious tax or infrastructure bills would require support from the Democrats. Yet the president rarely misses an opportunity to insult the opposition party, including his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose health-care reform and regulatory legacy he is trying to dismantle. It is thus hard to imagine the Democrats voting for anything in Mr Trump’s agenda—and there are limits, the president concedes, to his willingness to persuade them to. Would he, for example, release his tax returns, as the Democrats have demanded, if they made that the price of their support for tax reform? He would not: “I think that would be unfair to the deal. It would be disrespectful of the importance of this deal.”
Trump is losing control over parts of his economic agenda, including tax reform and infrastructure spending
The Economist
The result looks likely to be no serious infrastructure plan and tax cuts which will be temporary and unfunded—the sort that Republicans, when in power, tend to settle for, and to which Mr Trump already appears resigned. Where once he claimed to see bubbles in the economy, he now says that a dose of stimulus is what it needs. If Mr Trump’s past brittleness under pressure is a guide, such setbacks, far from cowing him, could spur him to bolder action in fields where he sees less constraint.
Cooking up an economic policy
Donald Trump’s strategy is unimaginative and incoherent

From the print edition, May 13th 2017
“IF YOU want to test a man’s character, give him power.” To those sitting across the Resolute desk from Donald Trump, Abraham Lincoln’s dictum was less than reassuring. In his first interview with The Economist since taking office, which was dedicated to economic policy and took place five days before the sacking of FBI director James Comey, Mr Trump already seemed altered by the world’s most powerful job. The easy charm he displayed in his comfortable den on the 26th floor of Trump Tower when interviewed during last year’s campaign had acquired a harder edge. The contrast then visible between solicitous private Trump and public Trump, the intolerant demagogue of his rallies, was a bit less dramatic. Perhaps his advisers—including Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin, both of whom were in attendance in the Oval Office, and Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, and Vice-President Mike Pence, who drifted in for parts of the interview—are succeeding in their effort to keep the freewheeling president to a more precise schedule. When it comes to the president’s economic policy agenda, however, it seems only one voice counts: Mr Trump’s.
Is there such a thing, we asked the president at the outset, as “Trumponomics?” He nodded. “It really has to do with self-respect as a nation. It has to do with trade deals that have to be fair.”
That is an unusual priority for a Republican president, but not for Mr Trump. The president has argued opposing sides of most issues over the years. But in his belief that America’s trade arrangements favour the rest of the world he has shown rare constancy. That makes Mr Trump’s apparent lack of interest in the details of the trade arrangements he fulminates against all the more astonishing. At one point he ascribed the faults he finds with the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to American officials being in a perpetual minority on its five-member arbitration panel: “The judges are three Canadian and two American. We always lose!” But an American majority on any given panel is as likely as a Canadian one.
Opportunism and gut feeling tend to guide Mr Trump's thinking
The Economist
His feelings about the failure of America’s trade regime show how opportunism and gut feeling tend to guide Mr Trump’s thinking. For almost half a century, he has sold himself a master negotiator. Rubbishing the government’s dealmaking record (which he, disdainful of geopolitics, reduces to the zero-sum terms of a property transaction) is part of that shtick. He is not merely cynical, however. An outsider who clung to memories of his father’s building sites in New York’s outer boroughs long after he made it in Manhattan, Mr Trump appears not merely to understand, but to share, the unfocused resentment of globalisation, and its hoity-toity champions, harboured by many working-class Americans.
The result is an emotional and self-regarding critique of America’s imperfect but precious trade architecture that appears largely waterproofed against economic reality. Having been recently persuaded not to withdraw America from NAFTA—a bombshell he had planned to drop on the 100th day of his presidency, April 29th—Mr Trump now promises a dramatic renegotiation of its terms: “Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive!”
Among Mr Trump’s economic advisers, perhaps only Peter Navarro, an economist with oddball views, and Stephen Bannon, the chief strategist, are outright protectionists. Most are nothing of the sort. Mr Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, and Mr Cohn, the chief economic adviser, are former investment bankers and members of a White House faction led by Mr Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, known as the globalists. So it is a sign of the issue’s importance to Mr Trump that all his advisers nonetheless speak of trade in Trumpian terms. “I used to be all for free trade and globalisation,” says an ostensible globalist. “I’ve undergone a metamorphosis.” Kafka, eat your heart out.
Notwithstanding the president’s concern for national pride, the main aim of Trumponomics is to boost economic growth. On the trail, Mr Trump sometimes promised an annual growth rate of 5%; his administration has embraced a more modest, though perhaps almost as unachievable, target of 3%. This makes Mr Trump’s ambition to mess with America’s trade arrangements all the more obviously self-defeating. A restrictive revision of NAFTA, an agreement that has boosted trade between America and Mexico tenfold, would dampen growth.
Toothsome morsels
Trumponomics’ other main elements are familiar supply-side tools. The most important, deregulation and tax reform, have been Republican staples since the Reagan era (see timeline). They are much needed; but they also need to be done well. There are reckonedto be 1.1m federal rules, up from 400,000 in 1970. Mr Trump has signed an order decreeing that federal agencies must scrap two for every new one they issue, which is laudable. He has also appointed as director of the Environmental Protection Agency a climate-change sceptic, Scott Pruitt, who appears not to believe in regulating industrial pollution, which is not. “I’ve cut massive regulations, and we’ve just started,” Mr Trump says.
xIPypKbVQcK2GgL4cV4P.jpg

The tax code, similarly, is so tangled that America has more tax preparers—over 1m, according to a project at George Washington University—than it has police and firefighters combined. The president promises to restore sanity by reducing income-tax rates and cutting corporate-tax rates to 15% while scrapping some of the myriad deductions to help pay for it. “We want to keep it as simple as possible,” he says.
A fourth element, infrastructure investment, is more associated with the Democrats, and equally desirable. Mr Trump and his advisers have promised anywhere between $550m and a trillion dollars to make America’s “roads, bridges, airports, transit systems and ports…the envy of the world”. A fifth ambition, to enforce or reform immigration rules, is rarely spoken of by him or his team as an economic policy. But if Mr Trump’s promises in this area are credible, it should be. He has launched a crackdown on illegal border crossings and also made it easier to deport undocumented workers without criminal records—a category that describes around half of America’s farm workers. Again, Mr Trump’s economic nationalism and his promises of redoubled growth are at odds.
Trumponomics, despite some tasty ingredients, is guilty of worse than incoherence. It also suggests a dismal lack of attention to the real causes of the economic disruption imposing itself on Mr Trump’s unhappy supporters. Automation has cost many more manufacturing jobs than competition with China. The winds of change blowing through retailing will remove far more relatively low-skilled jobs than threats aimed at Mexico could ever bring back (see article).
Mr Trump never mentions the retraining that millions of mid-career Americans will soon need. He appears to have given no thought to which new industries might replace those lost jobs. Nowhere in his programme is there consideration of the changes to welfare that a more fitfully employed workforce may require. Eyeing the past, not the future, he fetishises manufacturing jobs, which employ only 8.5% of American workers, and coal mining, though the solar industry employs two-and-a-half times as many people. Growth is good; but Trumponomics is otherwise a threadbare, retrograde and unbalanced response to America’s economic needs.
Where is this heading? The S&P500 has gained 12% since Mr Trump’s election, suggesting that investors believe his promises of growth and discount his crazier rhetoric. In recent weeks he has seemed to vindicate that confidence, preferring to moderate his views than pay a price for them. He was persuaded not to withdraw from NAFTA after his agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, presented him with a map showing that many of the resultant job losses would be in states that voted for him. Where once he railed against legal, as well as illegal, immigration, he appears to have been persuaded of the economic damage restricting the influx would do. Asked whether he still meant to curb legal immigration, he protested: “No, no, no, no!...I want people to come in legally...We also want farm workers to be able to come in...We like those people a lot.”
Bitter aftertaste
Yet this drift to pragmatism should not be relied on. On trade, especially, Mr Trump has deeply held views, sweeping powers, a history of intemperance and a portfolio of promises he thinks he should keep. The fact that he has not yet fired the self-styled custodian of those campaign promises, Mr Bannon, who is at war with the president’s treasured son-in-law, Mr Kushner, is emblematic of that bind.
Another reason for caution is that Mr Trump is losing control over those parts of his economic agenda, including tax reform and infrastructure spending, where he is largely reliant on Congress. Given how little of anything gets done on the Hill these days, this looks like another check on the president—one for which his own behaviour is additionally to blame. To pass ambitious tax or infrastructure bills would require support from the Democrats. Yet the president rarely misses an opportunity to insult the opposition party, including his predecessor, Barack Obama, whose health-care reform and regulatory legacy he is trying to dismantle. It is thus hard to imagine the Democrats voting for anything in Mr Trump’s agenda—and there are limits, the president concedes, to his willingness to persuade them to. Would he, for example, release his tax returns, as the Democrats have demanded, if they made that the price of their support for tax reform? He would not: “I think that would be unfair to the deal. It would be disrespectful of the importance of this deal.”
Trump is losing control over parts of his economic agenda, including tax reform and infrastructure spending
The Economist
The result looks likely to be no serious infrastructure plan and tax cuts which will be temporary and unfunded—the sort that Republicans, when in power, tend to settle for, and to which Mr Trump already appears resigned. Where once he claimed to see bubbles in the economy, he now says that a dose of stimulus is what it needs. If Mr Trump’s past brittleness under pressure is a guide, such setbacks, far from cowing him, could spur him to bolder action in fields where he sees less constraint.
The extent of his rule-cutting already looks unprecedented. If Mr Bannon has his way, it will put paid not merely to outworn regulations, but to whole arms of the federal bureaucracy, perhaps including the EPA. Whether he succeeds in that will probably be determined by the courts. How far the administration acts on Mr Trump’s trade agenda is harder to predict, though likelier to define it.
Perhaps Mr Trump will continue to restrain himself in this regard. As the pressures of office mount, so the reasons to avoid a damaging trade war will multiply. China might offer more help against North Korea; or Mexico some sort of face-saving distraction from the border-wall Mr Trump has promised but is struggling to build. Don’t bet on it, though. Mr Trump is a showman as well as a pragmatist. His hostility to trade is unfeigned. And his administration, as the sacking of Mr Comey might suggest, could yet find itself in such a hole that a trade war looks like a welcome distraction.
Next section »

Economist 

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Comey, chaos … crisis? Trump enters new territory after most explosive week yet - Guardian

Comey, chaos … crisis? Trump enters new territory after most explosive week yet

Ill met by moonlight, a dozen reporters and cameramen peered into the darkness. Where was Sean Spicer? The press secretary had given a TV interview at 9pm then disappeared behind an awning, apparently conferring with colleagues. Journalists waited on the drive. The White House glowed behind them. “This is so weird,” one said. “It’s like hunting a dog and then killing it.”

A couple of minutes later Spicer emerged on a path running along a fence and hedgerow. He was caught in a blinding light and asked the cameramen to turn it off. “Relax, enjoy the night, have a glass of wine,” he said jocularly. Spicer then spent 12 minutes trying to explain why Donald Trump had taken the most explosive decision of his young presidency: axing the director of the FBI.

But the rationale that Spicer presented – that Trump had been acting on the recommendation of the attorney general and his deputy – was shredded by the president himself two days later. He had already decided that James Comey must go regardless of the recommendation, Trump said, because he was a “grandstander” and “showboat”.

The man who sealed his fame by telling reality TV show contestants “You’re fired!” had now done it to America’s top law enforcement official, creating a public relations catastrophe. Comey was only the second FBI director to be dismissed. Not since Richard Nixon had a US president fired the person leading an investigation bearing on himself.


Trump threatens ex-FBI head Comey with possible 'tapes' of conversations
Read more
That investigation is examining Russian interference in last year’s election with potential Trump campaign collusion. The removal of Comey prompted accusations of a cover-up, warnings of a constitutional crisis, and comparisons with the Watergate scandal that brought Nixon down. The president fuelled the fire by suggesting he had “tapes” of his conversations with the FBI director.

Even for Trump, the inveterate rule-breaker, it was outrageous new territory. It prompted anew the question: just how much is the Republican party able and willing to tolerate? “With an approval rating of 35%, he’s a liability in the 2018 elections, not an asset,” said Rick Tyler, the former communications director for Senator Ted Cruz, a rival of Trump in the party primaries. “At some point they’re going to have to tell the president: shape up or ship out.”

Less than a week earlier, Trump had welcomed dozens of Republican House members to the Rose Garden at the White House to celebrate the passage of a healthcare bill. It seemed to be a moment of respite, of getting on track, of making peace with the party. “Hey, I’m president!” Trump said. “Can you believe it?”

There was no hint of what was to come. Contrary to Spicer’s explanation, Trump had decided Comey’s fate long ago. He was, according to multiple US media reports, angered by the FBI’s director’s dogged pursuit of the Russia investigation, ease in the media limelight (FBI directors are supposed to keep a low profile), insouciance when it came to White House leaks and failure to back the president’s allegation of wiretapping against Barack Obama.

Sean Spicer in the darkness on Tuesday night.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Sean Spicer in the darkness on Tuesday night. Photograph: Carolyn Kaster/AP
Last weekend, it seems, Trump decided to pull the trigger. The Washington Post reported: “At his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump groused over Comey’s latest congressional testimony, which he thought was ‘strange,’ and grew impatient with what he viewed as his sanctimony, according to White House officials. Comey, Trump figured, was using the Russia probe to become a martyr.”

When he returned to the Oval Office on Monday, Trump summoned attorney general Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein and told them to make the case against Comey in writing. With Sessions having recused himself from the Russia investigation over his contacts with the Russian ambassador, it was left to Rosenstein to do the heavy lifting in a memo that cited the FBI director’s mishandling of last year’s Hillary Clinton email investigation.

On Tuesday afternoon, Trump called senior members of both parties to inform them of his decision. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, told him: “You are making a big mistake.” But the president went ahead anyway. There have been many political earthquakes since Trump was sworn in on 20 January but this hit a new spike on the Richter scale.

The crude method of dismissal also caused disquiet. Shortly before Spicer’s manoeuvres in the dark on Tuesday night, the FBI director had been addressing staff in Los Angeles when news of his termination flashed up on TV screens. At first he laughed, thinking it was a prank, the New York Times reported, but then his staff intervened, he stopped speaking and, in a side office, learned it was no joke.

Analysis 'You are terminated.' The three letters that ended James Comey's career
Read the letter Donald Trump sent to the FBI boss, as well as those from Trump’s attorney general and his deputy, plus our explanatory notes
Read more
When the Guardian asked Spicer why the dismissal had not been done in person or by phone, as is customary in most walks of life, he said only that a message had been sent by hand to FBI headquarters and electronically. Some commentators felt the rushed nature of the deed and basic lack of courtesy spoke volumes.

A political novice governing by gut instinct, Trump appeared to have made arguably his biggest misjudgment yet. He seemed to think that Comey’s unpopularity on both sides of the aisle (Clinton has blamed him for her loss) would make it a win-win for him; instead it was a spectacular lose-lose. He told Justice with Judge Jeanine on Fox News: “I guess I was a little bit surprised, because all of the Democrats, I mean, they hated Jim Comey. They didn’t like him. They wanted him fired or whatever. And then all of a sudden, they come out with these glowing reports. Look, it’s politics.”

Charlie Sykes, a conservative author and broadcaster, said: “It’s stunning they didn’t think it would be this controversial. It’s an example of his ignorance of American political history and the norms and traditions of the system.”

What he failed to consider was the Russia question. Reports emerged that Comey had been accelerating the investigation and seeking more resources as he became increasingly concerned about evidence of collusion. Democratic senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said: “I think the Comey operation was breathing down the neck of the Trump campaign and their operatives, and this was an effort to slow down the investigation.”

Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, told HBO: “If there was no ‘there there’, James Comey would still have a job.”

On Tuesday night, Democrat after Democrat lined up to use the word Nixonian and draw parallels with the so-called Saturday Night Massacre when, in 1973, Nixon sought to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor leading the Watergate investigation, triggering resignations and then Cox’s dismissal. Many demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into Russiagate.


Donald Trump's first 100 days: a guide to the successes, the failures – and the tweets
Read more
Republican elders were also dismayed. Bill Brock, a former labour secretary under President Ronald Reagan, said: “It was either way too late or way too early. The FBI as an organisation is sacrosanct in this country: non-political, non-partisan, with brilliant people working for it, and I hate to see it being dragged into this mess.”

The following morning, Trump lived up to his reputation for spectacle beyond the likes of Scandal or Veep. Of all the days, he hosted Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak. American media did not have access to the meeting but photos taken by a Russian state news media photographer were posted online. A White House official was quoted by CNN: “They tricked us. That’s the problem with the Russians – they lie.”

And then, when US media did gain access to the Oval Office, they found not Lavrov but a surprise visitor: 93-year-old Henry Kissinger, who was secretary of state under Nixon. It was either coincidence, or evidence of a particularly dark sense of humour.

The White House stuck to its line until Thursday: that Trump had fired Comey based on Rosenstein’s recommendation and because he had lost the confidence of FBI colleagues (many FBI members disputed this). But then the president gave an interview to NBC News that blew this out of the water. “Regardless of recommendation, I was going to fire Comey,” he said.

Startlingly, Trump also revealed that Russia was a factor in his thinking. “When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”

James Comey, the FBI director, had been addressing staff in Los Angeles when news of his termination flashed up on TV screens. He thought it was a prank.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
James Comey, the FBI director, had been addressing staff in Los Angeles when news of his termination flashed up on TV screens. He thought it was a prank. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP
And, Trump told NBC News, he had asked Comey – over dinner and in two phone calls – whether he was personally under investigation, and was told not. During the dinner, according to an associate quoted by the New York Times and Associated Press, Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty, implying a possible obstruction of justice. Trump has denied this.

As the story dominated the news cycle of what was supposed to be a quiet week, Trump reached for Twitter. He posted on Friday morning: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” The White House refused to deny that Trump had made secret recordings.

The Democratic response to the week’s events was predictable; that of the Republicans less so. Trump was, after all, an outsider who staged a hostile takeover of the party in last year’s election. His relationship with Republicans on Capitol Hill remains fractious. It could have been a moment to emulate Howard Baker, a Republican senator from Tennessee who, during the Watergate investigation, took a stand and asked: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

Indeed, in the first few hours, some critical voices emerged. Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said the timing and reasoning did not make sense. Senator John McCain called for a select committee to investigate and told security experts: “This scandal is going to go on. This is a centipede. I guarantee you there will be more shoes to drop.” Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona tweeted that he has spent several hours trying to find an acceptable rationale for the timing of Comey’s firing and could not do it.

But the centre held, at least for now. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, who have already swallowed numerous indignities for the sake of their legislative agenda, batted away calls for a special prosecutor and accused the Democrats of double standards.

Cabinet veteran Brock, 86, agrees. “I don’t think there’s any comparable situation with what President Nixon did,” he said. “The Democrats are clearly overstating the case. They said James Comey has lost all credibility. That is the height of hypocrisy and I find it totally repugnant. Let’s agree how we can move this process forward without playing the political card. I would welcome it if the president called for a special prosecutor.”

Conservative author Sykes described the Republican reaction as “a mixed bag”. He said: “It is significant the number of Republicans who are willing to distance themselves from the decision. There are some signs of cracks in the support.

“I’m personally disappointed in Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and I also think they’re making a mistake. This is going to be a distraction from the agenda and makes all their legislative programmes harder to get through. This has been the pattern: they’ve been willing to roll over because they think they’ll get their programme through but the price tag keeps going up. If it begins to dawn on them there’ll be a high cost next year [in the mid-term elections], that could change the calculation.”

The Comey firing led to renewed soul-searching in the conservative movement, which has ostensibly embraced Trump despite his uncertain values. Sykes added: “From the moment he was nominated, he posed an existential threat to conservatism. There was a time when conservatives would have been horrified at having a president who has so much contempt for the norms and traditions of government, or the separation of powers, or the rule of law. The fact they’re rolling over on this is defining test of conservatism.”

With a single, ill-considered and poorly executed act, Trump stunned Washington, sowed discontent at the FBI and inadvertently gave fresh impetus to two congressional investigations into Russia’s election meddling. It was a sobering reminder to Republicans about who they must wake up next to every day. They must live with the savaging of norms, the outlandish tweets, the profound unpredictability.

Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: “Their destiny is something they embraced when they nominated him because Donald Trump is not a conservative.”

In a simple message to Republicans, he added: “You clearly made an assessment his brand of politics, or whatever you want to call it, was worth the risk, and now you have to account for it.”

Voters are unleashing their anger at Republicans on issues such as healthcare at town hall events. A Quinnipiac University poll, conducted before Comey was fired, found Trump’s favorability rating at an all-time low of 35%. And by a record 54%-38% margin, voters said they would prefer the Democrats rather than Republicans to control the House.

Paradoxically, the healthcare bill that was cause for euphoria in the Rose Garden could, through its effects in stripping health insurance from millions of people, cost the party more votes than the Comey saga. Trump may then find himself running out of friends fast. Principles are one thing; popularity another.

Since you’re here …
… we’ve got a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever, but far fewer are paying for it. Advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

I read it fairly often and enjoy the variety of news and entertainment content. It never occurred to me that you wanted contributions, but I’d like you to stick around. Sometimes you actually have to pay for stuff you like. Go figure.
Mike L


If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure.