Cramer: Mark Zuckerberg may have just saved Facebook from a government crackdown - Reuters

Cramer: Mark Zuckerberg may have just saved Facebook from a government crackdown

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did a "masterful" job discussing the impact of Russia's election meddling during the company's post-earnings conference call, CNBC's Jim Cramer says.

"I thought this was a masterful conference call," Cramer says. "It's a brilliant narrative."

Berkeley Lovelace Jr.

Zuckerberg's 'masterful conference call' provided 'brillant narrative': Jim Cramer Zuckerberg's 'masterful conference call' provided 'brilliant narrative': Jim Cramer

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did a "masterful" job discussing the impact of Russia's election meddling during the company's post-earnings conference call, CNBC's Jim Cramer said Thursday.

During the call Wednesday, the Facebook chief said the company plans to boost spending to police content, adding he is "dead serious" about preventing abuse on its platform.

That came after Facebook told lawmakers this week that Russia-based operatives published about 80,000 posts on the social network over a two-year period in an effort to sway U.S. politics.

"I've directed our teams to invest so much in security, on top of the other investments that we're making, that it will significantly impact our profitability going forward," Zuckerberg told investors during the call. "And I wanted our investors to hear that directly from me."

"I thought this was a masterful conference call," said Cramer, whose charitable trust owns shares of Facebook. "Why? Because he is basically heading off any possibility that they'll be a billion dollar fine [or] Justice Department investigation."

Protecting the Facebook community is more important than "maximizing our profits," Zuckerberg said on the call.

"It's a brilliant narrative," Cramer said on "Squawk on the Street." "Because what most people had been afraid of what that he was going to say he was going to boost security, but it would have no impact on earnings."

That would "make it absolutely chimerical," Cramer said. "It would make it so it is just a show."

Facebook reported third-quarter profit and sales on Wednesday that beat Wall Street's expectations. The company said later on a conference call that 2018 expenses would rise 45 percent to 60 percent. The stock was down 2.1 percent midmorning Thursday.

— Reuters contributed to this report.

Morgan Stanley: Trump tax cuts could create boom -- then a bust - CNN Money

Morgan Stanley: Trump tax cuts could create boom -- then a bust

by Matt Egan

November 1, 2017: 8:24 AM ET

President Trump argues the American economy "desperately" needs "massive" tax cuts. And there's no question that Wall Street is pumped about it.

Others are less confident that adding expensive medicine to a healthy economy is such a wise idea right now.

Morgan Stanley warned in a report this week that enacting aggressive tax cuts to businesses and individuals risks "overheating" the economy and causing stocks to "boom then bust."

The concern is that slashing the corporate tax rate to 35% from 20% could backfire by forcing the Federal Reserve to accelerate interest rate hikes. That in turn would raise borrowing costs for consumers and businesses, potentially unnerving the stock market along the way.

"Adding stimulus to an already strong economy likely stirs the Fed...pulling forward the end of an aging cycle," Morgan Stanley strategists wrote.

Content by Abu Dhabi

Does Abu Dhabi provide a model for the university of the future?

New York University’s campus at the crossroads of the Arab world could provide a new model for academia through adopting a rigorous international and multicultural perspective.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady plans to unveil his 1,000-page tax reform bill this week.

Ironically, given all the excitement on Wall Street about tax cuts, Morgan Stanley argues that "failure of tax reform" would be the "best" outcome for extending the economic and market recovery from the Great Recession.

Related: Is now really the time for massive tax cuts?

All of this contrasts greatly with the urgent push by Trump to enact aggressive measures for the economy.

"We desperately need tax cuts to put our people back to work," Trump told reporters on October 25 from the White House lawn.

To be sure, tax reform -- modernizing the sprawling and outdated system -- would be a smart thing to do for the long-term health of the economy. But that's different, and less costly, than the "massive" tax cuts for businesses that Trump has promised.

Trump's push for stimulus comes despite signs of strength for the economy. Unemployment fell in September to a 16-year low of 4.2%. America has a record number of job openings. Consumer confidence has soared. And the U.S. is enjoying the best six months of growth in three years.

"There is little precedent for large-scale fiscal easing at current levels of unemployment," Morgan Stanley analysts wrote. "Maybe this won't be a problem, maybe it will."

Other economists agree that it's an unusual moment to provide meaningful help to the economy. Normally, fiscal stimulus comes when economies are either in recession or struggling to avoid one.

Related: What to watch for in House GOP's tax reform bill

But Jeff Morris, head of U.S. equities at Aberdeen Standard Investments, isn't buying the economic hype.

"The economy feels like it's stronger than it has been, but still not great," Morris said. "We're a way off before we have to contend with the economy overheating."

Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen certainly doesn't sound like she thinks big tax cuts are needed right now.

In a September speech, Yellen said the job market is "generally healthy." If anything, Yellen warned that the labor market "could eventually become overheated" if the Fed doesn't keep raising rates.

All of this suggests that stock market bulls should be careful what they wish for when it comes to tax cuts.

Here’s What You Need to Know About Powell’s Fed Chair Selection - Bloomberg

Here’s What You Need to Know About Powell’s Fed Chair Selection

By Steve Matthews

November 2, 2017, 8:30 AM

Powell has backed FOMC’s rate hikes and represents continuity

Governor open to reform that lessens burden of financial rules

BNP's Dwyer Says Powell Well Suited to Carry Fed Torch

BNP’s Bricklin Dwyer discusses President Trump’s possible nomination of Jerome Powell as the next Fed chair.

Here’s what you need to know about Jerome Powell, who’s President Donald Trump’s pick to replace Janet Yellen as Federal Reserve chairman, according to three people familiar with the decision. A formal announcement is due Thursday.

What to Expect

Steady as she goes. Powell, 64, who joined the Fed Board of Governors in 2012, has publicly backed the central bank’s plan of gradually raising interest rates. His term is likely to represent continuity with Yellen, though Trump could still potentially tilt the Fed in a more hawkish direction with other appointments to the board.

Powell is rated as neutral on monetary policy by the Bloomberg Intelligence Fed Spectrometer, compared to Yellen as somewhat dovish. He’s never dissented as a governor, though no board member has done so since 2005. A survey of 30 economists in March found he was slightly more dovish than average Fed central bankers.

In an Aug. 25 interview with CNBC television, Powell presaged subsequent comments by Yellen that the softness in inflation this year was a “mystery” and said the low price readings allowed the Fed to be patient in raising interest rates.

“If the economy performs about as expected, I would view it as appropriate to continue to gradually raise rates,” Powell said in a speech in June. “Inflation has been below target for five years and has moved up only slowly toward 2 percent, which argues for continued patience, especially if that progress slows or stalls.”

Balance Sheet

Remaining on autopilot. Powell has endorsed the FOMC plan to gradually shrink the $4.5 trillion balance sheet, calling it “appropriate.” Market reactions to the plan “augur well for an orderly phaseout of reinvestments,” he said in June.

Powell had privately voiced skepticism of the third round of quantitative easing launched in 2012, but ended up voting for the initiative championed by then-Chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

Regulatory Views

Powell has been largely supportive of Dodd-Frank reforms following the 2007-2009 recession, while open to reform that lessens the burden on financial firms.

In October, he said “there’s a lot of room to address the burden” the Volcker Rule imposes on firms that aren’t in proprietary trading. While he wants to preserve gains from post-crisis reforms, “We can do it more efficiently. That’s the process we are actively engaged in right now.”

Why Trump Picked Him

Powell’s support for gradual interest-rate hikes -- which have helped support stock-market gains repeatedly cited by Trump this year -- as well as his bent toward easier regulation may have provided a good fit with the president’s views.

In addition, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin favored Powell, Politico has reported. “Powell has Republican credentials, knows the board and FOMC well” and “has impressed with his grasp of monetary economics,” Deutsche Bank Chief Economist Peter Hooper wrote in a report.

“Powell has established a reputation as a centrist on the monetary policy spectrum,” said Michelle Meyer, head of U.S. economics at Bank of America Corp.’s investment-banking division. “Powell is a pragmatist when it comes to regulation.”

Confirmation Outlook

Fairly smooth sailing. Powell -- a Republican appointed to the Fed by Democratic President Barack Obama -- has earned a reputation there as a non-ideological and pragmatic policy maker. He’s likely to get support from both parties.

Powell won Senate confirmation as a Fed governor first in 2012 in a 74-21 vote, and again in 2014 by 67-24 for a full 14-year term.

A lawyer by training, Powell spearheaded the Fed’s response to the 2014 flash crash in Treasury debt and the overhaul of the flawed London Interbank Offered Rate benchmark. He’s also been the point person at the Board of Governors for handling such unglamorous-yet-essential duties as oversight of the financial payments system.

Powell, who goes by Jay, served at the Treasury Department under President George H. W. Bush, eventually ending up as undersecretary for domestic finance.

A multi-millionaire -- his 2016 financial disclosure form listed assets of as much as $55 million -- he spent much of his time outside the government working in the financial industry, first at investment bank Dillon Read & Co. and later at Carlyle Group, where he set up the private-equity firm’s industrial group.

Trump's response to NYC attack in sharp contrast to Vegas massacre reaction - CBS News

CBS NEWS November 1, 2017, 7:25 PM

Trump's response to NYC attack in sharp contrast to Vegas massacre reaction

Last Updated Nov 1, 2017

President Trump's response to the attack Tuesday in New York City was in sharp contrast to what he did after the Las Vegas massacre.

It was one month ago Wednesday that a former accountant opened fire on a country music concert, killing 58 people.

In the days that followed, the president was clear it was not the time to discuss policy, CBS News' chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes reports.

"Well, we're not going to talk about that today," Mr. Trump had said during a news conference. "We won't talk about that. We'll be talking about gun laws as time goes by."

New York terror attack suspect: Who is Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov?

In contrast, within hours of Tuesday's terror attack in lower Manhattan, the president was vowing "to step up our already extreme vetting program" and calling for an immigration overhaul.

New details about the victims of New York City attack

"We're going to get rid of this lottery program as soon as possible," he said.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Wednesday it should not surprise anyone that the president is more focused on immigration.

"The president has been talking about extreme vetting and the need for that for purpose of protecting the citizens of this country since he was a candidate, long before he was president," Sanders said.

But the conflicting reactions to two tragedies angered some Muslim-American leaders.

"Why the hypocrisy, why the double standards?" Hassan Shilby asked.

The reactions also angered some Las Vegas survivors, who were lobbying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. They're pushing for legislation banning the kind of devices that allowed Stephen Paddock to wound 500 people in a matter of minutes.

"We knew that something needed to be done and we just assumed the country was behind us, and I think a month later we've seen nothing happen," lobbyist Jason Sherman said.

Despite some initial GOP interest, a Senate bill banning bump stocks has 40 Democratic co-sponsors but no Republicans. And the Senate Judiciary Committee says it won't even hold a hearing on bump stocks until the Las Vegas investigation is further along.

One month after the Las Vegas massacre, three victims remain in the hospital. One is in critical condition.

CBS News correspondent Carter Evans spoke with some of the survivors, who he says are bonded not only in tragedy, but also gratitude.

Straining to speak, her jaw wired shut and healing from a tracheotomy, Natalie Grumet's voice still resonates.

"I remember everything," Grumet said. "As soon as I got shot, the girl next to me, a stranger, she took her shirt off and pressed it against my face and said, 'Hold this.'"

In the ambulance, she was confronted by another stranger, also a victim.

"He talked to me the whole time to the hospital, very calm, (saying), 'You are going to be okay, Natalie. We're almost there,'" she said. "And he had been shot too."

Addison Short, 18, was enjoying the Route 91 Festival with friends until a bullet shattered her lower leg. A stranger made a tourniquet and carried her to safety.

"There is no way I would have made it out without the help of strangers," Addison said. "I am just trying to take it day by day and I am beyond thankful that I am still here and my injuries are something I can recover from."

As Grumet recovers in California with her husband, and Addison at home in Las Vegas, both say they want to honor the memories of the 58 who did not survive -- and the many others who risked their lives to save others.

"There's a lot of ups and downs every day, and I have a very long road ahead of me," Grumet said. "I don't know if the left side of my face will every work the same. But at the same time, I'm grateful to be alive."

"Just because there was one horrible human being that night, disgusting, despicable act," she added. "There are more kind loving humans out there than you could ever imagine."

Will the 25th amendment save Trump ? - NBC News

As Robert Mueller’s investigators begin to hand down indictments and President Donald Trump’s tweets grow ever-more frustrated, the 25th Amendment has once again become a topic of much speculation. But it will take more than a few viral thought pieces — or outspoken Congressional appeals — to make this liberal pipe dream a reality. This is because, like so many other Constitutional provisions, it is vague and broad. Presidential watchdogs can bark all they way, but without clarity, their bark will always be worse than their bite.

It doesn’t have to be this way, however: This is the moment to give the 25th Amendment teeth.

Briefly, the 25th Amendment allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to tell the President pro tempore of the Senate (Orrin Hatch) and the Speaker of the House (Paul Ryan) in writing that the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” If the President doesn’t agree, he has the option of telling the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, “not so fast, I’m fine.”

At that point, Congress acts as a tie-breaker and determines within 21 days whether or not the President is indeed unfit. If the President loses this review, he can continue to appeal the decision, forcing Congress to make the same determination over and over again. If this process sounds messy, that’s because it is.

For those who believe Trump has already proven himself “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” I hear you. But the legal standard in question is vague and has never been tested. Scholars and politicians have little guidance at the exact moment that they need it most.

In the absence of such guidance, some have worried that if we invoke the 25th Amendment based on mental illness, we could be setting a dangerous precedent. Put another way, people fear the 25th Amendment will become a partisan sword. Luckily, these fears are overblown. Let us remember who invokes the 25th Amendment — the Vice President and the Cabinet, both individuals hand-picked by the President. This is unlikely to be a group eager to usher the President out the door. And if, despite historical evidence to the contrary, the President's Cabinet does go rogue, Congress can still act as a safety valve.

Presidential watchdogs can bark all they way, but without clarity, their bark will always be worse than their bite.

As it is currently written, the 25th Amendment's biggest problem isn't partisan overreach. The real question is who or whom the Vice President and the Cabinet should look to and rely upon for a determination of the President’s fitness. Or, in the event that Congress must make a determination about fitness, who or whom they should look to for guidance.

Tempting as it may be, the “I’ll know it when I see it” standard isn't going to work here. As we have seen over and over again during the past few years, the one thing that seems guaranteed in U.S. politics today is that about half the country will disagree with the other half. Instead, we need to set up a committee of experts. This country is not short on mental health professionals. And because doctors, like economists, may not all agree, any panel should be as diverse as possible. That way, the final assessment is not made by any one individual.

Bottom line: It is time to put some meat on the bones of the 25th Amendment. Congress should enact a statute that provides specific guidelines and guidance in the event that the 25th Amendment is invoked due to mental incapacity. This statute would instruct Congress on how to pick a panel of experts, how many should participate, who should pick them, and what criteria they should apply. It could even dictate that the President be forced to submit to a psychological evaluation.

Now is the time to figure out how and under what circumstances we can use the 25th Amendment in the case of mental incapacity. While creating layers of bureaucracy should not be the fallback solution when interpreting broad Constitutional provisions, measures like the 25th Amendment are useless without clarity. How can we trigger protections if we don’t know when or under what circumstances they should be triggered?

The determination of whether America’s nation’s chief executive has reached the threshold outlined by the 25th Amendment should be one based on science and medical evidence, not politics. The best way to guarantee that happens is by ensuring that medical and psychiatric experts play a role in the process.

Jessica A. Levinson is a professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, and is the president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

Mueller and the fate of the American public - Financial Times

by Edward Luce 
There are two words for those who think the US republic is teetering: Donald Trump. There is also a two-word riposte: Robert Mueller. While Mr Mueller stays in his job, the US system is working as it should. Credit where it is due. The single-minded former Federal Bureau of Investigation chief was appointed as special counsel by Mr Trump’s administration. If a nation’s politics is judged on how it responds to alleged crime in high places, America is acting in textbook fashion. In the words of his biographer, Mr Mueller is “America’s straightest arrow”. He is entrusted with the integrity of the system. Yet the temptation for Mr Trump to fire him grows by the day. It would be hard to think of anyone more inoculated against a smear campaign than Mr Mueller. Unlike many of his detractors, he fought in the Vietnam war. He was wounded but voluntarily returned to lead his platoon in combat. He won several medals, including a Purple Heart. At the FBI he oversaw the largest mafia investigation in history, which ended with the conviction of John Gotti, head of the powerful Gambino family. A registered Republican, he was appointed to head the FBI by George W Bush — a job he began one week before the 11 September attacks. Such a record tells you two things. Mr Mueller is an all-American hero and he will not be intimidated. He cuts the kind of figure Mr Trump normally admires — a tall, square-jawed, patriot straight from central casting. That, of course, is why Mr Trump wants to sack him. Mr Mueller has that zealous G-man quality that sends shivers down White House spines. Whatever Mr Mueller’s investigation turns up — anyone who thinks they know where it will end is bluffing — the process is unflinching. Ask Paul Manafort, Mr Trump’s former campaign manager, who was marched into court on Monday to hear 12 criminal counts against him. Or George Papadopoulos, Mr Trump’s former campaign adviser, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Here is a public servant who actually believes in public service. Such virtues are normally celebrated by patriots. They are also what make it so hard to bring Mr Mueller down. The pro-Trump media are nevertheless trying to do just that. From Fox News to the Wall Street Journal, the goal is to pave the way for Mr Mueller’s dismissal by casting doubt on his objectivity. Their case rests on two thin reeds. The first is that Barack Obama asked Mr Mueller to extend his FBI tenure for the first two years of his presidency. That meant Mr Mueller was one of the nine agency heads, along with Hillary Clinton, who oversaw the clearance of the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company to a Russian one. Neither personally approved the transaction. Yet this notional overlap is exhibit A in the appearance of collusion between Mr Mueller and Mrs Clinton. The second is that Mr Mueller worked for a law firm that included several partners who gave money to the Democrats. Mr Mueller did not. Unlike the president, Mr Mueller is a life-long Republican. Mr Trump donated to both parties on many occasions. Should such standards apply, few prosecutors would make the grade. That is the sum of Mr Mueller’s alleged conflicts of interest. There is nothing there. But the campaign to tarnish his credentials is now the priority. From Fox News to the Wall Street Journal, the goal is to pave the way for Mr Mueller’s dismissal by casting doubt on his objectivity At this point two more words are relevant: Rupert Murdoch. Whatever doubts the conservative media baron had about Mr Trump are now forgotten. Any elected Republican who departs from this script would be risking career suicide. Mr Trump claims Mr Mueller is conducting a “witch hunt” against him. Mr Murdoch’s outlets clearly agree. They are thus rekindling a parallel witch-hunt against Mrs Clinton. My bet is that on this turf Mr Mueller is wilier than either of them. He has one job — to pursue whichever leads he deems relevant to the Russia collusion inquiry. He knows how to conduct an investigation. But it is Mr Mueller’s professionalism that most endangers him. The deeper he probes, the bigger the threat to Mr Trump. As the quip goes, Mr Mueller would indict his mother if he thought she broke the law. Did Mr Trump collude with Russia? We do not know. But in the course of his job Mr Mueller is examining Mr Trump’s business record, including his taxes. Mr Trump has said any inquiry into his commercial history would cross a “red line”. Mr Mueller is already doing that. He is playing a bold game. People in autocracies should watch him work. This is democracy in action. Some might say that Mr Mueller is putting “America First”. Alas, those two words may get him fired.