May 10, 2018
How restructuring Facebook lets Mark Zuckerberg make one of his favorite business moves
Zameena Mejia
Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer and founder of Facebook Inc., waits to begin a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees in Washington, D.C. Facebook announces major reorganization
Facebook announced its biggest executive restructure in its 15-year history on Tuesday as part of CEO Mark Zuckerberg's mission to "fix" the company. The change-up will move longtime Facebook executives from their current roles into new positions.
Zuckerberg seems to be employing a tactic he has endorsed in the past: promoting from within the company.
"Everyone who's going to be a VP or product group lead here really needs to earn that," Zuckerberg told LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman in an interview for the Masters of Scale podcast. "That, I think, ends up being really powerful for the culture."
Recode
✔
@Recode
Facebook is making its biggest executive shuffle in company history: https://www.recode.net/2018/5/8/17330226/facebook-reorg-mark-zuckerberg-whatsapp-messenger-ceo-blockchain?utm_campaign=recode.social&utm_content=recode&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter …
9:00 PM - May 9, 2018
Facebook's reorganization is meant to address privacy concerns as well as support its latest efforts to focus on blockchain.
Zuckerberg told Hoffman that drawing on internal talent has been an effective, long-held strategy for Facebook. "Making sure that people have opportunities to grow," he said, is one of his top priorities.
Chief product officer Chris Cox first started out at Facebook as a software engineer, for example. Cox's new role, one of the more notable shifts, will give him more responsibility over the product teams.
Vice president of social good Naomi Gleit started out as a marketing associate and is now among Facebook's most influential female executives. And former Paypal CEO and Facebook Messenger executive David Marcus will switch to the company's new blockchain team.
Friday, May 11, 2018
U.S. readies secret weapon in trade fight with China - CBS News
By RACHEL LAYNE MONEYWATCH May 11, 2018, 5:30 AM
U.S. readies secret weapon in trade fight with China
Fears of a U.S. trade war with China have focused on the threat of $150 billion in tariffs, risk to American industries like farming and potentially higher prices on a wide range of products.
But with U.S. and Chinese officials concluding trade talks in Beijing in early May without a major breakthrough, a broader effort with bipartisan support is gaining steam in Congress that could have a far bigger impact on relations — and on the American economy. The push involves increasing the authority of a government panel, little known to the public, that oversees foreign acquisitions of American companies.
Legislation in both the House and Senate seeks to stem China's access to U.S. intellectual property gained by acquiring and investing in domestic companies. Proponents of the measures say limiting Chinese control over U.S. players, especially in key sectors like technology and telecommunications, is a matter of national security.
"There is now strong support among both parties for curbing Chinese investment in the U.S., and for slowing or reversing the pace of technological integration between the two countries," Arthur Kroeber, head of research for Gavekal Research, said in a research note, adding that "the battle over investment has only just begun."
At the same time, President Trump has asked the Treasury Department to offer recommendations on tariffs by May 21, and that report may also include ways to limit foreign investment in the U.S. Combined, the initiatives represent the most aggressive government effort in decades to blunt the influence of a foreign power: China.
"Serious concerns"
In one stark example of unconventional steps the U.S. can take to target Chinese businesses, the Commerce Department in April imposed a seven-year sales ban on Beijing-based ZTE after finding that it had violated sanctions on doing business with Iran and North Korea. The telecom said Thursday that it has halted its main operations because of the move, which cut off access to key components, like microchips, made in the U.S.
Yet the bills wending their way through Congress -- both called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017, or FIRRMA -- could give the government far more firepower to disrupt foreign businesses seeing to operate in the U.S. The measures aim to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, a panel created by President Gerald Ford in 1975.
CFIUS, which includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, State, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, reviews individual acquisitions by foreign entities in the U.S.. And historically, the panel has blocked relatively few such purchases. That reticence is consistent with the long-held view of most American political leaders and economic officials that free trade, including investment from around the globe, makes for a more dynamic economy.
The legislation aims to better protect U.S. intellectual property in artificial intelligence, robotics and other domains by giving CFIUS broader authority to block foreign acquisitions.
"The acquisition of a Silicon Valley startup or even a health care provider may raise just as serious concerns from a national security perspective as the acquisition of some defense or aerospace companies, CFIUS's traditional area of focus," Heath Tarbert, an assistant secretary of the Treasury, said in April in written testimony before a House subcommittee.
CFIUS has already stepped up restrictions on foreign-based transactions, most notably recommending in March that Mr. Trump block a proposed $117 billion deal by Singapore's Broadcom for U.S. telecom parts manufacturer Qualcomm.
China is often accused, including by Mr. Trump, of swiping inventions covered by U.S. patents, trademarks and copyrights for everything from aviation equipment to software as it turbocharges its economy. Yet it's status as the world's second-biggest economy makes it an obvious market for U.S.corporations.
"It's tricky business," said Matt Gold, an adjunct professor of law at Fordham University and a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative for North America. "You can't stop all American capital from creating jobs overseas. And you don't want to stop all foreign capital from creating jobs here."
Jobs from Chinese money
Indeed, experts fear that tightening the spigot on Chinese investment could deprive American companies of an ample source of capital — funding needed to drive growth and employment.
Some 2.6 million U.S. jobs rely on the U.S.-China trade relationship, according to Oxford Economics, with at least 43,000 tied to direct Chinese investment. At their peak in 2016, Chinese companies spent $62.8 billion on buying U.S. firms, a roughly 100-fold rise from 2000, according to Dealogic.
Between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,500 deals have involved Chinese companies investing in the U.S., according to Rhodium Group. Chinese companies have made direct acquisitions in most U.S. states.
The U.S. companies in which Chinese firms hold large stakes run the gamut. They include technology giants such as IBM and Tesla; automaker General Motors; agriculture giant Smithfield Foods; and fast-growing startups such as Uber, Lyft, Snap, Grindr and Airbnb.
That tide of funding may soon slow to a trickle. With Treasury set to outline a plan to curb outside investment, the Senate bill has been fast-tracked. Analysts speculate it could reach the floor by August.
U.S. readies secret weapon in trade fight with China
Fears of a U.S. trade war with China have focused on the threat of $150 billion in tariffs, risk to American industries like farming and potentially higher prices on a wide range of products.
But with U.S. and Chinese officials concluding trade talks in Beijing in early May without a major breakthrough, a broader effort with bipartisan support is gaining steam in Congress that could have a far bigger impact on relations — and on the American economy. The push involves increasing the authority of a government panel, little known to the public, that oversees foreign acquisitions of American companies.
Legislation in both the House and Senate seeks to stem China's access to U.S. intellectual property gained by acquiring and investing in domestic companies. Proponents of the measures say limiting Chinese control over U.S. players, especially in key sectors like technology and telecommunications, is a matter of national security.
"There is now strong support among both parties for curbing Chinese investment in the U.S., and for slowing or reversing the pace of technological integration between the two countries," Arthur Kroeber, head of research for Gavekal Research, said in a research note, adding that "the battle over investment has only just begun."
At the same time, President Trump has asked the Treasury Department to offer recommendations on tariffs by May 21, and that report may also include ways to limit foreign investment in the U.S. Combined, the initiatives represent the most aggressive government effort in decades to blunt the influence of a foreign power: China.
"Serious concerns"
In one stark example of unconventional steps the U.S. can take to target Chinese businesses, the Commerce Department in April imposed a seven-year sales ban on Beijing-based ZTE after finding that it had violated sanctions on doing business with Iran and North Korea. The telecom said Thursday that it has halted its main operations because of the move, which cut off access to key components, like microchips, made in the U.S.
Yet the bills wending their way through Congress -- both called the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2017, or FIRRMA -- could give the government far more firepower to disrupt foreign businesses seeing to operate in the U.S. The measures aim to strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, a panel created by President Gerald Ford in 1975.
CFIUS, which includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, State, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, reviews individual acquisitions by foreign entities in the U.S.. And historically, the panel has blocked relatively few such purchases. That reticence is consistent with the long-held view of most American political leaders and economic officials that free trade, including investment from around the globe, makes for a more dynamic economy.
The legislation aims to better protect U.S. intellectual property in artificial intelligence, robotics and other domains by giving CFIUS broader authority to block foreign acquisitions.
"The acquisition of a Silicon Valley startup or even a health care provider may raise just as serious concerns from a national security perspective as the acquisition of some defense or aerospace companies, CFIUS's traditional area of focus," Heath Tarbert, an assistant secretary of the Treasury, said in April in written testimony before a House subcommittee.
CFIUS has already stepped up restrictions on foreign-based transactions, most notably recommending in March that Mr. Trump block a proposed $117 billion deal by Singapore's Broadcom for U.S. telecom parts manufacturer Qualcomm.
China is often accused, including by Mr. Trump, of swiping inventions covered by U.S. patents, trademarks and copyrights for everything from aviation equipment to software as it turbocharges its economy. Yet it's status as the world's second-biggest economy makes it an obvious market for U.S.corporations.
"It's tricky business," said Matt Gold, an adjunct professor of law at Fordham University and a former deputy assistant U.S. trade representative for North America. "You can't stop all American capital from creating jobs overseas. And you don't want to stop all foreign capital from creating jobs here."
Jobs from Chinese money
Indeed, experts fear that tightening the spigot on Chinese investment could deprive American companies of an ample source of capital — funding needed to drive growth and employment.
Some 2.6 million U.S. jobs rely on the U.S.-China trade relationship, according to Oxford Economics, with at least 43,000 tied to direct Chinese investment. At their peak in 2016, Chinese companies spent $62.8 billion on buying U.S. firms, a roughly 100-fold rise from 2000, according to Dealogic.
Between 2000 and 2017, more than 1,500 deals have involved Chinese companies investing in the U.S., according to Rhodium Group. Chinese companies have made direct acquisitions in most U.S. states.
The U.S. companies in which Chinese firms hold large stakes run the gamut. They include technology giants such as IBM and Tesla; automaker General Motors; agriculture giant Smithfield Foods; and fast-growing startups such as Uber, Lyft, Snap, Grindr and Airbnb.
That tide of funding may soon slow to a trickle. With Treasury set to outline a plan to curb outside investment, the Senate bill has been fast-tracked. Analysts speculate it could reach the floor by August.
Trump blasts "sleeping," "swamp person" Joe Donnelly in Indiana, as GOP hopes to scoop up Senate seat - CBS News
May 10, 2018, 6:48 PM
Trump blasts "sleeping," "swamp person" Joe Donnelly in Indiana, as GOP hopes to scoop up Senate seat
Last Updated May 10, 2018 9:42 PM EDT
With the heated GOP Senate primary over in Indiana, Republicans are launching into general election mode. On Thursday night, President Trump — accompanied by a laudatory Vice President Mike Pence — highlighted his administration's accomplishments, and made the case for more Republicans in the Senate.
The GOP is hoping to tap into Mr. Trump's popularity in the state — and into Pence's home court advantage — as it looks to scoop up the seat from Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly in November. Mike Braun, a businessman and former state representative who cast himself as an outsider in the GOP primaries, will face Donnelly in November, after winning Tuesday's primary. Mr. Trump spent at least as much time hitting Donnelly as praising Braun. Mr. Trump's audience — some of whom had been waiting in line since as early as 4 p.m. Wednesday, according to the local CBS station — was more than happy to boo Donnelly. Mr. Trump cast Braun as "winner" and Donnelly as "sleeping Joe."
"This November, Indiana will face an important choice. You can send a really incredible swamp person back to the Senate, like Joe Donnelly. Or you can send Republicans like Mike Braun to drain the swamp," Mr. Trump said, prompting a "drain the swamp" chant from his supporters.
Thursday night's speech was initially billed as a tax event, but Mr. Trump, as he has in previous tax events, veered off that topic. The president addressed recent news, like the return of the American hostages kept in North Korea.
But he also mentioned his election victory, and the campaign leading up to it. Mr. Trump, in mentioning historic low rates of black unemployment, recalled his 2016 comments in Michigan when he told black voters, "What the hell do you have to lose?" in voting for him. Mr. Trump also touted the unemployment rates for women.
"So you have African-Americans, Hispanics, women," Mr. Trump said in discussing the unemployment rates. "Women. Do we love women. Women."
The president also set his sights on his reelection campaign.
"Our new slogan for 2020, you know what it is? 'Keep America Great!'" Mr. Trump said.
He also took credit for stores saying "Merry Christmas" again.
"They weren't saying Merry Christmas. Now they're saying Merry Christmas again," he said.
Pence, who introduced Mr. Trump, mentioned the president repeatedly as he touted his accomplishments. The vice president called it the greatest honor of his life to serve Mr. Trump.
"He's a man of his word. He's a man of action. And how 'bout all the action this week?" Pence said.
Elkhart, Indiana, is Trump country. Nearly two-thirds of votes in the county, 64 percent, went to Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. It also heavily relies on manufacturing -- a sector Mr. Trump often praises, and says the U.S. is bringing back to life.
Trump blasts "sleeping," "swamp person" Joe Donnelly in Indiana, as GOP hopes to scoop up Senate seat
Last Updated May 10, 2018 9:42 PM EDT
With the heated GOP Senate primary over in Indiana, Republicans are launching into general election mode. On Thursday night, President Trump — accompanied by a laudatory Vice President Mike Pence — highlighted his administration's accomplishments, and made the case for more Republicans in the Senate.
The GOP is hoping to tap into Mr. Trump's popularity in the state — and into Pence's home court advantage — as it looks to scoop up the seat from Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly in November. Mike Braun, a businessman and former state representative who cast himself as an outsider in the GOP primaries, will face Donnelly in November, after winning Tuesday's primary. Mr. Trump spent at least as much time hitting Donnelly as praising Braun. Mr. Trump's audience — some of whom had been waiting in line since as early as 4 p.m. Wednesday, according to the local CBS station — was more than happy to boo Donnelly. Mr. Trump cast Braun as "winner" and Donnelly as "sleeping Joe."
"This November, Indiana will face an important choice. You can send a really incredible swamp person back to the Senate, like Joe Donnelly. Or you can send Republicans like Mike Braun to drain the swamp," Mr. Trump said, prompting a "drain the swamp" chant from his supporters.
Thursday night's speech was initially billed as a tax event, but Mr. Trump, as he has in previous tax events, veered off that topic. The president addressed recent news, like the return of the American hostages kept in North Korea.
But he also mentioned his election victory, and the campaign leading up to it. Mr. Trump, in mentioning historic low rates of black unemployment, recalled his 2016 comments in Michigan when he told black voters, "What the hell do you have to lose?" in voting for him. Mr. Trump also touted the unemployment rates for women.
"So you have African-Americans, Hispanics, women," Mr. Trump said in discussing the unemployment rates. "Women. Do we love women. Women."
The president also set his sights on his reelection campaign.
"Our new slogan for 2020, you know what it is? 'Keep America Great!'" Mr. Trump said.
He also took credit for stores saying "Merry Christmas" again.
"They weren't saying Merry Christmas. Now they're saying Merry Christmas again," he said.
Pence, who introduced Mr. Trump, mentioned the president repeatedly as he touted his accomplishments. The vice president called it the greatest honor of his life to serve Mr. Trump.
"He's a man of his word. He's a man of action. And how 'bout all the action this week?" Pence said.
Elkhart, Indiana, is Trump country. Nearly two-thirds of votes in the county, 64 percent, went to Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. It also heavily relies on manufacturing -- a sector Mr. Trump often praises, and says the U.S. is bringing back to life.
Margaret River shooting: Seven dead including four children in Australia's worst gun attack in decades - Independent
May 11, 2018
Margaret River shooting: Seven dead including four children in Australia's worst gun attack in decades
'This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest'
Shehab Khan @shehabkhan
Four children are among seven people found dead at a rural property Katrina Miles/Facebook
Seven people have died, including four children, in what is being described as the worst mass shooting in Australia in 24 years.
Katrina Miles, her four children, aged eight to 13, and their grandparents, were found at a property at the rural village of Osmington, Western Australia state Police Commissioner Chris Dawson said.
Two guns were also found at the property, but police declined to comment on the possibility of murder-suicide.
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Policeman shoots groundhog dead as it tries to cross busy road
13-year-boy shot while walking along London road with parents
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Ms Miles and her children had apparently moved to the property, owned by her parents Cynda and Peter Miles, about three years ago.
She had home-schooled her three boys and her daughter at their farm.
Ms Miles has been described by friends as a devoted mother and someone who “worked tirelessly to provide them with everything they needed”.
“I always admired her for her strength. The kids were kind, gentle, smart and beautiful children,” a friend told The Australian.
Authorities have said they are not looking for a suspect.
“Police are currently responding to what I can only describe as a horrific incident,” Mr Dawson said.
“This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest.”
Police were attempting to make contact with victims’ relatives, and have not released the names or ages of the dead.
Philip Alpers, a Sydney University gun policy analyst, said the tragedy appeared to be the worst mass shooting in Australia since a lone gunman killed 35 in Tasmania state in 1996, prompting the nation to introduce tough gun controls.
Australia’s gun laws are widely acclaimed as a success, with supporters including former US president Barack Obama saying Australia has not had a single mass shooting since they were implemented.
The generally accepted definition of a mass shooting – four deaths excluding the shooter in a single event – has been met only once in Australia since then, when a farmer shot his wife and three children before killing himself in 2014.
Farmers are allowed to own guns under Australian law because they have a legitimate need to use them to kill feral pests and predators or sick or injured livestock.
But automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned.
Osmington is a collection of a few streets, farms, horse studs, vacation accommodation and vineyards supplying the premium winemaking district known as Margaret River.
Samantha Lee, chair of the Gun Control Australia lobby group, said rural areas were over-represented in Australian gun deaths, including suicides.
“Regional and rural areas are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of tragedies, because of the combination of isolation, sometimes mental or financial hardship and easy access to firearms,” Ms Less said in a statement.
“Although the details of this tragedy are yet to come to light, Australia has a tragic history of higher rate of gun deaths in rural areas,” she added.
Agencies contributed to this report
Margaret River shooting: Seven dead including four children in Australia's worst gun attack in decades
'This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest'
Shehab Khan @shehabkhan
Four children are among seven people found dead at a rural property Katrina Miles/Facebook
Seven people have died, including four children, in what is being described as the worst mass shooting in Australia in 24 years.
Katrina Miles, her four children, aged eight to 13, and their grandparents, were found at a property at the rural village of Osmington, Western Australia state Police Commissioner Chris Dawson said.
Two guns were also found at the property, but police declined to comment on the possibility of murder-suicide.
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Policeman shoots groundhog dead as it tries to cross busy road
13-year-boy shot while walking along London road with parents
Four children among seven dead in ‘mass shooting’ at home in Australia
Ms Miles and her children had apparently moved to the property, owned by her parents Cynda and Peter Miles, about three years ago.
She had home-schooled her three boys and her daughter at their farm.
Ms Miles has been described by friends as a devoted mother and someone who “worked tirelessly to provide them with everything they needed”.
“I always admired her for her strength. The kids were kind, gentle, smart and beautiful children,” a friend told The Australian.
Authorities have said they are not looking for a suspect.
“Police are currently responding to what I can only describe as a horrific incident,” Mr Dawson said.
“This devastating tragedy will no doubt have a lasting impact on the families concerned, the whole community and, in particular, the local communities in our southwest.”
Police were attempting to make contact with victims’ relatives, and have not released the names or ages of the dead.
Philip Alpers, a Sydney University gun policy analyst, said the tragedy appeared to be the worst mass shooting in Australia since a lone gunman killed 35 in Tasmania state in 1996, prompting the nation to introduce tough gun controls.
Australia’s gun laws are widely acclaimed as a success, with supporters including former US president Barack Obama saying Australia has not had a single mass shooting since they were implemented.
The generally accepted definition of a mass shooting – four deaths excluding the shooter in a single event – has been met only once in Australia since then, when a farmer shot his wife and three children before killing himself in 2014.
Farmers are allowed to own guns under Australian law because they have a legitimate need to use them to kill feral pests and predators or sick or injured livestock.
But automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are banned.
Osmington is a collection of a few streets, farms, horse studs, vacation accommodation and vineyards supplying the premium winemaking district known as Margaret River.
Samantha Lee, chair of the Gun Control Australia lobby group, said rural areas were over-represented in Australian gun deaths, including suicides.
“Regional and rural areas are particularly vulnerable to these sorts of tragedies, because of the combination of isolation, sometimes mental or financial hardship and easy access to firearms,” Ms Less said in a statement.
“Although the details of this tragedy are yet to come to light, Australia has a tragic history of higher rate of gun deaths in rural areas,” she added.
Agencies contributed to this report
France vows pushback against U.S. sanctions on Iran - Reuters
MAY 11, 2018 / 7:21 PM / UPDATED 3 HOURS AGO
France vows pushback against U.S. sanctions on Iran
Reuters Staff
PARIS (Reuters) - France pledged on Friday to push back against the threat of U.S. sanctions against French companies doing business with Iran, in the wake of Washington’s withdrawal from the international nuclear agreement with Tehran.
The French government is seeking waivers and longer transition periods from the United States for companies such as Renault and Total, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said, while pressing for European Union measures to improve the bloc’s “economic sovereignty” in the longer term.
“It’s time that European countries opened their eyes,” Le Maire said on Europe 1 radio.
President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal risks exposing European countries that have since invested in Iran to renewed U.S. sanctions after “wind-down” periods of three to six months expire.
Europe needs new “financial instruments allowing it to be independent from the United States”, Le Maire said.
Germany plans to offer legal advice to help its firms continue to do business in Iran, Economy Minister Peter Altmaier also said on Friday.
France and Germany are among EU countries that had drawn up euro-denominated Iran export finance programs to resist U.S. sanctions. But the severity of Washington’s stance has raised doubts about their viability.
Le Maire said he had asked U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for temporary or permanent exemptions for French companies, citing carmaker PSA, drug giant Sanofi and food group Danone among those affected - in addition to Renault and oil major Total.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also toughened the government’s tone in an interview with Le Parisien.
“We’re telling the Americans that it’s their business what sanctions they impose, but we consider the extraterritoriality of these measures unacceptable,” Le Drian said. “Europeans should not have to pay for U.S. withdrawal from an agreement.”
Reporting by Laurence Frost; Additional reporting by Julie Carriat; Editing by Richard Lough
France vows pushback against U.S. sanctions on Iran
Reuters Staff
PARIS (Reuters) - France pledged on Friday to push back against the threat of U.S. sanctions against French companies doing business with Iran, in the wake of Washington’s withdrawal from the international nuclear agreement with Tehran.
The French government is seeking waivers and longer transition periods from the United States for companies such as Renault and Total, Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said, while pressing for European Union measures to improve the bloc’s “economic sovereignty” in the longer term.
“It’s time that European countries opened their eyes,” Le Maire said on Europe 1 radio.
President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal risks exposing European countries that have since invested in Iran to renewed U.S. sanctions after “wind-down” periods of three to six months expire.
Europe needs new “financial instruments allowing it to be independent from the United States”, Le Maire said.
Germany plans to offer legal advice to help its firms continue to do business in Iran, Economy Minister Peter Altmaier also said on Friday.
France and Germany are among EU countries that had drawn up euro-denominated Iran export finance programs to resist U.S. sanctions. But the severity of Washington’s stance has raised doubts about their viability.
Le Maire said he had asked U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for temporary or permanent exemptions for French companies, citing carmaker PSA, drug giant Sanofi and food group Danone among those affected - in addition to Renault and oil major Total.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also toughened the government’s tone in an interview with Le Parisien.
“We’re telling the Americans that it’s their business what sanctions they impose, but we consider the extraterritoriality of these measures unacceptable,” Le Drian said. “Europeans should not have to pay for U.S. withdrawal from an agreement.”
Reporting by Laurence Frost; Additional reporting by Julie Carriat; Editing by Richard Lough
White House aide mocks McCain's cancer: 'He's dying anyway' - the meanest and most heartless verbal attack anyone could utter - MSNBC News
White House aide mocks McCain's cancer: 'He's dying anyway'
The White House declined to deny the remarks made by communications aide Kelly Sadler.
by Kristen Welker, Ken Dilanian, Geoff Bennett and Alex Johnson / May.11.2018 / 11:46 AM ET / Updated 2:42 PM ET
Members of the media follow Senator John McCain following an Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2017.Michael Reynolds / EPA
A top White House communications aide made fun of Sen. John McCain's brain cancer diagnosis on Thursday, sources with direct knowledge said — comments that enraged the senator's wife.
The comments, which were first reported by The Hill, a Washington political newspaper, came during a meeting a day after McCain, R-Ariz., announced that he was opposing the nomination of Gina Haspel to be permanent director of the CIA.
"He's dying anyway," said Kelly Sadler the White House's director of surrogate and coalitions outreach, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.
The White House didn't deny that Sadler made the remarks. Asked for comment, it said in a statement only: "We respect Senator McCain's service to our nation and he and his family are in our prayers during this difficult time."
The comments dismayed many Republicans on Capitol Hill, where McCain, who was first elected to the Senate in 1986, is a widely admired figure. Multiple Republican sources and aides told NBC News on Thursday night that they had been on the phone with colleagues expressing disbelief about what was said.
Multiple White House spokespeople didn't respond when asked about Sadler's future in the Trump administration.
McCain, 81, who was tortured by his North Vietnamese captors during the Vietnam War, said Wednesday that he opposed Haspel's nomination because of her role in the CIA's use of brutal "enhanced" interrogation techniques after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Ms. Haspel's role in overseeing the use of torture by Americans is disturbing," McCain said. "Her refusal to acknowledge torture's immorality is disqualifying."
Haspel said in a statement Thursday: "I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain and I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which he has approached this nomination process."
Image: Kelly SadlerKelly Sadler moderates a Generation Next panel at the White House on March 22.White House
McCain's office had no comment. But his wife, Cindy McCain, responded sharply on Twitter in a post addressed to Sadler on Thursday, writing, "May I remind you my husband has a family, 7 children and 5 grandchildren."
McCain has remained at home in Arizona with glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer. He was also mocked Thursday on the Fox Business Network by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney in a defense of harsh interrogation tactics.
"The fact is, is John McCain — it worked on John," McInerney said. "That's why they call him 'Songbird John.' "
No evidence has ever emerged that McCain revealed accurate information to the North Vietnamese. He wrote in his autobiography that he gave made-up information to mislead his captors.
In response to strong criticism, Charles Payne, a host of the program on which McInerney was a guest, acknowledged on air that "a guest made a very false and derogatory remark about Senator John McCain."
"As a proud military veteran and son of a Vietnam vet these words neither reflect my or the network's feelings about Senator McCain, or his remarkable service and sacrifice to this country," Payne said.
The White House declined to deny the remarks made by communications aide Kelly Sadler.
by Kristen Welker, Ken Dilanian, Geoff Bennett and Alex Johnson / May.11.2018 / 11:46 AM ET / Updated 2:42 PM ET
Members of the media follow Senator John McCain following an Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on Nov. 30, 2017.Michael Reynolds / EPA
A top White House communications aide made fun of Sen. John McCain's brain cancer diagnosis on Thursday, sources with direct knowledge said — comments that enraged the senator's wife.
The comments, which were first reported by The Hill, a Washington political newspaper, came during a meeting a day after McCain, R-Ariz., announced that he was opposing the nomination of Gina Haspel to be permanent director of the CIA.
"He's dying anyway," said Kelly Sadler the White House's director of surrogate and coalitions outreach, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.
The White House didn't deny that Sadler made the remarks. Asked for comment, it said in a statement only: "We respect Senator McCain's service to our nation and he and his family are in our prayers during this difficult time."
The comments dismayed many Republicans on Capitol Hill, where McCain, who was first elected to the Senate in 1986, is a widely admired figure. Multiple Republican sources and aides told NBC News on Thursday night that they had been on the phone with colleagues expressing disbelief about what was said.
Multiple White House spokespeople didn't respond when asked about Sadler's future in the Trump administration.
McCain, 81, who was tortured by his North Vietnamese captors during the Vietnam War, said Wednesday that he opposed Haspel's nomination because of her role in the CIA's use of brutal "enhanced" interrogation techniques after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Ms. Haspel's role in overseeing the use of torture by Americans is disturbing," McCain said. "Her refusal to acknowledge torture's immorality is disqualifying."
Haspel said in a statement Thursday: "I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain and I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which he has approached this nomination process."
Image: Kelly SadlerKelly Sadler moderates a Generation Next panel at the White House on March 22.White House
McCain's office had no comment. But his wife, Cindy McCain, responded sharply on Twitter in a post addressed to Sadler on Thursday, writing, "May I remind you my husband has a family, 7 children and 5 grandchildren."
McCain has remained at home in Arizona with glioblastoma, a form of brain cancer. He was also mocked Thursday on the Fox Business Network by retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney in a defense of harsh interrogation tactics.
"The fact is, is John McCain — it worked on John," McInerney said. "That's why they call him 'Songbird John.' "
No evidence has ever emerged that McCain revealed accurate information to the North Vietnamese. He wrote in his autobiography that he gave made-up information to mislead his captors.
In response to strong criticism, Charles Payne, a host of the program on which McInerney was a guest, acknowledged on air that "a guest made a very false and derogatory remark about Senator John McCain."
"As a proud military veteran and son of a Vietnam vet these words neither reflect my or the network's feelings about Senator McCain, or his remarkable service and sacrifice to this country," Payne said.
Is this the world's most glamorous dog? Chinese man spends £28,000 pampering his beloved pooch - Daily Mail
Is this the world's most glamorous dog? Chinese man spends £28,000 pampering his beloved pooch to keep his floor-length locks luscious with extravagant grooming regime
Owner in Beijing has spent £11,600 on grooming equipment and another £525 per month on bathing products
The three-year-old Afghan Hound needs to be bathed every seven to 10 days, six to eight hours every time
The owner has bought a camera and taken up photography lessons to share his best shots on social media
By CATERS NEWS AGENCY and KELSEY CHENG FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 20:26 AEST, 11 May 2018 | UPDATED: 21:14 AEST, 11 May 2018
The Chinese owner of the world's most stylish dog has spent £28,000 on the pampered pooch's beauty regime.
With flowing locks a model would be proud of, Kevin Chan's glamourous three-year-old Afghan Hound AJ Nirvana Battle turns heads wherever he goes.
Mr Chan, who is a marketing director based in Beijing, has spent 100,000 yuan (£11,600) so far on grooming equipment and coughs up 4,500 yuan (£525) every month on bathing products to keep his pup's pristine floor-length mane perfectly preened.
Video playing bottom right...
Owner Kevin Chan has spent £28,000 on the grooming regime on his three-year-old Afghan Hound, AJ Nirvana Battle +13
Owner Kevin Chan has spent £28,000 on the grooming regime on his three-year-old Afghan Hound, AJ Nirvana Battle
Mr Chan said Battle is the most beautiful creature he has ever seen +13
Mr Chan has bought a camera and taken up photography lessons so he can share the best photos of his beloved pet online
Chilling moment a stranger 'attempts to abduct' a boy by...
Critic's jailing shows hushed dissent since '08 China quake
Nearly wiped out by quake, China's Qiang minority lives on
The Latest: Trump congratulates Mahathir after historic win
Hope, anger for relatives of S. Koreans kidnapped by North
Yaya Toure ready to turn down big-money offers from China...
The glamorous pooch is seen waving his smooth and shiny sliver locks back and forth in a video while strutting elegantly like a model.
The Hong Kong-born 29-year-old spends six to eight hours a week brushing the hairy hound and claims Battle is the most beautiful animal he has ever seen.
'The moment I decided to take Battle home, he was already the most beautiful dog in the world,' Mr Chan said.
'He is a family member now, so I don't mind spending time and money on him.'
Owner Kevin Chan said that Afghan hounds were born as models and have their own unique characters
Owner Kevin Chan said that Afghan hounds were born as models and have their own unique characters
Battle needs to be bathed regularly every seven to 10 days - it takes six to eight hours to bathe and groom him every time
Owner Kevin Chan said he does all the grooming himself
Battle needs to be bathed regularly every seven to 10 days - it takes six to eight hours to bathe and groom him every time
Battle needs to be bathed regularly every seven to 10 days - it takes six to eight hours to bathe and groom him every time.
'I do all the grooming myself and have spent about 100,000 yuan (£11,600) to date on grooming equipment. I spend another 4,000 yuan (£465) to 5,000 (£582) yuan on the best bathing products every month.'
Afghan hounds were born as models and have their own unique characters, Mr Chan added.
'I don't style him deliberately, I just follow my heart,' he said.
'I always tell people I didn't choose the dog - but he chose me. Therefore I have to try my best to give him the best treatment.'
Mr Chan adopted three-year-old Afghan Hound Battle almost three years ago, and has started the beauty routine since
Mr Chan adopted three-year-old Afghan Hound Battle almost three years ago, and has started the beauty routine since
Mr Chan adopted Battle almost three years ago, and has started the beauty routine since.
Every day, he sprays a nutritious solution on the pooch's fur to smooth it before letting it sink for about a minute.
Then, with a bristle brush, he gets rid of any knots in the mane by using talcum or baby powder to remove tangles.
'When Battle was younger, it would take me two hours every day to groom him, but now I only have to do this for an hour a time,' he said.
Owner Kevin Chan walks his dog in Beijing
Mr Chan coughs up £525 a month on bathing products to keep his pup's pristine floor-length mane perfectly preened +13
Mr Chan coughs up £525 a month on bathing products to keep his pup's pristine floor-length mane perfectly preened
Mr Chan has even bought a camera and taken up photography lessons so he can share the best photos of his pampered pet on social media.
He also said it takes him a couple of tries to comb Battle's coat properly for 'the nicest shots'.
'I began to film and shoot him from the first day I got him because I wanted to document every single moment,' he added.
He said that people have given interesting reaction when they see Battle.
'Some would ask: "Is it a dog or a sheep?"' he said. 'Others would say: "It must be very expensive to keep him."'
But most of the time, they would compliment how pretty Battle is and snap a photo with him.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson cuts $30M check to GOP amid Dems' 'blue wave' fears - Fox News
May 10, 2018
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson cuts $30M check to GOP amid Dems' 'blue wave' fears
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News
GOP leaders made big push for Sheldon Adelson donation: Gasparino
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is making a big donation to a super PAC that is pushing to protect the Republicans' House majority. FBN's Charlie Gasparino with more.
Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has committed to a $30 million cash infusion for a House Republican group, a move that will boost GOP chances of fighting off energized Democrats in the midterm elections.
The donation to the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund was sealed last week when Speaker Paul Ryan and his entourage met with the mogul at his hotel, where he explained the importance of his money in maintaining the Republicans' House control, Politico reported.
Due to laws guiding political contributions, Ryan, like any other federally elected official, couldn't solicit a donation as big as $30 million. Instead, Norm Coleman, the former Minnesota senator who chairs the Republican Jewish Coalition, was tasked with asking for the donation while Ryan left the room, the report said.
FBN's Charlie Gasparino discusses how billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Steve Cohen have pulled back on their donations to the Republican Party.
Republicans have long courted Adelson to make a donation in this election cycle. In February, multiple House Republicans paid Adelson their respects and attended an annual retreat hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which Adelson also supports.
The massive cash infusion comes six months before the midterm elections, in which Republicans are facing tough and well-funded Democratic challengers with a mobilized voting base in the wake of President Donald Trump's presidency.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said earlier this month that she's optimistic her party will regain control of the House.
According to an average of generic ballot polls, Democrats have a 7-point advantage over the GOP, though the lead has been significantly cut in recent months, with fears on the Democratic side as well that the so-called "blue wave" won't materialize on Election Day.
Adelson's donation is also three times bigger compared to his 2016 donation and came a lot earlier than in the previous election cycles, according to Politico.
Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson cuts $30M check to GOP amid Dems' 'blue wave' fears
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News
GOP leaders made big push for Sheldon Adelson donation: Gasparino
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is making a big donation to a super PAC that is pushing to protect the Republicans' House majority. FBN's Charlie Gasparino with more.
Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has committed to a $30 million cash infusion for a House Republican group, a move that will boost GOP chances of fighting off energized Democrats in the midterm elections.
The donation to the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund was sealed last week when Speaker Paul Ryan and his entourage met with the mogul at his hotel, where he explained the importance of his money in maintaining the Republicans' House control, Politico reported.
Due to laws guiding political contributions, Ryan, like any other federally elected official, couldn't solicit a donation as big as $30 million. Instead, Norm Coleman, the former Minnesota senator who chairs the Republican Jewish Coalition, was tasked with asking for the donation while Ryan left the room, the report said.
FBN's Charlie Gasparino discusses how billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Steve Cohen have pulled back on their donations to the Republican Party.
Republicans have long courted Adelson to make a donation in this election cycle. In February, multiple House Republicans paid Adelson their respects and attended an annual retreat hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, which Adelson also supports.
The massive cash infusion comes six months before the midterm elections, in which Republicans are facing tough and well-funded Democratic challengers with a mobilized voting base in the wake of President Donald Trump's presidency.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said earlier this month that she's optimistic her party will regain control of the House.
According to an average of generic ballot polls, Democrats have a 7-point advantage over the GOP, though the lead has been significantly cut in recent months, with fears on the Democratic side as well that the so-called "blue wave" won't materialize on Election Day.
Adelson's donation is also three times bigger compared to his 2016 donation and came a lot earlier than in the previous election cycles, according to Politico.
Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.
Australian federal budget 2018-2019 - Basic public finance principles to assess the budget's fairness and propriety - JKHC
To enable Australian citizens to assess the budget, I set out below the basic principles governing public finance for their reference ;-
( 6 ) Basic working principles of public or government finance
Governments spend a lot of taxpayers' money in recurrent expenses as well as capital or infrastructure projects. The government budget is of direct relevance to our financial position and that of society as a whole. Citizens are very often asked to pay their share of these spendings through the increase of personal income tax or other indirect taxes such as sales tax or GST ( goods & services tax ). Incorrect ways of spending public funds will both do great damages to the economy and will result in great injustice.
Just as in accounting there are some basic philosophies involved in this specialised branch of economics. Let us have a brief look a few more important ones. Before doing so, however, we need to learn about some special characteristics of public finance. The concepts of external economies and diseconomies very often come up in connection with government spending because the government is responsible for many branches of social services. Here the terms economies and diseconomies refer to conditions and effects and not systems as such. A particular economic activity is said to produce an external economy when it can create benefits for other people who are not the intended target of that activity. Take the radio air wave for example. If the government sets up a radio station for its military service everyone else can also enjoy its programs without extra costs on the government. Again, if the government constructs a freeway to make it more convenient for citizens in the outlying areas to get into the city the freeway will also benefit those living along its route. The improved convenience will also lead to the increase in the value of properties in its vicinity. These are extra benefits to be reaped by society.
On the other hand, some economic activities can create external diseconomies. For example, an electric power station that runs on coal will give rise to air pollution and will adversely affect the health of citizens living in its vicinity. Besides the moral issue the costs of the resultant long-term health care problems will be ultimately borne by society while the electric company simply makes the profit without bearing the full social costs. Nowadays, social accounting is becoming popular in some countries to find out the ultimate costs of to society. The fundamental lessons to be learned on these special characteristics of public projects are three fold. First, the decision to go ahead with such projects must be based not just on immediate or direct costs and benefits but on all external economies and diseconomies. Secondly, many projects with such special characteristics are very often more suited to public sector management because profit is not the sole consideration for the government. Thirdly, if it is decided that it is more efficient for private corporations to handle such projects strict control must be in place to ensure that costs of external diseconomies if any must be paid for by the private enterprise undertaking the project. Otherwise, corporate greed will again lead to some social costs being passed on by the private enterprise to the taxpayer. However, it must also be borne in mind that others things being equal first consideration should be given to allowing the private sector to take up the project under a market oriented economy to give priority to economic efficiency. The existing size of the public sector must also be considered so as to keep down government's share in the total economy to a reasonable proportion such as below 20 % of GDP ( gross domestic product ).
( 6 ) Basic working principles of public or government finance
Governments spend a lot of taxpayers' money in recurrent expenses as well as capital or infrastructure projects. The government budget is of direct relevance to our financial position and that of society as a whole. Citizens are very often asked to pay their share of these spendings through the increase of personal income tax or other indirect taxes such as sales tax or GST ( goods & services tax ). Incorrect ways of spending public funds will both do great damages to the economy and will result in great injustice.
Just as in accounting there are some basic philosophies involved in this specialised branch of economics. Let us have a brief look a few more important ones. Before doing so, however, we need to learn about some special characteristics of public finance. The concepts of external economies and diseconomies very often come up in connection with government spending because the government is responsible for many branches of social services. Here the terms economies and diseconomies refer to conditions and effects and not systems as such. A particular economic activity is said to produce an external economy when it can create benefits for other people who are not the intended target of that activity. Take the radio air wave for example. If the government sets up a radio station for its military service everyone else can also enjoy its programs without extra costs on the government. Again, if the government constructs a freeway to make it more convenient for citizens in the outlying areas to get into the city the freeway will also benefit those living along its route. The improved convenience will also lead to the increase in the value of properties in its vicinity. These are extra benefits to be reaped by society.
On the other hand, some economic activities can create external diseconomies. For example, an electric power station that runs on coal will give rise to air pollution and will adversely affect the health of citizens living in its vicinity. Besides the moral issue the costs of the resultant long-term health care problems will be ultimately borne by society while the electric company simply makes the profit without bearing the full social costs. Nowadays, social accounting is becoming popular in some countries to find out the ultimate costs of to society. The fundamental lessons to be learned on these special characteristics of public projects are three fold. First, the decision to go ahead with such projects must be based not just on immediate or direct costs and benefits but on all external economies and diseconomies. Secondly, many projects with such special characteristics are very often more suited to public sector management because profit is not the sole consideration for the government. Thirdly, if it is decided that it is more efficient for private corporations to handle such projects strict control must be in place to ensure that costs of external diseconomies if any must be paid for by the private enterprise undertaking the project. Otherwise, corporate greed will again lead to some social costs being passed on by the private enterprise to the taxpayer. However, it must also be borne in mind that others things being equal first consideration should be given to allowing the private sector to take up the project under a market oriented economy to give priority to economic efficiency. The existing size of the public sector must also be considered so as to keep down government's share in the total economy to a reasonable proportion such as below 20 % of GDP ( gross domestic product ).
Very often there is some dilemma facing government in connection with the operation of many public services such as health care and social welfare. How much should the government charge citizens for using such services. If they are completely free then such services may be abused by those who may not really need them. Thus, it will lead to a waste of precious economic resources. On the other hand, if the charges are too expensive it will be unfair to the the underprivileged sector of society who may not be able to afford them thus creating a burden on the poor. Due to the special characteristics of such essential services the strict rules of the price system ( or money vote and by supply and demand ) under capitalism cannot work properly. Here again we encounter situations that cannot be satisfactorily handled by a strict application of the price system ( prices to be determined freely by supply and demand ) which is considered to be a sacred institution under capitalism. So, economists have come up with two useful principles that are quite handy in such tricky situations. They are called the ability to pay and benefits received principles in public finance. These two principles are not mutually exclusive but can be used in a certain mix to achieve the optimum balance on fairness and efficent use of economic resources.
The “ ability to pay “ principle requires that due consideration must be given to any hardship that may affect the user's ability to pay for the essential services while the “ benefits received “ principles specifies that users have the basic obligation to pay for any services they receive unless special circumstances warrant otherwise. Applying the above principles to use of the emergency ward of public hospitals an appropriate way to
The “ ability to pay “ principle requires that due consideration must be given to any hardship that may affect the user's ability to pay for the essential services while the “ benefits received “ principles specifies that users have the basic obligation to pay for any services they receive unless special circumstances warrant otherwise. Applying the above principles to use of the emergency ward of public hospitals an appropriate way to
strike a balance between fairness and efficient use of the emergency facilities would be to charge a fee that will deter non-urgent users ( benefits received principle ) but the charge can be waived by the health authority or borne by the social welfare department in case of citizens already on the welfare system ( ability to pay principle ).
The government's budget can be used very effectively to achieve many economic goals such as creating employment ( through fiscal spending ), redistribution of income on a more equitable basis ( through taxation ), keeping down the inflation rate by a surplus budget ( withdrawing more resources from the economy than putting back into it ) and stimulating consumption in the private sector through a deficit budget ( injecting more into the economy than withdrawing from it ). There is usually no serious problem with a surplus budget except public criticism against the government for not taking better care of the underprivileged sector. However, if a surplus budget is called for to dampen an over heated economy by withdrawing resources from it the foregoing criticism will not stand. On the other hand, there can be a lot of controversey over a deficit budget ( spending more than the amount of revenue raised during a financial year ). This is because a deficit must be properly funded.
There are basically three way of funding a budget deficit. First, the government can simply print more money. This is the worst and most irresponsible way because putting more money into the economy without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services will simply lead to a higher price inflation which is will lead to hardship for the fixed income earners and reduce the competitive edge of the country as compared to other trading partners. Unfortunately, irresponsible and dictatorial governments such as Zimbabwe are doing exactly that. It had led to a hyper inflation rate of over 231,000,000% in Zimbabwe in July 2008 as compared to the previous year. The same tragic scenario also occurred in Germany after the First World War. The second wayis to raise more taxes which will be a direct burden on the taxpayer and will be unpopular. The third way is to borrow from its citizens and outsiders ( other countries and international corporations ) by issuing government bonds ( national debt ).
There are some particularly tricky problems connected with the question of national debts. First and foremost, borrowing too much will subject the government to the influence of the creditors especially if these are foreign countries or international financing giant corporations. There is always the political consideration that these creditors can put undue pressure on the government to carry out policies to the advantage of the creditors. In extreme cases of excessive national debt the sovereignty of the national may be threatened. In the case of excessive national debt owed to its own citizens there will be a problem of adversely affecting a fair distribution of income. Those citizens who are most likely to buy government bonds are the rich people. Interest payment on bonds will ultimately be financed from taxation. This means that the rich will become richer at the expense of the poor. While only the rich receive interest payment on the government bonds they hold as investment every citizen ( even the less well off ) must be bear the tax burden in respect of that portion raised for the purpose of financing government bond interest payments. The rich are getting richer while the poor have less to spend due to a higher tax burden resulting from the need to pay interest on government bonds.
Then there is the problem with the intergeneration transfer of national debt burden. As many types of government bonds have very long maturity periods this will imply that a substantial amount of money raised by government bonds during the period of their issue will not be due for repayment until becades into thefuture. As mentioned above in section ( 4 ) in connection with the working of the financial market some US treasury bonds have up to 99 years before they are due for repayment. This created the situation of the national debt burden being transferred to future generations while the borrowed funds have been used in the current generation. Therefore, to be fair to future taxpayers long term government bonds should only be issued to finance long term infrastructure capital projects such as roads and bridges which have enduring benefits that will extend to future generations. This is the accounting principle of matching capital expenditure ( capital assets ) with long term loans ( or long term liability ) which is also applicable in social accounting to ensure fairness to all citizens. This treatment also reflects the benefits received principle in public finance. By the same token, short term government bonds should be issued to cover a short fall in revenue in a deficit budget for the increased current expenses of a revenue nature.
The government's budget can be used very effectively to achieve many economic goals such as creating employment ( through fiscal spending ), redistribution of income on a more equitable basis ( through taxation ), keeping down the inflation rate by a surplus budget ( withdrawing more resources from the economy than putting back into it ) and stimulating consumption in the private sector through a deficit budget ( injecting more into the economy than withdrawing from it ). There is usually no serious problem with a surplus budget except public criticism against the government for not taking better care of the underprivileged sector. However, if a surplus budget is called for to dampen an over heated economy by withdrawing resources from it the foregoing criticism will not stand. On the other hand, there can be a lot of controversey over a deficit budget ( spending more than the amount of revenue raised during a financial year ). This is because a deficit must be properly funded.
There are basically three way of funding a budget deficit. First, the government can simply print more money. This is the worst and most irresponsible way because putting more money into the economy without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services will simply lead to a higher price inflation which is will lead to hardship for the fixed income earners and reduce the competitive edge of the country as compared to other trading partners. Unfortunately, irresponsible and dictatorial governments such as Zimbabwe are doing exactly that. It had led to a hyper inflation rate of over 231,000,000% in Zimbabwe in July 2008 as compared to the previous year. The same tragic scenario also occurred in Germany after the First World War. The second wayis to raise more taxes which will be a direct burden on the taxpayer and will be unpopular. The third way is to borrow from its citizens and outsiders ( other countries and international corporations ) by issuing government bonds ( national debt ).
There are some particularly tricky problems connected with the question of national debts. First and foremost, borrowing too much will subject the government to the influence of the creditors especially if these are foreign countries or international financing giant corporations. There is always the political consideration that these creditors can put undue pressure on the government to carry out policies to the advantage of the creditors. In extreme cases of excessive national debt the sovereignty of the national may be threatened. In the case of excessive national debt owed to its own citizens there will be a problem of adversely affecting a fair distribution of income. Those citizens who are most likely to buy government bonds are the rich people. Interest payment on bonds will ultimately be financed from taxation. This means that the rich will become richer at the expense of the poor. While only the rich receive interest payment on the government bonds they hold as investment every citizen ( even the less well off ) must be bear the tax burden in respect of that portion raised for the purpose of financing government bond interest payments. The rich are getting richer while the poor have less to spend due to a higher tax burden resulting from the need to pay interest on government bonds.
Then there is the problem with the intergeneration transfer of national debt burden. As many types of government bonds have very long maturity periods this will imply that a substantial amount of money raised by government bonds during the period of their issue will not be due for repayment until becades into thefuture. As mentioned above in section ( 4 ) in connection with the working of the financial market some US treasury bonds have up to 99 years before they are due for repayment. This created the situation of the national debt burden being transferred to future generations while the borrowed funds have been used in the current generation. Therefore, to be fair to future taxpayers long term government bonds should only be issued to finance long term infrastructure capital projects such as roads and bridges which have enduring benefits that will extend to future generations. This is the accounting principle of matching capital expenditure ( capital assets ) with long term loans ( or long term liability ) which is also applicable in social accounting to ensure fairness to all citizens. This treatment also reflects the benefits received principle in public finance. By the same token, short term government bonds should be issued to cover a short fall in revenue in a deficit budget for the increased current expenses of a revenue nature.
It will be recalled that there are four major economic goals for the government to achieve. To refresh the readers' memory, these are fullemployment, low flation, healthy economic growth ( i.e. increase in living standards over time ) and a fair distribution of national income ( a major proportion of the population being in the average income and wealth bracket ). There is now an urgent fifth goal of environmental protection. The most ideal conditions for the the economy is full employment with an acceptably low rate of inflation together with a healthy rate of growth, little disparity between the rich and poor plus a good and sustainable environment. Unfortunately, some of these economic objectives are not totally compatible. For example, an increase in fiscal spending can create more employment but it will also lead to a higher rate of inflation. Similarly, to achieve a higher rate of growth in a shorter period of time involves higher levels of spending ( both in the public and private sectors ) that will lead to a higher rate of inflation. Of course, the ideal way to achieve a higher rate of economic growth without too much addiional spending is to increase personal productivity ( working more efficiently ). Then, a more progressive rate of taxation will lead to a more equitable distribution of national income but it may sometimes reduce the incentive for more personal efforts. Political considerations will also come into play. For example, the best way for the world as a whole to achieve the most efficient use of resources is total free trade to promote competition and higher productivity or efficiency. However, tradeunions in many countries where a democratic political system is at work will dictate minimum wage levels and working conditions which can make the work force of that country less competitive. The result is that trade unions in that country will call for more protection ( such as quotas or import tariff ) against cheap labour producer countries. The conflict arises because of different working and remuneration standards between the advanced and developing countries. This is a major problem confronting members of the WTO ( World Trade Organisation ) which was formed to promote free trade on a global basis ( or more popularly known as Globalisation ). A skilful and fine balance must be struck by a capable government to achieve reasonable progress in all five economic goals the latest one of which is environmental protection.
Just one word of reminder regarding government spending in relation to the capitalistic rationale of “ big economy, small government “. In case it is necessary to support a declining economy this can be done fiscally by either increasing public spending or a reduction in taxes. Everything being equal the above capitalistic rationale warrants that cutting taxes should be given priority because the private section is supposed to be more efficient in deciding what to do with the extra money resulting from a tax cut. The public sector, on the other hand, is usually more wasteful because the government does not need to make a profit on its operations. Furthermore, a freedom of choice for the citizens to spend the extra cash from the tax cut in their own chosen way is consistent with the democratic principle.
Having acquainted themselves with the basic working principles of public finance the readers will now be more confident in assessing government policies
Just one word of reminder regarding government spending in relation to the capitalistic rationale of “ big economy, small government “. In case it is necessary to support a declining economy this can be done fiscally by either increasing public spending or a reduction in taxes. Everything being equal the above capitalistic rationale warrants that cutting taxes should be given priority because the private section is supposed to be more efficient in deciding what to do with the extra money resulting from a tax cut. The public sector, on the other hand, is usually more wasteful because the government does not need to make a profit on its operations. Furthermore, a freedom of choice for the citizens to spend the extra cash from the tax cut in their own chosen way is consistent with the democratic principle.
Having acquainted themselves with the basic working principles of public finance the readers will now be more confident in assessing government policies
proposed or taken to combat the the E&F T 2008. Hopefully, everyone will become an informed citizen to have a say in these public policies through the vote which all citizens of a democratic country posses to make a difference towards the recovery process.
The above is an extract from my economic essay which covers all aspects of basic principles in the proper and equitable running of an economy the link to which is set out below :- http://jkhcforum.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/the-2008-economic-financial-tsunami.html
JKHC
Why Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter rivals - BBC News
Why Saudi Arabia and Iran are bitter rivals
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence and diplomatic correspondent
18 November 2017
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (L) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Saudi Arabia and Iran are at loggerheads. They have long been rivals, but it's all recently got a lot more tense. Here's why.
How come Saudi Arabia and Iran don't get along?
Saudi Arabia and Iran - two powerful neighbours - are locked in a fierce struggle for regional dominance.
The decades-old feud between them is exacerbated by religious differences. They each follow one of the two main sects in Islam - Iran is largely Shia Muslim, while Saudi Arabia sees itself as the leading Sunni Muslim power.
This religious schism is reflected in the wider map of the Middle East, where other countries have Sunni or Shia majorities, some of whom look towards Iran or Saudi Arabia for support or guidance.
Historically Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and home to the birthplace of Islam, saw itself as the leader of the Muslim world. However this was challenged in 1979 by the Islamic revolution in Iran which created a new type of state in the region - a kind of theocracy - that had an explicit goal of exporting this model beyond its own borders.
In the past 15 years in particular, the differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been sharpened by a series of events.
The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq overthrew Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab who had been a major Iranian adversary. This removed a crucial military counter-weight to Iranian influence in Iraq, which has been rising since then.
By Jonathan Marcus
Defence and diplomatic correspondent
18 November 2017
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (L) and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
Saudi Arabia and Iran are at loggerheads. They have long been rivals, but it's all recently got a lot more tense. Here's why.
How come Saudi Arabia and Iran don't get along?
Saudi Arabia and Iran - two powerful neighbours - are locked in a fierce struggle for regional dominance.
The decades-old feud between them is exacerbated by religious differences. They each follow one of the two main sects in Islam - Iran is largely Shia Muslim, while Saudi Arabia sees itself as the leading Sunni Muslim power.
This religious schism is reflected in the wider map of the Middle East, where other countries have Sunni or Shia majorities, some of whom look towards Iran or Saudi Arabia for support or guidance.
Historically Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and home to the birthplace of Islam, saw itself as the leader of the Muslim world. However this was challenged in 1979 by the Islamic revolution in Iran which created a new type of state in the region - a kind of theocracy - that had an explicit goal of exporting this model beyond its own borders.
In the past 15 years in particular, the differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran have been sharpened by a series of events.
The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq overthrew Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab who had been a major Iranian adversary. This removed a crucial military counter-weight to Iranian influence in Iraq, which has been rising since then.
Why are Israel and Iran fighting in Syria, in 300 words - BBC News
Why are Israel and Iran fighting in Syria, in 300 words
10 May 2018
These Iranian protesters prepared to burn an Israeli flag at a funeral of a senior officer killed in Syria in 2015
Israel has bombed Iranian targets inside Syria - leading to fears confrontations between the two powerful arch-foes could get worse. Here's the background to what is happening.
Why are Israel and Iran enemies?
Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, when religious hardliners came to power, Iran's leaders have called for Israel's elimination. Iran rejects Israel's right to exist, considering it an illegitimate occupier of Muslim land.
Israel sees Iran as a threat to its existence and has always said Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. Its leaders are worried by Iran's expansion in the Middle East.
What has Syria got to do with it?
Israel has watched anxiously as its neighbour Syria has been consumed by war since 2011.
Why is there a war in Syria?
Israel has stayed out of the fighting between the Syrian government and rebels.
The Israeli military defends the occupied Golan Heights, on the boundary with Syria
But Iran has played a bigger and bigger role backing Syria's government by sending thousands of fighters and military advisers.
Israel is also worried that Iran is trying to secretly send weapons to fighters in Lebanon - Israel's neighbour - who also threaten Israel.
What is Lebanon's Hezbollah movement?
The Golan Heights explained
Israel's prime minister has repeatedly said that his country would not let Iran create bases in Syria which could be used against Israel.
So as Iran has become stronger in Syria, Israel has intensified its strikes on Iranian targets there.
Have Iran and Israel ever actually been at war?
No. Iran has long backed groups which target Israel - such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant organisation Hamas.
But a direct war would be massively destructive for both sides.
Iran has an arsenal of long-range missiles and heavily armed allies on Israel's borders.
Israel has a very strong army and is said to have nuclear weapons. It is also solidly backed by the United States.
10 May 2018
These Iranian protesters prepared to burn an Israeli flag at a funeral of a senior officer killed in Syria in 2015
Israel has bombed Iranian targets inside Syria - leading to fears confrontations between the two powerful arch-foes could get worse. Here's the background to what is happening.
Why are Israel and Iran enemies?
Ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979, when religious hardliners came to power, Iran's leaders have called for Israel's elimination. Iran rejects Israel's right to exist, considering it an illegitimate occupier of Muslim land.
Israel sees Iran as a threat to its existence and has always said Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. Its leaders are worried by Iran's expansion in the Middle East.
What has Syria got to do with it?
Israel has watched anxiously as its neighbour Syria has been consumed by war since 2011.
Why is there a war in Syria?
Israel has stayed out of the fighting between the Syrian government and rebels.
The Israeli military defends the occupied Golan Heights, on the boundary with Syria
But Iran has played a bigger and bigger role backing Syria's government by sending thousands of fighters and military advisers.
Israel is also worried that Iran is trying to secretly send weapons to fighters in Lebanon - Israel's neighbour - who also threaten Israel.
What is Lebanon's Hezbollah movement?
The Golan Heights explained
Israel's prime minister has repeatedly said that his country would not let Iran create bases in Syria which could be used against Israel.
So as Iran has become stronger in Syria, Israel has intensified its strikes on Iranian targets there.
Have Iran and Israel ever actually been at war?
No. Iran has long backed groups which target Israel - such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant organisation Hamas.
But a direct war would be massively destructive for both sides.
Iran has an arsenal of long-range missiles and heavily armed allies on Israel's borders.
Israel has a very strong army and is said to have nuclear weapons. It is also solidly backed by the United States.
Iran condemns wave of Israeli air strikes in Syria - BBC News
May, 11, 2018
Iran condemns wave of Israeli air strikes in Syria
The Israel Defense Forces released video of an air strike on a Syrian missile launcher
Iran has backed Syria's "right to defend itself" after Israel launched strikes on what it said was Iranian military infrastructure inside Syria.
In the first comments by Iran since Thursday's wave of strikes, the foreign ministry condemned the "blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty".
The strikes were the heaviest carried out by Israel on Syria in decades.
They came after 20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions in the occupied Golan Heights.
Israel said Iranian fighters had carried out that attack. Iran has neither directly confirmed or denied this but has said that Israel's attacks on Syria were founded "on self-proclaimed, baseless pretexts".
Iran has deployed hundreds of troops in Syria, ostensibly as military advisers to the Syrian military. Thousands of militiamen armed, trained and financed by Iran have also been battling rebel forces alongside Syrian soldiers.
Are Israel and Iran heading for a war?
Iran and Israel: Your questions answered
On Thursday, in response to the Golan Heights attack, Israel said its fighter jets had struck almost all of Iran's military infrastructure inside Syria - some 70 targets - in its biggest assault since Syria's civil war started in 2011.
Iran and Israel are enemies but have never fought a direct war.
How has Iran responded?
Foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted on Iranian state TV as saying: "Iran strongly condemns... [Israel's] attacks on Syria. The international community's silence encourages Israel's aggression. Syria has every right to defend itself."
Syrian state TV footage shows Israeli missiles over Damascus on Thursday
Mr Qasemi said Israel "cannot stand peace and stability in the region and sees its own safety in making the region all the more unstable".
He said Israel's "baseless pretexts amount to a blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty and goes against all international conventions".
He did not refer to Iran's military presence inside Syria.
Mr Qasemi said the attacks were an attempt by international supporters of rebel groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to shore them up after their "many failures" and to try to "tip the scales in their favour".
The Syrian government, backed by Iran and Russia, has made significant gains over the rebel groups in the past year.
What has Israel said?
A defiant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that Iran had "crossed a red line" and Israel's action "was a consequence" of that.
Why is there a war in Syria?
The Golan Heights explained
He said: "We will not allow Iran to entrench itself in Syria. I delivered a clear message to the Assad regime - our action is directed against Iranian targets in Syria. However, if the Syrian military acts against us, we will act against it."
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
The Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed
He added: "Whoever hurts us, we will hurt them sevenfold, and whoever is preparing to hurt us, we will act to hit them first."
Visiting the Golan Heights on Friday, Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged Mr Assad to "throw the Iranians out", saying "they are only hurting you".
Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, called for a UN condemnation of Iran's "acts of aggression" and for the Security Council to "demand that Iran remove its military presence from Syria".
What exactly happened on Thursday?
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said that early on Thursday morning 20 rockets had been launched at its forward posts in the Golan Heights by the Quds Force, the overseas operations arm of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.
The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 50km (30 miles) from the capital Damascus. Israel occupied most of the area in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it in a move not recognised internationally.
The IDF said four rockets were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome aerial defence system, while 16 fell short of their targets. No injuries or damage were reported.
The IDF has published satellite images of sites that it struck inside Syria in response. They include what it said were:
Installations at Tel Gharba, Tel Kleb, Nabi Yusha and Tel Maqdad
A Quds Force compound in al-Kiswah, south of Damascus
An "Iranian Logistics Compound", 10km north-west of the capital (pictured below)
Image copyrightISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES
What's behind the latest military action?
US President Donald Trump's abandonment on Tuesday of a landmark international deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme - an agreement fiercely opposed by Mr Netanyahu - has certainly raised tensions.
But Israel had already become increasingly worried about Iran's military support of Syria. Mr Netanyahu said the Revolutionary Guards had moved advanced weapons to Syria, including surface-to-surface missiles and anti-aircraft batteries that would threaten Israeli fighter jets.
Israel's military had been anticipating an attack by Iranian forces after reportedly carrying out a number of strikes on their facilities in Syria in recent months.
They included one on an airbase in April that killed seven Iranian troops.
Iran condemns wave of Israeli air strikes in Syria
The Israel Defense Forces released video of an air strike on a Syrian missile launcher
Iran has backed Syria's "right to defend itself" after Israel launched strikes on what it said was Iranian military infrastructure inside Syria.
In the first comments by Iran since Thursday's wave of strikes, the foreign ministry condemned the "blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty".
The strikes were the heaviest carried out by Israel on Syria in decades.
They came after 20 rockets were fired at Israeli military positions in the occupied Golan Heights.
Israel said Iranian fighters had carried out that attack. Iran has neither directly confirmed or denied this but has said that Israel's attacks on Syria were founded "on self-proclaimed, baseless pretexts".
Iran has deployed hundreds of troops in Syria, ostensibly as military advisers to the Syrian military. Thousands of militiamen armed, trained and financed by Iran have also been battling rebel forces alongside Syrian soldiers.
Are Israel and Iran heading for a war?
Iran and Israel: Your questions answered
On Thursday, in response to the Golan Heights attack, Israel said its fighter jets had struck almost all of Iran's military infrastructure inside Syria - some 70 targets - in its biggest assault since Syria's civil war started in 2011.
Iran and Israel are enemies but have never fought a direct war.
How has Iran responded?
Foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted on Iranian state TV as saying: "Iran strongly condemns... [Israel's] attacks on Syria. The international community's silence encourages Israel's aggression. Syria has every right to defend itself."
Syrian state TV footage shows Israeli missiles over Damascus on Thursday
Mr Qasemi said Israel "cannot stand peace and stability in the region and sees its own safety in making the region all the more unstable".
He said Israel's "baseless pretexts amount to a blatant violation of Syria's sovereignty and goes against all international conventions".
He did not refer to Iran's military presence inside Syria.
Mr Qasemi said the attacks were an attempt by international supporters of rebel groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to shore them up after their "many failures" and to try to "tip the scales in their favour".
The Syrian government, backed by Iran and Russia, has made significant gains over the rebel groups in the past year.
What has Israel said?
A defiant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday that Iran had "crossed a red line" and Israel's action "was a consequence" of that.
Why is there a war in Syria?
The Golan Heights explained
He said: "We will not allow Iran to entrench itself in Syria. I delivered a clear message to the Assad regime - our action is directed against Iranian targets in Syria. However, if the Syrian military acts against us, we will act against it."
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
The Golan Heights, which Israel has annexed
He added: "Whoever hurts us, we will hurt them sevenfold, and whoever is preparing to hurt us, we will act to hit them first."
Visiting the Golan Heights on Friday, Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged Mr Assad to "throw the Iranians out", saying "they are only hurting you".
Danny Danon, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, called for a UN condemnation of Iran's "acts of aggression" and for the Security Council to "demand that Iran remove its military presence from Syria".
What exactly happened on Thursday?
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) said that early on Thursday morning 20 rockets had been launched at its forward posts in the Golan Heights by the Quds Force, the overseas operations arm of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.
The Golan Heights is a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, about 50km (30 miles) from the capital Damascus. Israel occupied most of the area in the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it in a move not recognised internationally.
The IDF said four rockets were intercepted by the Israeli Iron Dome aerial defence system, while 16 fell short of their targets. No injuries or damage were reported.
The IDF has published satellite images of sites that it struck inside Syria in response. They include what it said were:
Installations at Tel Gharba, Tel Kleb, Nabi Yusha and Tel Maqdad
A Quds Force compound in al-Kiswah, south of Damascus
An "Iranian Logistics Compound", 10km north-west of the capital (pictured below)
Image copyrightISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES
What's behind the latest military action?
US President Donald Trump's abandonment on Tuesday of a landmark international deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme - an agreement fiercely opposed by Mr Netanyahu - has certainly raised tensions.
But Israel had already become increasingly worried about Iran's military support of Syria. Mr Netanyahu said the Revolutionary Guards had moved advanced weapons to Syria, including surface-to-surface missiles and anti-aircraft batteries that would threaten Israeli fighter jets.
Israel's military had been anticipating an attack by Iranian forces after reportedly carrying out a number of strikes on their facilities in Syria in recent months.
They included one on an airbase in April that killed seven Iranian troops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
