May 12, 2018
Brexit 'will have to go back to the people' for a second vote, says Peter Mandelson
Labour veteran tells The Independent a political crisis is coming, and that ultimately only the public will be able to settle it
Tom Peck @tompeck
The former EU Trade Commissioner says the economic arguments on Brexit are starting to defeat the political ones
By 11am on Thursday, Baron Mandelson of Hartlepool and Foy is not yet aware of his new status as a “traitor in ermine”.
That this new sobriquet had been spread across the masthead of the latest Daily Mail, in reference to the more than 300 members of the House of Lords that had defeated the government over Brexit for the fourteenth time, was news he had not yet been told.
“Most readers of the Mail pretty quickly skip over the front page and turn to the other parts of the paper that interest them more,” he says, at the central London offices of Global Counsel, the strategic advisory firm of which he is chairman.
“A cabal of newspaper owners and editors have driven anti-European feeling in Britain over a period of 25 years. They have coordinated their actions throughout, with a very well off, pretty privileged, cosseted elite, who broadly speaking, hate liberal politics, dislike government and oppose regulation in the public interest.
“These are the people whose whole crusade has been about taking Britain out of the European Union and what is striking about it is their own economic interests and political views are at odds with so many people who voted for it.”
Falkland Islands government sounds alarm on leaving single market
On Tuesday night, large numbers of both Labour and Conservative peers disobeyed instructions from their whips and voted for an amendment which returned the EU Withdrawal Bill to the Commons with instructions to consider keeping the UK in the EU’s single market.
It was a thunderclap in what Lord Mandelson describes as a “gathering storm” on Brexit, which he says is building to a political crisis that will come in the autumn.
But the Labour veteran, a former EU trade commissioner, is by no means a mere observer of this gathering storm. Though he is not quite the Prospero of the Brexit Tempest – that would be overstating things – he is certainly not seeking to allay the wild waters.
The more ferocious the political weather, the more cabinet, government, parliament and all parties within it are cast asunder, and the more likely it becomes that the decision on how the UK leaves the EU will have to, as he describes it, “go back to the people.”
As he outlines the intractable problems facing Theresa May as she tries to lead a cabinet and a party with irreconcilable conflict on the manner of the UK’s exit from the EU, going “back to the people” is the outcome he and others are clearly strategising for.
“Since the referendum Brexit has been driven by politics not economics, and now economics is fighting back and winning the argument. That’s why the Brexiteers are so desperate,” he says.
“But the prime minister has made promises about the future of cross border trade to international investors in Britain, whether it’s Japanese car makers, or Airbus or countless other manufacturers, which can only be kept by means of a customs union with Europe.
“And she doesn’t know how to keep these promises. Or rather she does know how to keep them and doesn’t know how she’ll get her cabinet and her party to support what she knows needs to happen. This is the quandary that she faces.
“We’ve had a snapshot of this debate in the Lords but the debate is going to grow. People are going to become more aware of what is at stake, and the fault line that runs through the cabinet between the soft leavers and the clean breakers is going to become more stark.”
It is the further development of this fault line which will have major consequences.
“What do you do in this situation, when the foreign secretary feels able to go out and rubbish the prime minister and her views? It is a fundamental fault line that runs through the cabinet, which at the moment the prime minister is unable to bridge. There is going to be a major political crisis over this. And you can see it in the gathering storm that is already growing in the Commons,” he says.
“Conservative MPs, including ministers, are going to make it clear to their whips, as they have already started to do, that come the autumn they will not be voting either for a no-deal Brexit or a hard-deal Brexit.
Privately, sources close to Theresa May indicate that the best way around it might be to use the soft Brexit majority in the commons, almost to circumnavigate the divisions of her cabinet. She personally cannot make Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and David Davis, swallow political reality – but perhaps the House of Commons can.
But Lord Mandelson is doubtful whether even that option is open to her.
“There is no settled view in the Commons and there won’t be in the autumn either,” he says. “That is why I believe that ultimately parliament is going to have to pass this whole question of how we exit the European Union back to the people.”
He stops well short of describing the mechanics of how the people will go about making that decision, only that there will need to be a “people’s vote”, a phrase that coincidentally shares the name of a recently launched campaign for a second referendum.
“I am not sitting here in May, writing the terms of the people’s vote,” he says, and all attempts to coax him even an inch down that particular avenue are futile.
“What I am arguing to you is if parliament can’t resolve this matter, and I think there is very little prospect of it being able to do that, with the disagreements and divisions that exist within and between the parties, there is only one other body of people who can and that is the public.”
May has found another way to stall making a decision on Brexit
Police look at evidence Brexit campaign chief committed crimes
Government’s post-Brexit environment laws ‘hugely disappointing’
Northeast Labour MPs were right to rebel over Brexit
Whether the public really are gathering behind his view is impossible to say. According to recent opinion polls, there does appear to be large amounts of dismay at the way Brexit is being handled, and mounting concern about the economic consequences. But how these concerns would express themselves through a question in a second referendum is by no means clear.
“I don’t see the point in the country arguing over the result of the referendum. We know what the result of the referendum was. We know why we got into this position. But how we resolve this is very unclear and very difficult,” he says.
“The public has been given every opportunity, both in opinion polls, but more importantly in an election last year, to express their support for a hard Brexit and they have declined to do so.”
In the meantime, it is certainly not just the Conservatives who must get their act together, he believes.
“Jeremy Corbyn seems to think that the argument going on in the Labour Party about Brexit is a row about him, and whether or not you’re in favour of his leadership,” he says. “It’s not about that. It’s about Brexit. It’s about pro-Brexit views and the tacit support he is giving to a hard Brexit. In my view this is a betrayal of his supporters in the party because it is the least protected and the most vulnerable in society in the most vulnerable regions in the country who will pay the biggest price.
“He has to face up to that. It is called political leadership. It’s facing up to these realities, these difficult choices, that he and the Labour Party has a responsibility to do, and at the moment the Labour Party is ducking issues, pretending the difficult choices don’t exist, hoping the Conservatives will collapse and that we will be the political beneficiaries.”
But what makes the problem particularly hard for Mr Corbyn is that he has, to this point, shown political leadership. He is widely adored by his supporters because they see him as “honest” and “principled.” He has also been an on the record campaigner against the EU for 30 years. So it is not at all clear if suddenly coming out in favour of it would be seen as “political leadership” by his army of supporters. But to this point, Lord Mandelson has a sharp answer.
“I don’t know whether Jeremy has been a hard Brexiter for 30 years. But I think his view of the European Union is based on a fundamental misconception, which is that EU membership is incompatible with high levels of spending, investment in public services, government regulation of the economy, industrial strategy, and more active labour market regulation.
“If this were the case, why do you see such policies being operated by governments right across the European Union? Either he is misinformed, or he is using these arguments as a convenience, as a pretext, for a more fundamental opposition to the European Union. I don’t know which it is. But I know enough about the European Union and the policies pursued by its members states. The idea that active, interventionist, social democracy is somehow incompatible with EU membership? It isn’t. That is a misnomer.”
May should ‘bite the bullet and pay EU’s £52bn bill, says Mandelson
Quite how the storm will gather over the coming months, what will be its magnitude and who will be standing where when it eventually breaks cannot yet be known, but Jeremy Corbyn is wrong to imagine himself sheltered from its forces. “If Brexit ends in disaster for the country, it’s not just those who perpetrated that disaster, but also its handmaidens who will be blamed,” says Lord Mandelson. But it is Theresa May that is playing the most dangerous game of all.
“I think she is playing for time. Kicking the can down the road. Hoping that something turns up. Hoping that a magical solution will jump out of a top hat and rescue her.
“If she thinks that the solution lies in some completely hybrid, contrived tailor made solution all I’d say about that is that the single market, and the EU’ s trade policies are not going to be vaguely compatible with it. She can dream on. If she thinks some hybrid agreement is going to magic away her party’s contradictions, well that is an attempt to dance on the head of a pin that doesn’t exist.”
As the dance continues, don’t be surprised to hear more from one particular ermine-clad traitor in particular, as he conspires to call the tune.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
North Korea will receive US economic assistance if it gives up nuclear weapons, Pompeo says - Fox News
May 11, 2018
North Korea will receive US economic assistance if it gives up nuclear weapons, Pompeo says
By Elizabeth Zwirz | Fox News
Pompeo sets standard for North Korean denuclearization
Secretary of state says U.S. expects the permanent, complete, verifiable dismantling of Kim Jong Un's nuclear program; Rich Edson reports from the State Department.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday extended America’s potential economic assistance to North Korea, under the assumption that they get rid of their nuclear weapons.
“If Chairman Kim chooses the right path, there is a future brimming with peace and prosperity” for North Korea and its people, Pompeo said. "If North Korea takes bold action to quickly denuclearize, the United States is prepared to work with North Korea to achieve prosperity on the par with our South Korean friends."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, spoke during a news conference with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha at the State Department on Friday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
His remarks came during a joint news conference held with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha. It was Pompeo’s first since becoming the head of the State Department.
Pompeo returned from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang on Thursday after securing the successful release of three Americans who had been detained in the country. During the trip, Pompeo met with dictator Kim Jong Un, whom he told the press on Friday that he had a “good” and “substantive” conversation with.
In terms of denuclearization, Pompeo said “it’s pretty clear what that means,” saying “it would be an activity that” made sure “we didn’t end up in the same place that we’d ended up before.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says he had good conversations with Kim Jong Un and that U.S., North Korea have understanding of shared goals of summit.Video
Pompeo: Robust verification needed for deal with North Korea
To accomplish that goal, he said it would involve a “robust verification program” that the U.S. will undertake with partners around the world.
After their conversation, Pompeo said that he thinks he and Kim “have a pretty good understanding between our two countries about what the shared objectives are.”
TRUMP’S SUMMIT WITH KIM JONG UN SET FOR JUNE 12 IN SINGAPORE, PRESIDENT SAYS
President Trump announced Pompeo's trip to the hermit kingdom on Tuesday, saying he was going there to prepare for the upcoming meeting between the president and Kim. That meeting has since been set for June 12 in Singapore.
In regards to sanctions on North Korea, Kang said that they would “remain in place until, and unless, we see visible, meaningful action taken by North Korea on the denuclearization track.”
KoreaTrump
She also underlined that U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea have “played a crucial role for deterrence and peace and stability” and said the presence of troops in the area is a matter for the alliance between the U.S. and South Korea “first and foremost.”
"The next few weeks will be critical, requiring air-tight coordination between our two countries," Kang said.
Fox News’ Nicholas Kalman, Judson Berger, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
North Korea will receive US economic assistance if it gives up nuclear weapons, Pompeo says
By Elizabeth Zwirz | Fox News
Pompeo sets standard for North Korean denuclearization
Secretary of state says U.S. expects the permanent, complete, verifiable dismantling of Kim Jong Un's nuclear program; Rich Edson reports from the State Department.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday extended America’s potential economic assistance to North Korea, under the assumption that they get rid of their nuclear weapons.
“If Chairman Kim chooses the right path, there is a future brimming with peace and prosperity” for North Korea and its people, Pompeo said. "If North Korea takes bold action to quickly denuclearize, the United States is prepared to work with North Korea to achieve prosperity on the par with our South Korean friends."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, spoke during a news conference with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha at the State Department on Friday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
His remarks came during a joint news conference held with South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha. It was Pompeo’s first since becoming the head of the State Department.
Pompeo returned from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang on Thursday after securing the successful release of three Americans who had been detained in the country. During the trip, Pompeo met with dictator Kim Jong Un, whom he told the press on Friday that he had a “good” and “substantive” conversation with.
In terms of denuclearization, Pompeo said “it’s pretty clear what that means,” saying “it would be an activity that” made sure “we didn’t end up in the same place that we’d ended up before.”
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says he had good conversations with Kim Jong Un and that U.S., North Korea have understanding of shared goals of summit.Video
Pompeo: Robust verification needed for deal with North Korea
To accomplish that goal, he said it would involve a “robust verification program” that the U.S. will undertake with partners around the world.
After their conversation, Pompeo said that he thinks he and Kim “have a pretty good understanding between our two countries about what the shared objectives are.”
TRUMP’S SUMMIT WITH KIM JONG UN SET FOR JUNE 12 IN SINGAPORE, PRESIDENT SAYS
President Trump announced Pompeo's trip to the hermit kingdom on Tuesday, saying he was going there to prepare for the upcoming meeting between the president and Kim. That meeting has since been set for June 12 in Singapore.
In regards to sanctions on North Korea, Kang said that they would “remain in place until, and unless, we see visible, meaningful action taken by North Korea on the denuclearization track.”
KoreaTrump
She also underlined that U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea have “played a crucial role for deterrence and peace and stability” and said the presence of troops in the area is a matter for the alliance between the U.S. and South Korea “first and foremost.”
"The next few weeks will be critical, requiring air-tight coordination between our two countries," Kang said.
Fox News’ Nicholas Kalman, Judson Berger, Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Warren Buffett Speaks to CEOs Going Political - TIME Business
Warren Buffett Speaks to CEOs Going Political
Posted: May 12, 2018
When Warren Buffett held his annual investorfest at the beginning of this month, he weighed in on CEOs taking stands on social issues. While he certainly airs his own political views from time to time, his stance is that he doesn’t want to speak for shareholders.
Buffett’s view on this subject was once standard CEO fare. But that’s changed: think Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff’s campaign against Indiana’s religious-freedom law, Merck CEO Ken Frazier’s resignation from President Trump’s advisory council after the Charlottesville riots or Delta CEO Ed Bastian’s decision to cut discounts for NRA members after the Parkland shootings–to name a few.
None of those would have happened a decade ago. So why are they happening now? In many cases, employees and customers are demanding that CEOs speak out.
But Buffett is right to note that this gets tricky quickly. When Frazier made his stand, he was not giving his personal views but signaling “what kind of company we are.” Benioff and Bastian were doing the same. At some point, taking such stands risks alienating customers and adding to polarization. The old line separating business from politics has clearly moved. But many CEOs are still struggling to understand where the new line should be drawn.
Murray is the president of Fortune
This appears in the May 21, 2018 issue of TIME.
Posted: May 12, 2018
When Warren Buffett held his annual investorfest at the beginning of this month, he weighed in on CEOs taking stands on social issues. While he certainly airs his own political views from time to time, his stance is that he doesn’t want to speak for shareholders.
Buffett’s view on this subject was once standard CEO fare. But that’s changed: think Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff’s campaign against Indiana’s religious-freedom law, Merck CEO Ken Frazier’s resignation from President Trump’s advisory council after the Charlottesville riots or Delta CEO Ed Bastian’s decision to cut discounts for NRA members after the Parkland shootings–to name a few.
None of those would have happened a decade ago. So why are they happening now? In many cases, employees and customers are demanding that CEOs speak out.
But Buffett is right to note that this gets tricky quickly. When Frazier made his stand, he was not giving his personal views but signaling “what kind of company we are.” Benioff and Bastian were doing the same. At some point, taking such stands risks alienating customers and adding to polarization. The old line separating business from politics has clearly moved. But many CEOs are still struggling to understand where the new line should be drawn.
Murray is the president of Fortune
This appears in the May 21, 2018 issue of TIME.
Why Argentina’s Talks With the IMF Are Enraging the Country - TIME
Why Argentina’s Talks With the IMF Are Enraging the Country
Posted: 11 May 2018 03:28 AM PDT
In a somber televised address to the country on Tuesday, Argentine President Mauricio Macri announced his government would open talks with the International Monetary Fund, reportedly to seek $30 billion of support for his country’s ailing economy.
Macri said the move was necessary to “avoid crises like the ones we have had in our history”. The news came as a shock in Argentina, where many blame the IMF for exacerbating the catastrophic economic collapse of 2001.
Hours after the news broke, protesters had gathered outside the Congress Building in downtown Buenos Aires with posters saying “No to the IMF” and “IMF=Austerity”. Here’s what to know:
Why does Argentina need help from the IMF?
The Argentine peso has lost a quarter of its value in the last year as investors have lost confidence in the currency. Earlier this week, it hit an all time low of 23.5 pesos to the dollar — compared to around 15.5 pesos/dollar this time last year.
Inflation has hit 25%, the highest rate in Latin America outside economically-stricken Venezuela. Macri’s government has been unable to stabilise the currency and bring inflation under control, despite hiking interest rates three times so far this year. So he has made the risky move of turning to the IMF for aid.
Why is the IMF hated in Argentina?
Over the 1990s, the IMF poured money into Argentina’s struggling economy, backing a risky government policy that pegged the peso to the dollar. The country was unable to keep up with repayments and fell into a deep recession, with the currency peg making it hard to respond.
The IMF forced the country to implement punishing austerity policies in exchange for support, then it abruptly cut off the taps. Argentina quickly defaulted on a record $135 billion of debts, the peso plummeted and millions of middle-class Argentines lost their jobs.
Argentina eventually paid off its debts to the IMF after five years of economic pain. But leftist President Nestor Kirchner vowed the country would never borrow from them again.
Who is in charge of Argentina now?
Macri, who was elected in 2015 on a promise to make Argentina a “normal country” again. He scrapped protectionist policies and began to gradually reopen the economy to foreign investment.
For a while, it worked. In 2016 analysts hailed the country’s “triumphant return” to capital markets and last year it successfully floated $2.75 billion worth of long-term ‘century bonds,’ which indicated investor confidence in the state. For the last year and a half the economy has been growing at an annual rate of 3%.
So what went wrong?
The reforms started by Macri are taking longer than expected and investors are becoming impatient. Meanwhile, interest rate hikes in the U.S. have prompted American investors to dump riskier assets overseas.
How is the public responding?
Hundreds of Argentines marched through the streets of Buenos Aires on Wednesday night, banging drums and raising hastily-made banners. Others took to social media to express concern, saying “here we go again” and sharing memes of IMF director Christine Lagarde attacking Argentina’s lax public spending.
Posted: 11 May 2018 03:28 AM PDT
In a somber televised address to the country on Tuesday, Argentine President Mauricio Macri announced his government would open talks with the International Monetary Fund, reportedly to seek $30 billion of support for his country’s ailing economy.
Macri said the move was necessary to “avoid crises like the ones we have had in our history”. The news came as a shock in Argentina, where many blame the IMF for exacerbating the catastrophic economic collapse of 2001.
Hours after the news broke, protesters had gathered outside the Congress Building in downtown Buenos Aires with posters saying “No to the IMF” and “IMF=Austerity”. Here’s what to know:
Why does Argentina need help from the IMF?
The Argentine peso has lost a quarter of its value in the last year as investors have lost confidence in the currency. Earlier this week, it hit an all time low of 23.5 pesos to the dollar — compared to around 15.5 pesos/dollar this time last year.
Inflation has hit 25%, the highest rate in Latin America outside economically-stricken Venezuela. Macri’s government has been unable to stabilise the currency and bring inflation under control, despite hiking interest rates three times so far this year. So he has made the risky move of turning to the IMF for aid.
Why is the IMF hated in Argentina?
Over the 1990s, the IMF poured money into Argentina’s struggling economy, backing a risky government policy that pegged the peso to the dollar. The country was unable to keep up with repayments and fell into a deep recession, with the currency peg making it hard to respond.
The IMF forced the country to implement punishing austerity policies in exchange for support, then it abruptly cut off the taps. Argentina quickly defaulted on a record $135 billion of debts, the peso plummeted and millions of middle-class Argentines lost their jobs.
Argentina eventually paid off its debts to the IMF after five years of economic pain. But leftist President Nestor Kirchner vowed the country would never borrow from them again.
Who is in charge of Argentina now?
Macri, who was elected in 2015 on a promise to make Argentina a “normal country” again. He scrapped protectionist policies and began to gradually reopen the economy to foreign investment.
For a while, it worked. In 2016 analysts hailed the country’s “triumphant return” to capital markets and last year it successfully floated $2.75 billion worth of long-term ‘century bonds,’ which indicated investor confidence in the state. For the last year and a half the economy has been growing at an annual rate of 3%.
So what went wrong?
The reforms started by Macri are taking longer than expected and investors are becoming impatient. Meanwhile, interest rate hikes in the U.S. have prompted American investors to dump riskier assets overseas.
How is the public responding?
Hundreds of Argentines marched through the streets of Buenos Aires on Wednesday night, banging drums and raising hastily-made banners. Others took to social media to express concern, saying “here we go again” and sharing memes of IMF director Christine Lagarde attacking Argentina’s lax public spending.
Why Warren Buffett Loves Apple Stock - Fortune
Why Warren Buffett Loves Apple Stock
Berkshire Hathaway’s 2018 Annual Meeting: 5 Takeaways
Warren Buffett had a few things to say.
By JEN WIECZNER May 7, 2018
Although Warren Buffett regrets not buying Google and Amazon stock, he isn’t making the same mistake with Apple.
After first investing in Apple in 2016, the iPhone maker is now the largest holding of Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, which owns a staggering 250 million Apple shares, Buffett said Saturday. That makes his Apple position worth about $46.3 billion at current prices.
But at the annual Berkshire Hathaway meeting in Omaha Saturday, Buffett faced questions about how he became so bullish on Apple (AAPL, -0.39%)—after famously avoiding tech stocks for most of his investing lifetime.
“I didn’t go into Apple because it was a tech stock in the least,” Buffett explained at the Berkshire meeting. “I went into Apple because I came to certain conclusions about both the intelligence with the capital they deploy, but more important the value of their ecosystem and how permanent that ecosystem could be.”
Apple, whose stock hit a new record high Monday, has been a major winner for Berkshire Hathaway: Apple’s stock price has roughly doubled in the two years since Berkshire initially disclosed its stake.
Buffett is a big fan of so-called economic moats, or advantages that allow companies to retain their customers despite the competition—which for Apple is the iPhone, he said. “We’re betting on the success of Apple products like the iPhone, and I see characteristics in that that make me think it’s extraordinary,” Buffett said.
But there’s another reason Buffett loves Apple besides its tech gadgets: Apple’s massive cash hoard, which allows it to buy back a lot of its own stock.
After offering its first stock buyback in August 2012, Apple has bought back $200 billion worth of stock, and just announced last week that it would repurchase an additional $100 billion in its shares.
While stock buybacks are a controversial way for companies to spend cash that they could otherwise invest in growth or acquisitions, Buffett said that in Apple’s case it makes sense.
“I think it’s extremely hard to find acquisitions that would be accretive to Apple that would be in the $50 billion, or $100 billion or $200 billion range,” Buffett said. “I’m delighted to see them repurchasing shares.”
Apple’s buybacks also mean that Berkshire Hathaway, which owns roughly 5% of Apple’s outstanding shares, could end up owning a larger percentage chunk of the tech company in the future—simply because there will be fewer shares left after Apple buys them up.
“I love the idea of having our 5% grow to 6 or 7% without us laying out a dime,” Buffett said. “It’s worked for us in many other situations.”
Although investors enjoy speculating on which companies Apple should acquire, Buffett, ironically, is quite pessimistic about its M&A potential.
“As I look around the horizon, I don’t see anything that would make a lot of sense for them [to buy] in terms of what they’d have to pay and what they would get,” said Buffett, who is known for investing in low-priced stocks. “Whereas I do see a business that they know everything about, and where they may or may not be able to buy at an attractive price when they repurchase their shares.”
In other words, the business that looks most attractive for Apple to buy is Apple itself. “Like I say, [Apple CEO] Tim Cook can do simple math and he can probably do very complicated math too,” Buffett added. “So we very much approve of them repurchasing shares.”
Berkshire Hathaway’s 2018 Annual Meeting: 5 Takeaways
Warren Buffett had a few things to say.
By JEN WIECZNER May 7, 2018
Although Warren Buffett regrets not buying Google and Amazon stock, he isn’t making the same mistake with Apple.
After first investing in Apple in 2016, the iPhone maker is now the largest holding of Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, which owns a staggering 250 million Apple shares, Buffett said Saturday. That makes his Apple position worth about $46.3 billion at current prices.
But at the annual Berkshire Hathaway meeting in Omaha Saturday, Buffett faced questions about how he became so bullish on Apple (AAPL, -0.39%)—after famously avoiding tech stocks for most of his investing lifetime.
“I didn’t go into Apple because it was a tech stock in the least,” Buffett explained at the Berkshire meeting. “I went into Apple because I came to certain conclusions about both the intelligence with the capital they deploy, but more important the value of their ecosystem and how permanent that ecosystem could be.”
Apple, whose stock hit a new record high Monday, has been a major winner for Berkshire Hathaway: Apple’s stock price has roughly doubled in the two years since Berkshire initially disclosed its stake.
Buffett is a big fan of so-called economic moats, or advantages that allow companies to retain their customers despite the competition—which for Apple is the iPhone, he said. “We’re betting on the success of Apple products like the iPhone, and I see characteristics in that that make me think it’s extraordinary,” Buffett said.
But there’s another reason Buffett loves Apple besides its tech gadgets: Apple’s massive cash hoard, which allows it to buy back a lot of its own stock.
After offering its first stock buyback in August 2012, Apple has bought back $200 billion worth of stock, and just announced last week that it would repurchase an additional $100 billion in its shares.
While stock buybacks are a controversial way for companies to spend cash that they could otherwise invest in growth or acquisitions, Buffett said that in Apple’s case it makes sense.
“I think it’s extremely hard to find acquisitions that would be accretive to Apple that would be in the $50 billion, or $100 billion or $200 billion range,” Buffett said. “I’m delighted to see them repurchasing shares.”
Apple’s buybacks also mean that Berkshire Hathaway, which owns roughly 5% of Apple’s outstanding shares, could end up owning a larger percentage chunk of the tech company in the future—simply because there will be fewer shares left after Apple buys them up.
“I love the idea of having our 5% grow to 6 or 7% without us laying out a dime,” Buffett said. “It’s worked for us in many other situations.”
Although investors enjoy speculating on which companies Apple should acquire, Buffett, ironically, is quite pessimistic about its M&A potential.
“As I look around the horizon, I don’t see anything that would make a lot of sense for them [to buy] in terms of what they’d have to pay and what they would get,” said Buffett, who is known for investing in low-priced stocks. “Whereas I do see a business that they know everything about, and where they may or may not be able to buy at an attractive price when they repurchase their shares.”
In other words, the business that looks most attractive for Apple to buy is Apple itself. “Like I say, [Apple CEO] Tim Cook can do simple math and he can probably do very complicated math too,” Buffett added. “So we very much approve of them repurchasing shares.”
Iran foreign minister sets off on tour to save nuclear deal - Reuters
MAY 12, 2018 / 10:42 PM / UPDATED 22 MINUTES AGO
Iran foreign minister sets off on tour to save nuclear deal
Reuters Staff
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran’s foreign minister embarks on a tour of world powers on Saturday, state media reported, in what is seen as a last-ditch effort to save Tehran’s nuclear deal after Washington’s withdrawal from the accord.
President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the deal on Tuesday, raising the risk of conflict in the Middle East, upsetting European allies and casting uncertainty over global oil supplies.
Iran said it would remain committed to the deal without Washington if Tehran achieved its goals - namely being protected from sanctions against key sectors of its economy such as oil - in cooperation with other countries that have signed up to the agreement.
President Hassan Rouhani said he had asked Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to negotiate with European countries, China and Russia in the coming weeks. “If at the end of this short period we conclude that we can fully benefit from the (nuclear accord ..., the deal would remain,” he said.
Zarif is due to leave for Beijing on Saturday and will later travel to Russia. He will then go to Brussels to meet counterparts from Germany, Britain and France “about the fate of the nuclear deal”, Iranian state television said.
“Iran has asked the European Union and particularly Germany, France and Britain to announce as soon as possible their stand on how Iran’s interests can be fulfilled and guaranteed under the nuclear agreement after America’s withdrawal,” the TV report said.
Europe’s largest economies lobbied to protect their companies’ investments in Iran on Friday, seeking to keep the nuclear deal with Tehran alive after Washington pulled out and threatened to impose sanctions on European companies.
Europe pushes back against U.S. withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal
Germany and France have significant trade links with Iran and remain committed to the nuclear agreement, as does Britain, and the three countries’ foreign ministers plan to meet on Tuesday to discuss it.
That is part of a flurry of diplomatic activity following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from what he called “a horrible, one-sided deal”, a move accompanied by the threat of penalties against any foreign firms doing business in Iran.
Reporting by Dubai newsroom; Editing by Clelia Oziel
Iran foreign minister sets off on tour to save nuclear deal
Reuters Staff
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran’s foreign minister embarks on a tour of world powers on Saturday, state media reported, in what is seen as a last-ditch effort to save Tehran’s nuclear deal after Washington’s withdrawal from the accord.
President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the deal on Tuesday, raising the risk of conflict in the Middle East, upsetting European allies and casting uncertainty over global oil supplies.
Iran said it would remain committed to the deal without Washington if Tehran achieved its goals - namely being protected from sanctions against key sectors of its economy such as oil - in cooperation with other countries that have signed up to the agreement.
President Hassan Rouhani said he had asked Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to negotiate with European countries, China and Russia in the coming weeks. “If at the end of this short period we conclude that we can fully benefit from the (nuclear accord ..., the deal would remain,” he said.
Zarif is due to leave for Beijing on Saturday and will later travel to Russia. He will then go to Brussels to meet counterparts from Germany, Britain and France “about the fate of the nuclear deal”, Iranian state television said.
“Iran has asked the European Union and particularly Germany, France and Britain to announce as soon as possible their stand on how Iran’s interests can be fulfilled and guaranteed under the nuclear agreement after America’s withdrawal,” the TV report said.
Europe’s largest economies lobbied to protect their companies’ investments in Iran on Friday, seeking to keep the nuclear deal with Tehran alive after Washington pulled out and threatened to impose sanctions on European companies.
Europe pushes back against U.S. withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal
Germany and France have significant trade links with Iran and remain committed to the nuclear agreement, as does Britain, and the three countries’ foreign ministers plan to meet on Tuesday to discuss it.
That is part of a flurry of diplomatic activity following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from what he called “a horrible, one-sided deal”, a move accompanied by the threat of penalties against any foreign firms doing business in Iran.
Reporting by Dubai newsroom; Editing by Clelia Oziel
Europe has never been as disenchanted with the US as it is now, and the latest crusade against 'free-riding' patients in the EU so Americans pay less is going to have serious consequences - Independent
May 11, 2018
Trump's new crusade against the NHS has the potential to destroy his reputation in Europe once and for all
Europe has never been as disenchanted with the US as it is now, and the latest crusade against 'free-riding' patients in the EU so Americans pay less is going to have serious consequences
David Usborne @dusborne
Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar looks on as President Donald Trump speaks during an event about prescription drug prices in the Rose Garden of the White House, Friday
Top US nuclear expert quits after Trump pulls out of Iran deal
There’s lots of chatter in the travel blogs about low fares from the US to Europe this summer and how Americans should rush to take advantage. Many will and I wish them a lovely time. But maybe they should steer clear of politics lest their hosts give them a roasting they won’t forget.
Some more seasoned American travellers will recall there have been other moments in time when a trip across the pond carried the risk of being lectured upon arrival about the errors of their country’s ways, notably during the Bush-Cheney era and the war in Iraq.
With you-know-who in the White House now, we almost forget how divisive a time that was, some of us even catching ourselves reflecting that old George W was a decent sort really. You know, by comparison. But then last week’s confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill for Gina Haspel to become the next director of the CIA jolted us out of that little daydream.
We were reminded all at once about the last time the United States showed itself willing to forsake all the norms of diplomacy and ties of friendship with so many allies to pursue its own obsessions. There was the illegal invasion of Iraq, of course. But it was the setting up of black site prisons and the torture of terror suspects that really saw it part with its better angels.
Haspel oversaw one of those torture resorts. It was located in Thailand. We also know she was involved in the deliberate destruction of videotapes that would have shown the extent of the brutality visited upon two prisoners, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. It is why John McCain, ailing and confined to his home in Arizona, made it clear that he would could not support her confirmation. McCain, of course, personally experienced torture in Vietnam.
That she said she would never let the CIA resume torture under her watch hardly impressed the senator. He needed more. “Her refusal to acknowledge torture’s immorality is disqualifying,” McCain wrote in a statement after watching her testimony in her hearing. “I believe the Senate should exercise its duty of advice and consent and reject this nomination.”
Nigel Farage to start petition to secure Donald Trump the Nobel Peace
Trump-Pence seems bent on outdoing even Bush-Cheney in fomenting disdain of America in Europe. Again, we only have to look at last week to see the evidence, starting with the decision not just to ditch the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that several European nations, including Britain, helped to negotiate and fervently wanted it to protect but also making clear that they intend to punish European companies doing business in Iran whatever the position of their governments.
It says a lot about the renewed rot in trans-Atlantic ties when Germany’s Angela Merkel feels compelled to say it’s time to unhitch as she did on Thursday. “It is no longer such that the United States simply protects us, but Europe must take its destiny in its own hands. That’s the task of the future,“ she said in a speech honouring French president Emanuel Macron, who responded saying much the same thing. European nations, he said, cannot allow “other major powers, including allies“ to “put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy [and] security for us”.
Guillaume Xavier-Bender, a nonresident fellow of American think-tank German Marshall Fund, observed: “To anyone who has ever played the game Jenga, President Trump’s announcement … felt as if he just withdrew that block that seemed a little loose but still under enough pressure not to be removed in full confidence. At Jenga, you pull the wrong block, and the entire tower crumbles.”
These are the professional classes grousing. What about everyone else? Will ordinary Britons be disgusted enough with Trump to fill the streets when he visits in July, like they did over the Iraq War or Ronald Reagan’s deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe in 1983?
Trump is doing his best to ensure dislike of him filters to all levels. Take the current Irn-Bru brouhaha in Scotland. A beverage of dubious nutritional value, Irn-Bru is nonetheless close to many Scots’ hearts. It can, however, leave a deep orange stain when spilled. Hence Trump’s golf resort and hotel in Turnberry deciding to ban it from its premises. To protect the tartan integrity of their carpets. Some north of the border consider it an egregious incitement, however.
So, alright, that’s not really a thing. But how about Trump’s newest crusade, this time to force patients in “socialised” health systems in Europe to pay more for their prescription drugs so Americans can start paying less. He reasons that the Europeans have long been “free-riding” by underpaying for drugs, thanks to price-setting by their governments. Americans pay more, even though it’s their pharmaceutical companies that developed them. He’ll use trade deals to try to stop it happening, like the one Britain must soon start negotiating. It’s not just Europe’s diplomacy he’s messing with. Now it’s its healthcare too.
We should revoke Trump’s Scottish golf course licence
Trump says America ‘is being respected again’
Israel has no real desire for armed conflict with Iran
It’s that America First thing. “When foreign governments extort unreasonably low prices from US drug makers, Americans have to pay more to subsidise the enormous cost of research and development,” Trump declared Friday on the White House lawn. He didn’t mention the NHS directly, but it’s clear that healthcare systems in Britain, the rest of Europe and in Canada too were on his mind. America’s trading partners “need to pay more because they’re using socialist price controls, market access controls, to get unfair pricing,” added Alex Azar, the US health secretary, who was standing alongside him.
Is Trump the most hated US president in Europe ever? You tell me (but try not to be too beastly to any American visitors you encounter this summer). Or maybe he has a ways to go yet. Because Reagan and George W Bush didn’t exactly endear themselves either, if you recall.
Trump's new crusade against the NHS has the potential to destroy his reputation in Europe once and for all
Europe has never been as disenchanted with the US as it is now, and the latest crusade against 'free-riding' patients in the EU so Americans pay less is going to have serious consequences
David Usborne @dusborne
Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar looks on as President Donald Trump speaks during an event about prescription drug prices in the Rose Garden of the White House, Friday
Top US nuclear expert quits after Trump pulls out of Iran deal
There’s lots of chatter in the travel blogs about low fares from the US to Europe this summer and how Americans should rush to take advantage. Many will and I wish them a lovely time. But maybe they should steer clear of politics lest their hosts give them a roasting they won’t forget.
Some more seasoned American travellers will recall there have been other moments in time when a trip across the pond carried the risk of being lectured upon arrival about the errors of their country’s ways, notably during the Bush-Cheney era and the war in Iraq.
With you-know-who in the White House now, we almost forget how divisive a time that was, some of us even catching ourselves reflecting that old George W was a decent sort really. You know, by comparison. But then last week’s confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill for Gina Haspel to become the next director of the CIA jolted us out of that little daydream.
We were reminded all at once about the last time the United States showed itself willing to forsake all the norms of diplomacy and ties of friendship with so many allies to pursue its own obsessions. There was the illegal invasion of Iraq, of course. But it was the setting up of black site prisons and the torture of terror suspects that really saw it part with its better angels.
Haspel oversaw one of those torture resorts. It was located in Thailand. We also know she was involved in the deliberate destruction of videotapes that would have shown the extent of the brutality visited upon two prisoners, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. It is why John McCain, ailing and confined to his home in Arizona, made it clear that he would could not support her confirmation. McCain, of course, personally experienced torture in Vietnam.
That she said she would never let the CIA resume torture under her watch hardly impressed the senator. He needed more. “Her refusal to acknowledge torture’s immorality is disqualifying,” McCain wrote in a statement after watching her testimony in her hearing. “I believe the Senate should exercise its duty of advice and consent and reject this nomination.”
Nigel Farage to start petition to secure Donald Trump the Nobel Peace
Trump-Pence seems bent on outdoing even Bush-Cheney in fomenting disdain of America in Europe. Again, we only have to look at last week to see the evidence, starting with the decision not just to ditch the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that several European nations, including Britain, helped to negotiate and fervently wanted it to protect but also making clear that they intend to punish European companies doing business in Iran whatever the position of their governments.
It says a lot about the renewed rot in trans-Atlantic ties when Germany’s Angela Merkel feels compelled to say it’s time to unhitch as she did on Thursday. “It is no longer such that the United States simply protects us, but Europe must take its destiny in its own hands. That’s the task of the future,“ she said in a speech honouring French president Emanuel Macron, who responded saying much the same thing. European nations, he said, cannot allow “other major powers, including allies“ to “put themselves in a situation to decide our diplomacy [and] security for us”.
Guillaume Xavier-Bender, a nonresident fellow of American think-tank German Marshall Fund, observed: “To anyone who has ever played the game Jenga, President Trump’s announcement … felt as if he just withdrew that block that seemed a little loose but still under enough pressure not to be removed in full confidence. At Jenga, you pull the wrong block, and the entire tower crumbles.”
These are the professional classes grousing. What about everyone else? Will ordinary Britons be disgusted enough with Trump to fill the streets when he visits in July, like they did over the Iraq War or Ronald Reagan’s deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe in 1983?
Trump is doing his best to ensure dislike of him filters to all levels. Take the current Irn-Bru brouhaha in Scotland. A beverage of dubious nutritional value, Irn-Bru is nonetheless close to many Scots’ hearts. It can, however, leave a deep orange stain when spilled. Hence Trump’s golf resort and hotel in Turnberry deciding to ban it from its premises. To protect the tartan integrity of their carpets. Some north of the border consider it an egregious incitement, however.
So, alright, that’s not really a thing. But how about Trump’s newest crusade, this time to force patients in “socialised” health systems in Europe to pay more for their prescription drugs so Americans can start paying less. He reasons that the Europeans have long been “free-riding” by underpaying for drugs, thanks to price-setting by their governments. Americans pay more, even though it’s their pharmaceutical companies that developed them. He’ll use trade deals to try to stop it happening, like the one Britain must soon start negotiating. It’s not just Europe’s diplomacy he’s messing with. Now it’s its healthcare too.
We should revoke Trump’s Scottish golf course licence
Trump says America ‘is being respected again’
Israel has no real desire for armed conflict with Iran
It’s that America First thing. “When foreign governments extort unreasonably low prices from US drug makers, Americans have to pay more to subsidise the enormous cost of research and development,” Trump declared Friday on the White House lawn. He didn’t mention the NHS directly, but it’s clear that healthcare systems in Britain, the rest of Europe and in Canada too were on his mind. America’s trading partners “need to pay more because they’re using socialist price controls, market access controls, to get unfair pricing,” added Alex Azar, the US health secretary, who was standing alongside him.
Is Trump the most hated US president in Europe ever? You tell me (but try not to be too beastly to any American visitors you encounter this summer). Or maybe he has a ways to go yet. Because Reagan and George W Bush didn’t exactly endear themselves either, if you recall.
1MDB: The case that has riveted Malaysia - BBC News
1MDB: The case that has riveted Malaysia
22 July 2016
Mr Najib has denied all wrongdoing after reports that almost $700m (£450m) were transfered into his personal account
The scandal surrounding Malaysia's state development fund 1MDB has gripped the country for years.
Now the US has said it is moving to seize more than $1bn (£761m) in assets, ranging from plush properties to a private jet, from people connected to the country's Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The asset seizure by the US would be the largest ever by the Justice Department's anti-corruption unit.
This is how the story has played out so far.
What is the controversy about?
1Malaysia Development Bhd, set up by Mr Najib in 2009, was meant to turn Kuala Lumpur into a financial hub and boost the economy through strategic investments.
But it started to attract negative attention in early 2015 after it missed payments for some of the $11bn it owed to banks and bondholders.
Then the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported it had seen a paper trail that allegedly traced close to $700m from the fund to Mr Najib's personal bank accounts.
Why is the US intervening now?
The Department of Justice alleges $3.5bn (£2.6bn) was misappropriated from 1MDB.
"The Malaysian people were defrauded on an enormous scale," Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe said at a news conference.
Mr Najib is not named in the suit. But it refers to "Malaysian Official 1", described as "a high-ranking official in the Malaysian government who also held a position of authority with 1MDB".
The move reflects an intention by the US to open new fronts in its fight against illicit finance.
It also sets up a rare confrontations between the US and Malaysia, which is considered an important partner in the fight against terrorism.
What do people involved say?
1MDB responded to the US papers by saying it had not benefited from the various transactions described in the suit.
The fund has repeatedly asserted that it has never given money to the prime minister and called the claims "unsubstantiated".
Mr Najib has also consistently denied taking money from 1MDB or any public funds.
His office said Malaysia had "led the way in investigations into 1MDB" and would "fully co-operate with any lawful investigation".
Is anyone else involved?
Mr Najib has accused his fiercest critic, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, of using the scandal as a means of "political sabotage".
He claims Mr Mahathir worked "hand in glove" with foreigners as part of a campaign "to topple a democratically elected prime minister."
The BBC put Mr Najib's allegations to Mr Mahathir, who dismissed the claims. Instead, he called on the prime minister to show proof that he didn't pocket state funds.
Over the last year, Mr Najib has also sacked his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin and replaced the former attorney-general over critical comments they made about the scandal.
Authorities seized computers when they raided 1MDB offices
There have been multiple domestic official investigations into the 1MDB fund, including a special task force headed by the attorney general. The team raided the office of 1MDB in 2015 and took away some documents.
But the replacement attorney general cleared Mr Najib of wrongdoing in January.
Multiple foreign authorities have also been investigating the company.
In May, Singapore ordered Swiss bank BSI to shut down in the city-state for breaking its money-laundering laws in its dealings with 1MDB.
Swiss authorities have opened criminal proceedings related to 1MDB on "suspected corruption of public foreign officials, dishonest management of public interests and money laundering".
What do Malaysians think about it?
Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysians should push for a referendum on the prime minister's leadership.
Opposition leader in parliament, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, called upon Mr Najib to give a full explanation in parliament and go on leave so a full probe could take place.
Civil society group Bersih said Mr Najib and the attorney-general who in January had cleared the prime minister should both resign immediately to make way for independent investigations.
The 1MDB controversy has frustrated many Malaysians who are struggling with the rising cost of living and what is perceived to be ingrained corruption in its political system.
Last year tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets calling for the resignation of the PM.
However, thousands have also rallied in support of the government.
The reaction on Thursday to the US move was muted in both Malaysia's mainstream newspapers and social media.
Malaysia's government has cracked down on reporting of the 1MDB scandal, blocking access to certain online news portals and targeting media groups and journalists.
22 July 2016
Mr Najib has denied all wrongdoing after reports that almost $700m (£450m) were transfered into his personal account
The scandal surrounding Malaysia's state development fund 1MDB has gripped the country for years.
Now the US has said it is moving to seize more than $1bn (£761m) in assets, ranging from plush properties to a private jet, from people connected to the country's Prime Minister Najib Razak.
The asset seizure by the US would be the largest ever by the Justice Department's anti-corruption unit.
This is how the story has played out so far.
What is the controversy about?
1Malaysia Development Bhd, set up by Mr Najib in 2009, was meant to turn Kuala Lumpur into a financial hub and boost the economy through strategic investments.
But it started to attract negative attention in early 2015 after it missed payments for some of the $11bn it owed to banks and bondholders.
Then the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported it had seen a paper trail that allegedly traced close to $700m from the fund to Mr Najib's personal bank accounts.
Why is the US intervening now?
The Department of Justice alleges $3.5bn (£2.6bn) was misappropriated from 1MDB.
"The Malaysian people were defrauded on an enormous scale," Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe said at a news conference.
Mr Najib is not named in the suit. But it refers to "Malaysian Official 1", described as "a high-ranking official in the Malaysian government who also held a position of authority with 1MDB".
The move reflects an intention by the US to open new fronts in its fight against illicit finance.
It also sets up a rare confrontations between the US and Malaysia, which is considered an important partner in the fight against terrorism.
What do people involved say?
1MDB responded to the US papers by saying it had not benefited from the various transactions described in the suit.
The fund has repeatedly asserted that it has never given money to the prime minister and called the claims "unsubstantiated".
Mr Najib has also consistently denied taking money from 1MDB or any public funds.
His office said Malaysia had "led the way in investigations into 1MDB" and would "fully co-operate with any lawful investigation".
Is anyone else involved?
Mr Najib has accused his fiercest critic, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, of using the scandal as a means of "political sabotage".
He claims Mr Mahathir worked "hand in glove" with foreigners as part of a campaign "to topple a democratically elected prime minister."
The BBC put Mr Najib's allegations to Mr Mahathir, who dismissed the claims. Instead, he called on the prime minister to show proof that he didn't pocket state funds.
Over the last year, Mr Najib has also sacked his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin and replaced the former attorney-general over critical comments they made about the scandal.
Authorities seized computers when they raided 1MDB offices
There have been multiple domestic official investigations into the 1MDB fund, including a special task force headed by the attorney general. The team raided the office of 1MDB in 2015 and took away some documents.
But the replacement attorney general cleared Mr Najib of wrongdoing in January.
Multiple foreign authorities have also been investigating the company.
In May, Singapore ordered Swiss bank BSI to shut down in the city-state for breaking its money-laundering laws in its dealings with 1MDB.
Swiss authorities have opened criminal proceedings related to 1MDB on "suspected corruption of public foreign officials, dishonest management of public interests and money laundering".
What do Malaysians think about it?
Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Malaysians should push for a referendum on the prime minister's leadership.
Opposition leader in parliament, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, called upon Mr Najib to give a full explanation in parliament and go on leave so a full probe could take place.
Civil society group Bersih said Mr Najib and the attorney-general who in January had cleared the prime minister should both resign immediately to make way for independent investigations.
The 1MDB controversy has frustrated many Malaysians who are struggling with the rising cost of living and what is perceived to be ingrained corruption in its political system.
Last year tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets calling for the resignation of the PM.
However, thousands have also rallied in support of the government.
The reaction on Thursday to the US move was muted in both Malaysia's mainstream newspapers and social media.
Malaysia's government has cracked down on reporting of the 1MDB scandal, blocking access to certain online news portals and targeting media groups and journalists.
US looks to seize $540m in 'stolen' assets from Malaysia fund 1MDB - BBC News
US looks to seize $540m in 'stolen' assets from Malaysia fund 1MDB
16 June 2017
Picasso's painting titled 'Nature Morte au Crane de Taureau' was allegedly bought with stolen money
US authorities are moving to seize a Picasso painting, a luxury apartment in Manhattan, and the movie rights to 'Dumb and Dumber To' as part of a global money laundering investigation.
The Department of Justice alleges more than $4.5bn (£3.5bn) was stolen from Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB by public officials and their associates.
Their latest lawsuit is looking to recover an additional $540m in assets linked to the scandal-ridden fund.
1MDB routinely denies any misconduct.
The case continues to place pressure on Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was identified as 'Official 1' in the DoJ filings.
There have been large street protests in the capital Kuala Lumpur in recent years calling for Mr Najib, who used to chair 1MDB's advisory board, to step down.
The scandal has also spawned investigations in at least five countries including Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland.
Mr Najib has consistently denied corruption allegations and an investigation by the country's attorney-general also cleared him of any wrongdoing.
The investigation of 1MDB has brought pressure on Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak.
"These cases involve billions of dollars that should have been used to help the people of Malaysia, but instead was used by a small number of individuals to fuel their astonishing greed," said Sandra Brown, an acting US attorney.
"We simply will not allow the United States to be a place where corrupt individuals can expect to hide assets and lavishly spend money that should be used for the benefit of citizens of other nations."
A press secretary for Mr Najib said in a statement that the government would co-operate with any "lawful" investigation, but stressed that the US claims remain unproven.
The secretary, Datuk Seri Tengku Sariffuddin, also said there was "unnecessary and gratuitous naming" in the case.
"Malaysia stands firm in its support of transparency and good governance," he said. "That includes ensuring that accusations have a basis in fact, rather than smears briefed by political opponents."
Where did the money go?
Overall, the DoJ has filed complaints to recover more than $1.7bn worth of funds allegedly pilfered from 2009 through 2015.
In court papers submitted on Thursday, prosecutors said some of the stolen money was used to buy a pink diamond necklace for Mr Najib's wife and a 300-foot luxury yacht called The Equanimity that comes with a helicopter launching pad and movie theatre.
Stolen funds were also used to buy the Picasso painting 'Nature Morte au Crane de Taureau', which was later given to actor Leonardo DiCaprio as a birthday gift.
The money was also used to fund Hollywood films including 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and the Jim Carrey movie 'Dumb and Dumber To'.
Red Granite Pictures, which financed both of those films and was founded by Mr Najib's stepson, is currently in settlement talks.
Attorney Jim Bates, who represents the firm, said it is "fully co-operating" and remains an active production company.
Mr DiCaprio, who starred in the Wolf of Wall Street, said last year he was co-operating with the investigation and would return any gifts tied to the fund.
Those named in earlier complaints, including the family of Malaysian financier Jho Low, who authorities say was a key player in the affair, have fought the seizures.
16 June 2017
Picasso's painting titled 'Nature Morte au Crane de Taureau' was allegedly bought with stolen money
US authorities are moving to seize a Picasso painting, a luxury apartment in Manhattan, and the movie rights to 'Dumb and Dumber To' as part of a global money laundering investigation.
The Department of Justice alleges more than $4.5bn (£3.5bn) was stolen from Malaysian sovereign wealth fund 1MDB by public officials and their associates.
Their latest lawsuit is looking to recover an additional $540m in assets linked to the scandal-ridden fund.
1MDB routinely denies any misconduct.
The case continues to place pressure on Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was identified as 'Official 1' in the DoJ filings.
There have been large street protests in the capital Kuala Lumpur in recent years calling for Mr Najib, who used to chair 1MDB's advisory board, to step down.
The scandal has also spawned investigations in at least five countries including Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland.
Mr Najib has consistently denied corruption allegations and an investigation by the country's attorney-general also cleared him of any wrongdoing.
The investigation of 1MDB has brought pressure on Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak.
"These cases involve billions of dollars that should have been used to help the people of Malaysia, but instead was used by a small number of individuals to fuel their astonishing greed," said Sandra Brown, an acting US attorney.
"We simply will not allow the United States to be a place where corrupt individuals can expect to hide assets and lavishly spend money that should be used for the benefit of citizens of other nations."
A press secretary for Mr Najib said in a statement that the government would co-operate with any "lawful" investigation, but stressed that the US claims remain unproven.
The secretary, Datuk Seri Tengku Sariffuddin, also said there was "unnecessary and gratuitous naming" in the case.
"Malaysia stands firm in its support of transparency and good governance," he said. "That includes ensuring that accusations have a basis in fact, rather than smears briefed by political opponents."
Where did the money go?
Overall, the DoJ has filed complaints to recover more than $1.7bn worth of funds allegedly pilfered from 2009 through 2015.
In court papers submitted on Thursday, prosecutors said some of the stolen money was used to buy a pink diamond necklace for Mr Najib's wife and a 300-foot luxury yacht called The Equanimity that comes with a helicopter launching pad and movie theatre.
Stolen funds were also used to buy the Picasso painting 'Nature Morte au Crane de Taureau', which was later given to actor Leonardo DiCaprio as a birthday gift.
The money was also used to fund Hollywood films including 'The Wolf of Wall Street' and the Jim Carrey movie 'Dumb and Dumber To'.
Red Granite Pictures, which financed both of those films and was founded by Mr Najib's stepson, is currently in settlement talks.
Attorney Jim Bates, who represents the firm, said it is "fully co-operating" and remains an active production company.
Mr DiCaprio, who starred in the Wolf of Wall Street, said last year he was co-operating with the investigation and would return any gifts tied to the fund.
Those named in earlier complaints, including the family of Malaysian financier Jho Low, who authorities say was a key player in the affair, have fought the seizures.
Former Malaysia PM Najib Razak banned from leaving country - BBC News
May 12, 2018
Former Malaysia PM Najib Razak banned from leaving country
Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor had planned to go on an overseas holiday
Ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has been banned from leaving the country, immigration officials say.
It comes after Mr Najib said that he and his wife were planning to go on an overseas holiday on Saturday.
Earlier this week, Mr Najib's long-ruling Barisan Nasional coalition suffered a shock electoral defeat.
Mr Najib has been accused of diverting $700m (£517m) from a state investment fund in 2015, but has since been cleared by the authorities.
However Malaysia's new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who at 92 became the world's oldest elected leader when he was sworn in on Thursday, has said that Mr Najib could face a fresh investigation if sufficient evidence supports it.
Mr Mahathir has said that investigations will take place into alleged corruption in the country, including the case involving the state investment fund.
What just happened?
'The biggest mistake in my life'
Mahathir: 'There are two types of age'
Mahathir Mohamad said he believed Malaysia "can get most of the 1MDB money back"
Mr Mahathir stood down as prime minister 15 years ago, but came out of retirement and defected to the opposition to take on and beat former protégé Najib Razak.
He appears to be making good on a promise, made during his election, to release imprisoned former political leader Anwar Ibrahim.
Who is Anwar Ibrahim?
Mr Anwar's daughter, Nurul Izzah, on Saturday confirmed reports that her father will "receive a full royal pardon" and is due to be released on Tuesday.
Mr Anwar was once Mr Mahathir's deputy, but was jailed on widely-criticised charges of sodomy and corruption amid bitter tensions between the two men.
How has Mr Najib reacted to his travel ban?
In a tweet (in Malay), he said he had been informed by the immigration authorities that he and his family would not be allowed to travel abroad.
He gave no reasons for the authorities' decision, but said he would abide by it.
He has also announced he is quitting as chairman of the Barisan Nasional coalition and as president of his United Malay National Organisation party.
Mr Najib, 64, had said earlier that he and his wife Rosmah Mansor would go on a holiday on Saturday.
It is believed they intended to fly to Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia.
What about the corruption scandal?
Mr Najib had faced accusations of corruption and mismanagement over the state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
The scandal has gripped the country for years.
1MDB, set up by Mr Najib in 2009, was meant to turn Kuala Lumpur into a financial hub and boost the economy through strategic investments.
But it started to attract negative attention in early 2015 after it missed payments for some of the $11bn it owed to banks and bondholders.
Then the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported it had seen a paper trail that allegedly traced close to $700m from the fund to Mr Najib's personal bank accounts.
Mr Najib has consistently denied taking money from 1MDB or any public funds.
After being sworn in as new prime minister, Mr Mahathir said he would seek the return of millions of dollars lost in the scandal.
1MDB: The case that's riveting Malaysia
1MDB: The United States v The Wolf of Wall Street
US looks to seize $540m in 'stolen' assets from Malaysia fund 1MDB
Former Malaysia PM Najib Razak banned from leaving country
Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor had planned to go on an overseas holiday
Ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has been banned from leaving the country, immigration officials say.
It comes after Mr Najib said that he and his wife were planning to go on an overseas holiday on Saturday.
Earlier this week, Mr Najib's long-ruling Barisan Nasional coalition suffered a shock electoral defeat.
Mr Najib has been accused of diverting $700m (£517m) from a state investment fund in 2015, but has since been cleared by the authorities.
However Malaysia's new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who at 92 became the world's oldest elected leader when he was sworn in on Thursday, has said that Mr Najib could face a fresh investigation if sufficient evidence supports it.
Mr Mahathir has said that investigations will take place into alleged corruption in the country, including the case involving the state investment fund.
What just happened?
'The biggest mistake in my life'
Mahathir: 'There are two types of age'
Mahathir Mohamad said he believed Malaysia "can get most of the 1MDB money back"
Mr Mahathir stood down as prime minister 15 years ago, but came out of retirement and defected to the opposition to take on and beat former protégé Najib Razak.
He appears to be making good on a promise, made during his election, to release imprisoned former political leader Anwar Ibrahim.
Who is Anwar Ibrahim?
Mr Anwar's daughter, Nurul Izzah, on Saturday confirmed reports that her father will "receive a full royal pardon" and is due to be released on Tuesday.
Mr Anwar was once Mr Mahathir's deputy, but was jailed on widely-criticised charges of sodomy and corruption amid bitter tensions between the two men.
How has Mr Najib reacted to his travel ban?
In a tweet (in Malay), he said he had been informed by the immigration authorities that he and his family would not be allowed to travel abroad.
He gave no reasons for the authorities' decision, but said he would abide by it.
He has also announced he is quitting as chairman of the Barisan Nasional coalition and as president of his United Malay National Organisation party.
Mr Najib, 64, had said earlier that he and his wife Rosmah Mansor would go on a holiday on Saturday.
It is believed they intended to fly to Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia.
What about the corruption scandal?
Mr Najib had faced accusations of corruption and mismanagement over the state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB).
The scandal has gripped the country for years.
1MDB, set up by Mr Najib in 2009, was meant to turn Kuala Lumpur into a financial hub and boost the economy through strategic investments.
But it started to attract negative attention in early 2015 after it missed payments for some of the $11bn it owed to banks and bondholders.
Then the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported it had seen a paper trail that allegedly traced close to $700m from the fund to Mr Najib's personal bank accounts.
Mr Najib has consistently denied taking money from 1MDB or any public funds.
After being sworn in as new prime minister, Mr Mahathir said he would seek the return of millions of dollars lost in the scandal.
1MDB: The case that's riveting Malaysia
1MDB: The United States v The Wolf of Wall Street
US looks to seize $540m in 'stolen' assets from Malaysia fund 1MDB
North Korea: UN gains 'unprecedented access' during visit - BBC News
May 12, 2018
North Korea: UN gains 'unprecedented access' during visit
People are going hungry in North Korea, the head of the WFP said, but are not starving
The head of the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) believes there is a "sense of optimism" among North Korea's leaders after enjoying what he said was unprecedented access to the country.
David Beasley spent two days in the capital, Pyongyang, and two outside it, accompanied by government minders.
He said the country was working hard to meet nutritional standards, and hunger was not as high as in the 1990s.
"There is a sense of turning a new page in history," he told the BBC.
Relations between North Korea and the rest of the world have seen a dramatic shift.
Last year the North Korean government carried out a string of nuclear and missile tests.
But next month, its leader Kim Jong-un will meet US President Donald Trump, in what would be the first time a sitting US president has ever met a North Korean leader.
Confirmation of the meeting came after landmark talks between North and South Korea. Mr Trump announced the details of the meeting - in Singapore on 12 June - earlier this week, hours after he welcomed home three US detainees released from North Korea.
Will historic summit lead to peace?
The Koreas - the basics explained
What did the UN see in North Korea?
David Beasley visited North Korea from 8-11 May. The visit included trips to WFP-funded projects - a children's nursery in South Hwanghae province and a fortified biscuit factory in North Pyongyan province.
He told the BBC's Radio 4 programme Today that the farming he saw in the countryside reflected the fact that only about a fifth of the land is arable.
"One of the most powerful things that I saw was out in the countryside - it's spring, they're planting - there's not mechanisation, you've got oxen pulling ploughs, men and women in the fields," he said.
Image copyrightWFP/SILKE BUHR
Image caption
David Beasley visited WFP programmes in the North Korean countryside
"It's very structured, very organised, every foot and inch of dirt is being toiled with rakes and hoes and shovels and they're literally planting crops up to the edge of the road, down embankments, using every available space, because it is a land that's mostly mountainous.
"I didn't see starvation like you had in the famine back in the 1990s, that's the good news. But is there a hunger issue, is there under-nutrition? There's no question about it."
Between 1994 and 1998, hundreds of thousands of people are believed to have died in North Korea in a widespread famine.
After drought last year, the UN said seven in 10 North Koreans were relying on food aid, while four in 10 were malnourished.
Two in five N Koreans 'undernourished'
UN sounds alarm over N Korea drought
Last month the UN requested $111m in aid funding to help people in North Korea. The US has offered to help rebuild the country, on condition of denuclearisation.
How do North and South Korean economies compare?
Daily life in the two countries couldn't be more different.
Media captionFour defectors talk about what life is like in North Korea
After the end of the Korean war in 1953 the South, an ally of the US, embraced a capitalist philosophy. It has developed into one of Asia's most affluent nations.
A government-sponsored industrial push in the 1960s led to huge corporations like Samsung and Hyundai being created.
Key figures:
Population: 51.2m in South Korea; 25.4m in North Korea
GDP: $1.4tn - South Korea; less than $20bn - North Korea
Life expectancy: 82 years - South Korea; 70 years - North Korea
South Korea is one of the world's top 20 economies, with GDP of $1.4tn (£1tn).
By contrast, North Korea's GDP is less than $20bn, placing it well outside the top 100 economies.
It has a communist system, but capitalism is creeping into the country.
There are things to buy - but only for some people, those who have money. The majority of people in North Korea live in poverty.
Kim Jong-un has made clear that development is a priority.
North Korea: UN gains 'unprecedented access' during visit
People are going hungry in North Korea, the head of the WFP said, but are not starving
The head of the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) believes there is a "sense of optimism" among North Korea's leaders after enjoying what he said was unprecedented access to the country.
David Beasley spent two days in the capital, Pyongyang, and two outside it, accompanied by government minders.
He said the country was working hard to meet nutritional standards, and hunger was not as high as in the 1990s.
"There is a sense of turning a new page in history," he told the BBC.
Relations between North Korea and the rest of the world have seen a dramatic shift.
Last year the North Korean government carried out a string of nuclear and missile tests.
But next month, its leader Kim Jong-un will meet US President Donald Trump, in what would be the first time a sitting US president has ever met a North Korean leader.
Confirmation of the meeting came after landmark talks between North and South Korea. Mr Trump announced the details of the meeting - in Singapore on 12 June - earlier this week, hours after he welcomed home three US detainees released from North Korea.
Will historic summit lead to peace?
The Koreas - the basics explained
What did the UN see in North Korea?
David Beasley visited North Korea from 8-11 May. The visit included trips to WFP-funded projects - a children's nursery in South Hwanghae province and a fortified biscuit factory in North Pyongyan province.
He told the BBC's Radio 4 programme Today that the farming he saw in the countryside reflected the fact that only about a fifth of the land is arable.
"One of the most powerful things that I saw was out in the countryside - it's spring, they're planting - there's not mechanisation, you've got oxen pulling ploughs, men and women in the fields," he said.
Image copyrightWFP/SILKE BUHR
Image caption
David Beasley visited WFP programmes in the North Korean countryside
"It's very structured, very organised, every foot and inch of dirt is being toiled with rakes and hoes and shovels and they're literally planting crops up to the edge of the road, down embankments, using every available space, because it is a land that's mostly mountainous.
"I didn't see starvation like you had in the famine back in the 1990s, that's the good news. But is there a hunger issue, is there under-nutrition? There's no question about it."
Between 1994 and 1998, hundreds of thousands of people are believed to have died in North Korea in a widespread famine.
After drought last year, the UN said seven in 10 North Koreans were relying on food aid, while four in 10 were malnourished.
Two in five N Koreans 'undernourished'
UN sounds alarm over N Korea drought
Last month the UN requested $111m in aid funding to help people in North Korea. The US has offered to help rebuild the country, on condition of denuclearisation.
How do North and South Korean economies compare?
Daily life in the two countries couldn't be more different.
Media captionFour defectors talk about what life is like in North Korea
After the end of the Korean war in 1953 the South, an ally of the US, embraced a capitalist philosophy. It has developed into one of Asia's most affluent nations.
A government-sponsored industrial push in the 1960s led to huge corporations like Samsung and Hyundai being created.
Key figures:
Population: 51.2m in South Korea; 25.4m in North Korea
GDP: $1.4tn - South Korea; less than $20bn - North Korea
Life expectancy: 82 years - South Korea; 70 years - North Korea
South Korea is one of the world's top 20 economies, with GDP of $1.4tn (£1tn).
By contrast, North Korea's GDP is less than $20bn, placing it well outside the top 100 economies.
It has a communist system, but capitalism is creeping into the country.
There are things to buy - but only for some people, those who have money. The majority of people in North Korea live in poverty.
Kim Jong-un has made clear that development is a priority.
Friday, May 11, 2018
Zuckerberg seems to be employing a tactic he has endorsed in the past: promoting from within the company. - CNBC News
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.
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.
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)
