Ukraine political song won Eurovision that upset Russia - Financial Times

Politically charged Ukraine song wins Eurovision
Contentious ‘1944’ performance inflames Russia for focusing on Crimea
Crimean Tatar singer Susana Jamaladinova, known as Jamala, waves to supporters after performing in the Ukrainian national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest outside Kiev, Ukraine, February 21, 2016. Jamaladinova was chosen as the Ukraine's entry for 2016 Eurovision Song Contest. REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko - RTX27YHR
Crimean Tatar singer Susana Jamaladinova, known as Jamala, is the Eurovision entry for Ukraine © Reuters

YESTERDAY by: Roman Olearchyk in Kiev
A politically charged song by Ukraine’s Susana Jamaladinova that draws attention to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea won Saturday night’s Eurovision contest held in Stockholm, edging out performances by Russia and Australia.

The emotional “1944” by Ms Jamaladinova, an ethnic Crimean Tatar who goes by the stage name Jamala, stood out from Eurovision’s traditional kitsch pop entries and has been criticised in Russia for breaking contest rules by being political.

The song recounts Joseph Stalin’s forced deportation of hundreds of thousands of the Crimean Tatars from the peninsula during the second world war. In doing so, it makes parallels to the persecution of Crimea Tatars and other pro-Ukraine leaning residents of the peninsula that was seized by Russia two years ago. It also draws attention to a still smouldering, two-year war with Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine’s far east, which has claimed about 9,300 lives.


Shifting from English to Tatar, Jamala’s ballad starts with the sombre line: “When strangers are coming, they come to your house, they kill you and say ‘we’re not guilty’.”

It continues: “Where is your heart? Humanity rise.”

Initially, voting by judges put Jamala in second place behind Australia’s Dami Im. But as votes from viewers were added in the combined system, a performance by Russia’s Sergey Lazarev jumped up the rankings, putting the three in a dead heat for first place.

After the final votes from viewers were counted, Jamala leapt into first with 534 points. The performers from Australia and Russia finished with 511 and 491, respectively.

“I really want peace and love to everyone,” Jamala cried out after the results were announced.

“Welcome to Ukraine!” she added after securing the war-torn and recession-battered country the right to host next year’s contest.

About 240,000 Crimean Tatars were deported by the Soviets towards the end of the second world war. The Crimean ethnic minority claim thousands died along the journey or from starvation after being displaced in central Asia. They describe that operation as ethnic cleansing. They were encouraged to return to a newly independent Ukraine after the 1991 collapse of the USSR.

Since occupying Crimea, Russian authorities have shut down Tatar media outlets and launched legal proceedings against dozens of Tatars, Human Rights Watch said in a recent report.

MPs in Russia, which denies persecuting Crimea Tatars and waging a proxy separatist war in eastern Ukraine, have denounced Ukraine’s decision to enter Jamala’s song to Eurovision.


In a sarcastic tweet, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister, proposed Russia should be represented in next year’s Eurovision by Sergey Shnurov, a singer from the band Leningrad known for using foul language in performances. “Win or no win,” he added, “he will send them all off [in curses].”

Many in Ukraine hoped Jamala’s performance would raise international awareness about what they describe as continued Russian aggression.

Related article
Australia's Dami Im cheers in the Green Room during the Eurovision Song Contest final at the Ericsson Globe Arena in Stockholm, Sweden, May 14, 2016.
Australia comes runner-up in Eurovision
Dami Im’s power ballad ‘Sound of Silence’ narrowly misses out on top spot
“Her performance in Stockholm is a loud SOS signal to the world from Crimean Tatars, who are now facing massive repression in their homeland,” Alima Alieva of CrimeaSOS, an advocacy group for Crimeans’ rights, told the Financial Times ahead of the contest.

Describing Jamala’s performance as a “screaming soul” representing all ethnic minorities “who need protection”, Tamila Tasheva, another co-ordinator from CrimeaSOS, urged the world to prevent past hostilities from repeating.

Kiev has not given up on reclaiming control of Crimea through diplomacy and is seeking billions of dollars in damages for loss of the peninsula and its assets through lawsuits in The Hague.

Few countries have recognised Russia’s Crimea annexation. Ukraine’s strongest backers, the US and EU, continue to urge Russia to end what they describe as an illegal occupation.

Brexit - Historical relationship between UK & Europe - Financial Times

When historians get sucked into a political controversy, it is often a sign that a country is going through an identity crisis. In Germany in the 1960s, an academic argument about whether the country had been responsible for the first world war provoked a ferocious public debate — because of its implication that Nazism was not a solitary aberration in German history. The bicentenary of the French Revolution in 1989 provoked a sharp division between French historians about the true meaning of the events of 1789 — with the left celebrating the revolution as a triumph of liberty and the right emphasising the way in which it had descended into terror and despotism.
Disputes between historians of Britain have not tended to be so obviously political. Generations of undergraduates have enjoyed, or snoozed through, arguments about the standard of living in the industrial revolution (better or worse?); or the “strange death of liberal England” (organised labour or the first world war?) — and such debates sometimes did pit Marxist historians against conservatives. But these arguments generally remained some way removed from the rough-and-tumble of daily politics.

So it is perhaps a sign that Britain is now much less sure of its national identity that the country’s historical profession has got sucked into a heated argument about the most vexed political issue of the moment: Britain’s relationship with the rest of Europe.
With Britain’s referendum on EU membership just weeks away, David Cameron has appealed to British history to make the case for the UK staying inside the EU. In a speech at the British Museum earlier this week, the prime minister argued that, “From Caesar’s legions to the wars of the Spanish succession, from Napoleonic wars to the fall of the Berlin Wall . . . Britain has always been a European power.”
In his efforts to ground his arguments in British history, the prime minister was tapping into a debate that has already been rumbling in the country’s universities. The trigger for the dispute was the formation of a group called “Historians for Britain”, chaired by David Abulafia, professor of Mediterranean history at Cambridge. In a letter released ahead of Cameron’s attempted renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s EU membership, the Historians for Britain argued that the UK should stay only in a “radically reformed European Union” that reflected “the distinctive character of the United Kingdom, rooted in its largely uninterrupted history since the Middle Ages”.
The declaration from Historians for Britain was signed by a sizeable group of academics and authors across the UK. It swiftly provoked a blistering response from a much larger group of historians, based in universities all over Britain, including Cambridge. An article for History Today, headlined “Fog in Channel, Historians Isolated”, laid into the idea of Britain’s “largely uninterrupted history” — arguing that “such continuity would indeed be spectacular, but it is illusory. Britain’s past is neither so exalted nor so unique.”
The tone of the initial letters was reasonably polite. But subsequent contributions were not so restrained. Neil Gregor, professor of modern history at Southampton, who helped to draft the response to Historians for Britain, later fulminated in a blog post that “it is difficult to know where to start when engaging with a narrative that, as any Lower Second Class undergraduate can tell you, the profession abandoned decades ago.”
 . . . 
One place to start, it strikes me, is by trying to break down the argument into its component parts and then talking to historians on both sides of the debate. I swiftly discovered that my journalistic tendency to refer to the two camps as “pro-” and “anti-EU” drew pained responses. Both sides are keen to insist that their view of history is not distorted by anything as vulgar as political prejudice. Nonetheless, signature of either letter is probably a reliable predictor of a vote to either Leave or Remain in the EU.

David Cameron warns of investment loss on Brexit - The Telegraph

David Cameron warns voters Brexit will increase cost of bills on biggest day of EU referendum campaign yet



David Cameron is just one voice on a busy EU referendum campaign trail today CREDIT: REUTERS
* Michael Wilkinson  Sophie Jamieson
14 MAY 2016 • 10:00AM

David Cameron warns of loss of infrastructure investment if UK leaves the EU
The Prime Minister has claimed that the UK would lose billions of pounds a year in infrastructure investment if the country votes to leave the EU.
The money in question comes from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the EU's bank, which lends money to member states for projects .
David Cameron has warned that departing the EU would mean Britain would no longer be a member of the EIB. The bank has invested over £16bn in projects in the UK over the past three years.
In 2015, a quarter of the British projects the EIB invested in were energy-related. Transport accounted for 22pc, water 21pc and health and education jointly 20pc.

On Thursday the EIB announced a £700m loan to help finance the so-called 'super sewer', the Thames Tideway Tunnel.
The bank has also backed schools and universities, including a £200m loan to the University of Oxford to fund new research and teaching facilities.
The biggest beneficiary of the EIB in the UK has been London in the last two years, but money has invested across the country,  with the Midlands and Scotland second and third respectively in terms of funding received.

 Mr Cameron said losing EIB funding would have a "devastating impact on future infrastructure" and could affect competitiveness for British businesses.
He said: "Vital projects across every region of the UK have been financed by the EIB. These make a huge difference locally, nationally, and sometimes globally - from the purchase of 65 new Super Express Trains for the East Coast Main Line; to investment in development of emission control technologies in Hertfordshire; to extension of the M8 motorway between Edinburgh and Glasgow; to the expansion of Oxford University’s research and teaching facilities.
“Not only would leaving the EU see us wave goodbye to this crucial funding - but, with a smaller economy hit by new trading barriers and job losses, it’s unlikely we’d be able to find that money from alternative sources.
“Infrastructure affects the competitiveness of every business and the prosperity of every family in the country – but a leave vote on 23rd June risks putting the brakes on the infrastructure investment we need and shifting our economy into reverse.”

Apple invests one billion in China on Uber car service - Reuter

Posted: 13 May 2016 12:04 AM PDT

Apple has invested $1 billion into a Chinese ride-hailing service in an effort to fortify ties with China’s booming consumer market.
The service, Didi Chuxing, is Uber’s biggest rival in the world’s most populous country, completing 11 million rides a day — 87% of China’s ride-hailing market, Reuters reported. The Apple investment is the largest single infusion of capital the company has received since it was founded four years ago.
In an interview with Reuters, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that the company’s decision to invest in Didi Chuxing “reflects [Apple’s] excitement about their growing business … and also our continued confidence in the long term in China’s economy.”
The move comes at a time when Apple’s sales in China — like the Chinese economy at large — are slowing, though Cook is bullish on the future of the market. Of course, the company’s relationship with the country has not always been sunny. Its principal manufacturing partner is Foxconn, whose factory in Shenzhen was the site of a rash of worker suicides six years ago, leading to an investigation into allegedly abusive employment practices. At the end of last month, Chinese state censors blocked access to iTunes Movies and the iBooks Store, six months after they had entered the country’s market.
[Reuters]

5 Times People Have Gotten Kicked Off Flights for Ridiculous Reasons - TIME

5 Times People Have Gotten Kicked Off Flights for Ridiculous Reasons

Posted: 09 May 2016 08:57 AM PDT

A University of Pennsylvania economics professor was involved in a flight delay Thursday after a fellow passenger reported the math equations he was writing on the plane as suspicious.
The passenger, Guido Menzio, was eventually allowed to continue on the Philadelphia-to-Syracuse journey. But Menzio’s situation highlighted the recent trend of air travelers being kicked off jetliners for reasons that seem to fall short of the bar.
While precise data about these incidents isn’t recorded, a combination of highly suspicious travelers, cramped airplanes, and the generally anxiety-inducing process of flying seems to be fueling an uptick.
Here are a few examples over the last few months.

1. A University of California, Berkeley student was removed from a Southwest Airlines flight in April after another passenger reported he was making comments in Arabic “perceived to be threatening,” as the airline put it. The student later said he was talking on the phone with his uncle about a speech he had attended. The incident sparked a conversation about air travel, security, and Islamophobia.
2. The parents of a 1-year-old child said they were kicked off an Allegiant Air flight in May after informing the flight crew of the boy’s severe peanut allergy. The airline said an outside medical advisor recommended the child not be allowed on board.
4. A 385-pound man said he was given the boot from a United Airlines flight in April after his would-be row mate complained about his comfort to a flight attendant. A United spokesperson told The Huffington Post that “the airline’s policy is to remove people who can’t safely fit into their seat.”
5. A U.S. Army veteran claimed that Spirit Airlines forced her off an April flight after she tried to bring her “emotional support animal” on board. Service animals are generally allowed on flights.
6. A woman claimed she was unjustly kicked off an American Airlines flight last October by an irate flight attendant. In video recorded by other passengers, the woman is seen crying through the ordeal. American told The Washington Post it had apologized to the passenger.

UK industry in recession for third time in 8 years - BBC

UK industry in recession for third time in eight years



UK industry fell back into recession as it shrank for the second quarter in a row, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
It is the third time UK industry has been in recession in eight years.
Although industrial production rose 0.3% from February to March, it fell 0.4% both in the first three months of 2016 and in the last three of 2015.
Compared with a year ago, manufacturing production in the first quarter fell 1.9%, the biggest fall since 2013.
The biggest fall in output came from the basic iron and steel sector which saw production drop in March by 37.3% percent compared with a year earlier.
ADVERTISEMENT

However, the oil and gas industries saw sharp gains, increasing production 17% in February, and 10.9% in March from the same months a year earlier.
Manufacturing and construction is proving to be a drag on the whole economy, helping slow UK economic growth from 0.6% in the last three months of 2015 to 0.4% between January and March, according to the ONS.
Weaker growth
Earlier this month a survey by Markit/CIPS also showed manufacturing contracting. Chris Williamson, chief economist at Markit said: "The goods-producing sector therefore looks to be on course to act as a drag on the economy again in the second quarter, contributing to a slowing in economic growth to near-stagnation.
"Growth could be even weaker if the surveys disappoint in coming month, which seems probable given the intensifying uncertainty over the outcome of the EU referendum."
Despite this, economist Ruth Miller from Capital Economics is optimistic for the rest of the year.
She said: "We still expect things to look up as the year progresses. Sterling's recent depreciation and our expectations that global growth will pick up slightly in 2016 should allow the sector to return to modest growth later this year."

What does the dropping Australian dollar mean for you?

 |  Filed Under: Economy

Benjamin Freeman

editor@mywealth.com.au

Last week the Australian dollar hit a six-year low, trading at 75.6 US cents on Wednesday morning.

Across the economy the dropping dollar has varying affects, creating opportunities for businesses in tourism, education, agriculture and manufacturing - because their products and services become cheaper for overseas buyers - but making it costlier for those importing goods, such as retailers.

But what does it mean for you?

“For the average Australian household there can be an impact in terms of lifting overseas holiday costs, increasing the cost of imported goods and buying goods online as well as fuel prices because we derive a lot of our fuel from overseas,” said CommSec economist Savanth Sebastian.

• Winners and losers from a falling Australian dollar

Travel

When the dollar falls, overseas travel costs more. Mid-2014 the Australian dollar bought 94.49 US cents. That means in less than a year, you’ve lost just over US$18 for every $100 spent in US dollars.

If you’re travelling overseas, you may need to increase your budget or carefully consider how long you’ll be travelling for and what you’ll be doing. Some destinations will be more cost-effective to travel to than others. Despite the drop against the US dollar, the Australian dollar has fared better against the Yen and Euro, so Japan and Europe may still be good options.

Alternatively, some Australians will look at travelling domestically until the dollar lifts.

“When you have sluggish growth across the economy you start to see some other sectors starting to get a boost such as domestic tourism,” said Sebastian.

• Australia's economy struggles to release reliance on mining

Shopping

Just as with the price of travel, the cost of online goods from overseas increases. While it may not mean too much when buying a book or DVD from Amazon or Ebay, buying clothes, electronics or other expensive items online becomes costlier.

On a broader scale, a drop in the Australian dollar can mean that local retailers have to up the prices they charge us. When it becomes more expensive to import goods, retailers have a few ways they can respond:

• Increase their own prices
• Absorb the loss
• Make changes to products to maintain their price points.

Petrol

Over the last few months petrol prices have dropped significantly as lower global demand for oil has coincided with higher production, sending the value of the commodity down.

However, the cost of petrol could increase in the not too distant future if oil prices were to bounce back while the dollar remains weaker.

“Because Australia buys a lot of fuel from the Asian region which is all priced in US dollars, a falling Australian dollar means that we have to purchase less fuel or it becomes more expensive to make the same purchase. At this point we haven’t really noticed the falling currency in terms of impact on fuel prices because oil prices have fallen as well,” said Sebastian.

Why does the dollar drop?

The market value of a currency is essentially determined by how much demand there is for it relative to other currencies.

The combination of a strengthening US dollar and slow growth in China, which affects commodity prices here in Australia, are two contributors to the Australian dollar's recent decline. Sebastian sees the influx of cash into the US economy as the key reason for this latest drop.

“We’re actually seeing a flight of capital back to the US dollar, that’s the key driver for the drop at the moment. The US currency is the reserve currency of the globe and it’s coming back quite strong and is one of the key drivers in terms of pushing down the Australian dollar,” he said.

How You Watch TV Is About To Change Forever - TIME Business

How You Watch TV Is About To Change Forever Posted: 06 May 2016 08:12 AM PDT It’s finally, almost, happening (again). After years of behind-the-scenes brokering, a raft of tech companies are reportedly close to launching new streaming services that will allow customers to watch live TV via the Internet. First, Hulu confirmed that it’s working on a live-streaming package expected to include TV mainstays like ESPN, ABC and Fox, costing around $40. Then, Bloomberg reported that the Google-owned YouTube is aiming to launch its own online live-TV service sometime in 2017, offering a similar “skinny bundle” of very popular channels and costing less than a traditional cable package. Rumors persist that Apple wants to do the exact same thing. And all of these services will compete with Dish Network’s Sling TV and Sony’s PlayStation Vue service, early Internet-TV products that launched last year. Combined, these efforts will likely cause the so-far-niche activity of watching live television channels via the Internet into the mainstream. If lots of people decide to cut the cord in favor of these new services, the way we all watch TV could change dramatically, whether through a cable box, a satellite dish or an Apple TV. Here, we break down who the winners and losers of the new, live-streamed world are likely to be. Winners Tech Companies Surprise: The reason tech companies are scrambling to break into the TV market is because it’s a massive money-making opportunity. Globally, television will bring in nearly half a trillion dollars between customer subscription fees and advertising revenue by 2019, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Companies like Google and Hulu can tap into both of these money sources, charging people for monthly subscriptions while also selling commercials to air during their programs. And because television has yet to be disrupted in the same way as books, music and other types of media, a variety of players are still eager to grab the lion’s share of this huge pool of money. “There is going to be an explosion of smaller-bundle services,” says Rich Greenfield, a media and tech analyst at BTIG. Tech-Savvy Consumers Those consumers who are able to keep track of the myriad streaming options available to them will likely find ways to save money compared to traditional cable packages. It’s likely that many of the online-TV services will offer a base bundle that includes a couple dozen very popular channels and then smaller, themed bundles centered around topics like sports or kids’ entertainment. Sling TV, for example, offers channels like ESPN, CNN and Disney Channel in its $20 base package, with small expansion bundles sold for $5 each. (But you’ll still have to shell out for Internet access.) Major Television Networks TV networks have been left flat-footed in the transition to streaming video, unsure whether to license all their content to services like Netflix or keep it locked up with traditional pay-TV operators, which are slowly losing subscribers. These new online live-TV products could serve as a promising new revenue source. New entrants into the pay-TV world may pay networks affiliate fees that are 1.75 times as costly as those paid by Comcast because their user bases are relatively small, according Erik Brannon, a television analyst at IHS Screen Digest. In the case of Hulu, the new service will be especially lucrative for Disney, NBCUniversal and Fox, which jointly own the company. “It’s money they never had the opportunity to make before,” explains Brannon. “This contraction in the total number of pay-TV households . . . can be mitigated for them on the books.” Losers Fans of plain ol’ TV  The big cable bundle isn’t going anywhere. IHS estimates that the number of households subscribed to traditional pay-TV packages will shrink from 99 million to 95 million by 2020, which is still a big number. But those packages may start to look different. Negotiation standoffs between pay-TV operators and networks are becoming more frequent as television ratings decline and networks demand higher fees from operators for their content. These days, there’s not always a happy ending. When Viacom reached an impasse in 2014 with Suddenlink, a St. Louis-based cable operator with more than one million subscribers, the media giant’s networks all went dark for Suddenlink subscribers. The customers caught in the middle now no longer have access to Nickelodeon, MTV, and other big-name channels. Increased instability in the industry could lead to more such standoffs, or cause some smaller cable channels to shutter altogether. The large number of digital competitors also means more must-see TV will end up on online platforms, including shows that were previously part of traditional television. Sesame Street, a PBS mainstay that has long been available to any kid with a television set and an antenna, now debuts exclusively on HBO, which has one of the most expensive streaming services on the market. CBS, meanwhile, is planning to make first-run episodes of its upcoming Star Trek series exclusive to its streaming package. Smaller cable channels The broadcast networks and widely viewed cable channels will be fine in the slow transition to online TV. It’s the little guys that may get squeezed out. If traditional pay-TV subscribers opt for skinnier bundles en masse, the channels that aren’t included in slimmed-down packages will see their subscriber fees start to decline and could suffer in ratings as well. Tiny cable networks with four-digit channel numbers are already being forced to go off the air. “It’s the long tail of the basic cable bundle that is most likely to come under pressure,” says Dan Cryan, a media analyst at IHS. Satellite Companies The major cable operators will largely be fine, even if they shed video subscribers. Because companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable also offer their customers Internet service, they can entice people to keep TV subscriptions with attractive bundles. And even if customers opt to dump cable, these operators can just charge them more for the bandwidth they consume watching online TV, as Comcast has begun to do in some markets. Satellite companies don’t have this luxury. That’s part of why DirecTV merged with AT&T last year. Of the large pay-TV providers, only Dish Network lacks a diversity of ISP and telco offerings, and even that company has been in acquisition talks recently.

A Chinese Court Has Ruled That a Drinks Company Can’t Use ‘Face Book’ as a Trademark - Wall Street Journal

A Chinese Court Has Ruled That a Drinks Company Can’t Use ‘Face Book’ as a Trademark Posted: 09 May 2016 01:27 AM PDT A Chinese company has been told it can no longer use the words face book in its branding, in a rare favorable court ruling for a U.S. company that comes after extensive efforts by Facebook to court Chinese officials. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Beijing Higher People’s Court announced it had revoked approval for Zhujiang Beverage — which makes flavored milk drinks and porridge — to use the name. Arguing against the court’s decision, the company’s marketing manager told the Wall Street Journal that the Chinese translation of the words face book — lian shu — referred to masks used in traditional Chinese opera. “Lian shu is something very Chinese,” said Liu Hongqun. The country’s trademark regulator may still revisit the decision, but it appears to be a victory for Facebook. The social network remains blocked to Internet users in the Chinese Communist Party–ruled nation, but founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made efforts to ingratiate himself with Chinese officials, including by recently braving the notorious Beijing smog to take a run in front of the gates of the Forbidden City. Other American companies have not had Facebook’s luck in China. A firm making handbags just got the go-ahead to keep using the name “iPhone” on its products, despite registering the trademark in 2007, five years after Apple did. [WSJ]

China new way to keep credit growth - Bloomberg

China Revamps Credit Expansion as PBOC Balance Sheet Shrinks
 Malcolm Scott   Enda Curran
 endacurran
May 9, 2016 — 2:01 AM AEST
Share on FacebookShare on WhatsApp

* PBOC assets have dropped as foreign-exchange reserves fell

* China's credit and money supply have expanded nonetheless

Sometimes it helps to have a command economy.
While central bankers in Japan, Europe and the U.S. have struggled in recent years to stoke credit growth even as they grew their balance sheets to unprecedented size, the People’s Bank of China is succeeding, with a very different approach.
For all the Communist Party’s rhetoric about giving a decisive role to markets, China’s financial system remains dominated by state-owned lenders. That’s come in handy as policy makers loosened monetary policy since 2014 to shore up a slowing economy. Officials can direct banks to make new loans or roll over existing ones. The PBOC has also been expanding support for "policy banks" that support government objectives.

What’s perhaps most striking is China’s lending machine is humming even as the PBOC downsizes. Its balance sheet has been shrinking some as it sold off foreign-exchange reserves in the past year to shore up the yuan’s value.

The PBOC’s effectiveness is seen in the money multiplier, which was at 5.1 in March, according to a report from the central bank Friday. That means each 1 yuan the central bank pumps into the economy generates 4.1 more through the process of loans generating new deposits that then create further loans, and so on.
By contrast, developed-world central banks have found that while it’s easy to create money, it’s hard to get that money to be lent onwards. Much of the Bank of Japan’s money pumping has ended up right back at the BOJ, because banks have failed to find attractive borrowers to lend to. And democracies essentially can’t order banks to lend.
"It’s more powerful and effective, as the PBOC and State Council have more power over banks," said Shen Jianguang, chief Asia economist at Mizuho Securities Asia Ltd. in Hong Kong, referring to the central bank and the cabinet. "The money multiplier in China is under direct influence by the government and is much higher than other countries."

Besides relying on the multiplier effect, PBOC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan and his colleagues have had to adapt their money-creation strategy. Before 2014, when most investors and traders anticipated sustained long-term gains in the yuan, the PBOC used to limit its appreciation through purchases of foreign currency -- creating new yuan through the process. At the time, the challenge was more often how to mop up some of that new domestic liquidity, to prevent excessive inflation.
With bets on the yuan shifting, the reserves have fallen. They were $3.22 trillion yuan in April, down from just under $4 trillion in mid-2014, data released Saturday showed.
The PBOC has turned to the use of special loan programs for banks, including the policy banks, to inject liquidity. It’s also made more use of money market instruments to pump funds into the economy.

The problem is, this isn’t where the PBOC had really wanted to head in terms handling yuan devaluation and capital outflow pressure, though it was positive for the central bank’s shift of its monetary policy. The central bank’s stated objective has been to shift to a framework that, as in most developed nations in the past, uses measures of borrowing costs as the key policy tools -- a so-called price-based approach, rather than a quantity-based one.
As part of that transition, lending and deposit rates have been liberalized and a new money-market-linked interest rate corridor is falling into place.

"The way China manages its monetary policy is still different from the West," said Hao Hong, chief China strategist at Bocom International Holdings Co. in Hong Kong. "Despite the interest-rate liberalization, the Chinese economy still responds better to quantitative measures -- such as RRR, loan quota, money-supply growth target etc., than price-based measures, such as interest rates." RRR refers to banks required reserve ratio.
One reason for the desire to shift to a price-based policy was to move away from a volume-focused system that created the danger of too many loans going bad. While some of the lending -- especially through the policy banks -- can be targeted to desired goals such as shanty-town redevelopment and the upgrade of urban utilities, other lending can end up in undesirable places -- like stock or commodity-market speculation.
The current set-up still offers the PBOC one advantage: money-creation through the build-up of reserves was difficult to manage. Capital inflows largely determined how much the central bank had to buy in foreign currency, and how much to create in local currency. Now the PBOC has more control.

What’s less clear is whether the lending that’s being spurred is good for the economy. In developed nations, the practice of credit checks by banks is designed to limit the danger of bad loans -- though this famously failed to work in the subprime-mortgage disaster.
Efficient capital allocation is crucial given China’s total debt is now about 2.5 times annual economic output -- a level that’s in line with advanced economies and well below Japan but looks high given that China is still a developing market.
"As the Chinese economy develops and becomes more complex, the disciplining nature of independent financial-sector decisions becomes increasingly important -- and government-led credit stimulus is more likely to lead to bad debt," said Louis Kuijs, chief Asia economist at Oxford Economics in Hong Kong.

Mother's Day 2016 - Facebook flower reaction - The Independent

Mother's Day 2016: What the Facebook flower reaction means
Say thank you – the impersonal way

This is the first temporary reaction Facebook has trialed since expanding the 'like' option Facebook
For anyone who forgot to send flowers to their mother on Mother's Day, there is now a completely impersonal way to try and make amends.
Facebook users will have noticed a subtle change to their news feed today with a "flower reaction" being temporarily introduced to the site.
It's meant to celebrate Mother's Day in more than
That means that instead of picking up the phone and saying "thank you", you can now send some digital flowers instead.
“In honour of Mothers’ Day, we are testing the ability for people in a few markets to leave a flower reaction,” Facebook said in a statement. The company did not specify which markets the flower was available to.

How motherhood affects the brain - Living Science

Changes the Brain
By Linda Thrasybule, MyHealthNewsDaily Contributor | May 11, 2012 04:04pm ET

* 1864 27 2 341 2MORE




Credit: Crazy80frog | Dreamstime
Chocolate treats and sentimental cards may sweeten mom's belly and heart this Mother's Day, but it turns out motherhood also goes right to the noggin, with plenty of research showing how having kids, and even the process of childbirth, can change a mama's brain.
Recent research has revealed some of the changes that take place in women's brains during motherhood, and experts say that understanding how a mom’s brain works could help them figure out what motivates moms to care for their babies.
"With this research, we hope to better understand how to support moms who don't naturally experience a brain reward response when they interact with their baby," said Dr. Lane Strathearn, a developmental pediatrician at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.
Advertisement
In the future, this field of study could lead to treatments that help women with mental illnesses or who lack certain types of normal brain responses. "We're currently researching whether giving moms oxytocin, a hormone that triggers a reward response in the brain, could influence their response to their child," Strathearn said.
After birth, the brain grows
The changes seem to begin the moment the baby is born. For instance, in a 2010 study, researchers looked at brain-scan images of 19 women before and after they gave birth and found that the size of mothers' brains increased shortly after childbirth.
"We observed small but significant increases in the volume of gray matter in the brain," said study co-author Pilyoung Kim, a developmental psychologist who performed the research at Yale University.
Kim and colleagues also found that moms who gushed over their babies a month after childbirth showed the greatest growth in parts of the brain, compared with moms who didn't respond as enthusiastically.
The period directly after childbirth is an important time for new moms. According to the researchers, moms develop sensitive mothering skills during this time, and changes to the brain may be linked with how these skills develop.
The researchers observed increases in gray matter in brain areas such as the hypothalamus, amygdala, parietal lobe and prefrontal cortex. These regions are responsible for emotion, reasoning and judgment, the senses and reward behavior.
Compared with the less-enthusiastic moms, the awestruck moms were more likely to develop bigger mid-brains, and saw growth in key regions linked to maternal motivation, rewards and the regulation of emotions, Kim's team found.
The researchers said this expansion in the brain's "motivation" area might lead to more nurturing, which in turn could help babies thrive. Still, "we don't know whether it's the experience that changes the brain, or the brain that changes the experience," said Kim, who is now with the National Institute of Mental Health.
While it remains unclear exactly why the brain grows, the researchers said it might be that an increase in hormones — including estrogen, oxytocin and prolactin — play a role.
Pleasure at the root of mommy behavior
Experts believe maternal behavior may be fostered by a pleasure system in the brain that involves areas such as the substantia nigra, which creates dopamine, a chemical messenger that interacts with certain brain cells and causes a "feel-good" high.
Once the brain receives these "feel-good" signals, moms, for instance, seek to repeat whatever actions triggered the bliss.
In Strathearn's 2008 study published in the journal Pediatrics, when mothers saw their babies’ smiling faces, their reward signals became activated.
"These are similar brain regions that are activated when a cocaine addict gets a shot of cocaine," said Strathearn said. "So for moms, it may be like having a natural high."
How a child’s brain develops may be influenced by mom
Motherhood doesn't just influence a mom's brain — her mothering behaviors may have a lasting impact on her child's brain.
In a 2009 study published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, researchers looked at two groups of mothers, dividing them based on how attached they felt to their own mothers.
They found both groups responded differently to their infant's faces.
"For mothers with 'secure' attachment, we found that both happy and sad infant faces produced a reward signal in their brain," Strathearn said.
But moms with an "insecure" attachment didn't show the same brain response. When they saw their baby cry, part of the brain that is linked with pain, unfairness or disgust became activated.
"Biologically, there seems to be a pattern that is repeated from one generation to the next," Strathearn said. "Early experiences we have in childhood play an important role in the pattern of brain development."
Strathearn said that in early infancy, "the brain is being sculpted in response to its social environment, like being rocked and touched." But he noted that many factors, including genetics and the environment, influence a child's development.
Ultimately, Strathearn said he hopes future research will help experts better understand the impact that early maternal care can have on child's social, emotional and physical development.
Pass it on: Motherhood changes the size of mom’s brain.
Follow MyHealthNewsDaily on Twitter @MyHealth_MHND. Find us on Facebook.
- See more at: http://www.livescience.com/36346-motherhood-brain.html?utm_content=buffer9310e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer%26cmpid%3D514645#sthash.OoXgwS8w.dpuf

Oil companies' performance in past decade - Economist

Hydrocarbons
Not-so-Big Oil
The supermajors are being forced to rethink their business model
May 7th 2016  


IT HAS been a grim decade for investors in international oil firms—among them, many of the world’s biggest pension funds. Even before oil prices started to fall in 2014, the supermajors threw money away on grandiose schemes: drilling in the Arctic and building giant gas terminals. Their returns have trailed those of other industry-leading firms by a huge margin since 2009.

In this section
* Not-so-Big

In the past 18 months things have gone from bad to worse. The Boston Consulting Group, a consultancy, calls it the industry’s “worst peacetime crisis”. That is evident in first-quarter results released in the past week by Exxon Mobil and Chevron of America, and European rivals, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Total, which bear the scars of a collapse in oil prices to below $30 a barrel in mid-February (see chart).
Since then the oil price has rebounded to $45 a barrel; as a result of aggressive cost-cutting efforts, their earnings have mostly been better than expected. Miraculously, a bit of cheer has returned. The big firms’ share prices have outperformed America’s S&P 500 index by nine percentage points since the start of the year.
It is too soon to declare victory, though. Not only do the supermajors need to brace for the possibility of a renewed slide in oil prices in the short term; they must also prepare for a future in which oil demand is increasingly uncertain because of climate change, pollution and the emergence of alternative sources of energy. Sanford C. Bernstein, a research firm, argues that such “peak demand” is not imminent. There may be at least another 15-year growth cycle by oil firms before investors throw in the towel. But in the meantime companies need to develop a new business model built around a quest for returns rather than for reserves.
These returns are still woefully low, and debts unusually high. On May 4th Shell issued its first earnings report since acquiring BG, a smaller British rival, for $54 billion in February. Thanks mostly to decent sales and marketing performance, analysts considered it a fair outcome. But its returns on average capital employed, an industry benchmark, were a miserly 3.8%—well below its cost of capital. It also had net debt of $69 billion, a burden that should keep its executives awake at night if oil prices fall again. A few days earlier, Exxon Mobil reported its smallest quarterly profit since 1999, shortly after Standard & Poor’s, a rating agency, had cut the triple-A rating that it had enjoyed for decades. (That left America with only two blue-chip firms, Johnson & Johnson and Microsoft.)
Optimists, however, are starting to look beyond these shortcomings, for several reasons. First, cost discipline is becoming an industry-wide mantra. Shell, for instance, says it hopes to slash $30 billion from combined operating costs and capital spending by the end of this year, compared with 2014, despite the effort involved in swallowing BG.
Second, investment projects are being looked at more realistically than they were when it was blithely assumed that oil prices would remain above $100 a barrel for the foreseeable future. Third, the supermajors are less likely to embark on wasteful mega-mergers, as they did in the 1990s. The Shell/BG deal went ahead despite loud opposition from some shareholders. Elsewhere, competition authorities are baring their teeth. On May 2nd Halliburton, the world’s second-largest oil-service company, scrapped its $28 billion merger with Baker Hughes, the third-largest, after the Department of Justice opposed it on antitrust grounds.



INTERACTIVE: Explore how oil prices affect OPEC and non-OPEC production and viability
Some doubt that this zeal for capital discipline will last long if oil prices rise much higher. “This is a cyclical business and it always will be,” says Bernstein’s Teng Ben. Paul Spedding, a former head of oil research at HSBC, a bank, says it has been forced upon the supermajors by weak market conditions.
Two reports issued this week suggest that investors should strive to keep the spending straitjacket on oil companies even if prices improve further. One, by Carbon Tracker, an NGO, (and co-authored by Mr Spedding), seeks to show that pursuing new reserves at all costs would not only be bad for the environment, it would be bad business. It argues that even if climate-change policies severely constrain demand for oil, companies will still need to produce more of the black stuff. But if oil prices are anywhere below $120 a barrel, they would produce higher returns if they carry out selective drilling of low-cost wells rather than “business as usual”. Another report, by Paul Stevens of Chatham House, a think-tank, says the supermajors should consider selling assets and returning cash to shareholders because relentlessly pursuing reserves is a dead model.
Unsurprisingly, the oil companies reject the notion that they need to shrink. They say they are adapting their portfolio to changing demand for hydrocarbons. Shell and BP favour what they see as cleaner natural gas over oil. France’s Total is developing renewables as well as oil and gas. Their instinct is to assume that even as the world battles climate change, it will want more hydrocarbons—especially in fast-growing developing countries such as China and India. Investors may pressure them to think differently.

Tesla’s Elon Musk Just Doubled His Already Outrageous Goal - TIME

Tesla’s Elon Musk Just Doubled His Already Outrageous Goal Posted: 05 May 2016 05:20 AM PDT Sometimes, it seems like Tesla is not one company, but two. Right now is one of those times. The first Tesla is the game-changing company reinventing the car to be gas free, self-driving and packed full of as many software innovations as an app-jammed smartphone. The second Tesla is an overhyped, money-losing, debt-laden accident waiting to happen. We saw both companies Wednesday. Early on in the day, Tesla’s stock fell 4% on news that two top executives overseeing manufacturing and production were leaving. The moves came before the release of Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 and after its SUV model suffered an 18-month delay, a recall and a glitch that affected its falcon-wing doors. The company insisted the executives were leaving for a “well-earned break.” Tesla has now lost five vice presidents in three months. Soon after, Jim Chanos, a hedge-fund legend after his bearish calls on Enron and Brazil’s Petrobras, took to CNBC to slam Tesla. “When a number of people leave over a short period of time, it’s a tipoff,” he said. “These people are needed for the Model 3, which is the real story.” The Model 3, cheaper than any of Tesla’s other vehicles, is seen as the company’s true shot at penetrating into the mainstream. Chanos also chided Tesla CEO Elon Musk for his poor record in forecasting vehicle deliveries. “This is a company that can’t even forecast deliveries one quarter out, and yet everyone is confident about what they will deliver in 2020.” He was referring to Musk’s earlier prediction that Tesla would ship 500,000 cars in 2020. Then came Musk’s time to speak. After the stock market closed, Tesla reported first quarter revenue that rose 45% year-over-year and a net loss of $.57, a penny better than estimates. The stock rallied 4%, bringing it roughly back to where it started the day. So it goes in the epic tug of war between Tesla bulls and bears. To Tesla bulls, it’s not about the company’s quarter-to-quarter performance. It’s about what it can do in, say, 2020. And here’s where things got interesting. In a conference call discussing earnings Wednesday, Musk said the company will be making around a million cars a year by then, doubling his earlier estimate. (By contrast, Tesla made fewer than 50,000 cars last year.) The 500,000 target was moved forward to 2018. In other words, Musk had already set a wildly ambitious production schedule by the auto industry’s standards — and he will now attempt to meet it twice as quickly. It won’t be easy or cheap. Tesla’s existing manufacturing facilities may not be enough, he said, and the company may build more plants in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Tesla expects that capital spending this year alone will total $2.25 billion, 50% more than originally planned. The company will finance as much of that as it can through core operations. But it’s likely to raise more money through both equity and debt, as the new plans mean burning through more cash. For Musk, all of this effort and spending is worth it. He sees Tesla as remaking manufacturing itself as much as it’s redesigning the automobile. “Tesla is really hell-bent on being the world’s best manufacturer,” said Musk. “Like, this is a big deal, and I think it’s the right thing to do. Because what were trying to do is get as many electric cars on the road as possible. What’s the limiting factor? Well, it’s production. We believe there is more potential for innovation in manufacturing than there is in the design of a car by a long shot.” At the end of the day, Musk had the last word. Asked what the company could do to win over naysayers like Chanos, he said: “That will basically be never. Like, what I find ironic about a lot of the naysayers is that the very same people will transition from saying it was impossible to saying was obvious. And I’m like, wait a second, is it obvious or impossible? It can’t be both.” It might be better to say that, rather than the last word, Musk had the latest word. Because the debate over Tesla’s future will rage on for some time.

Why Oil Prices Will Likely Drop Below $40 Soon - oilprce.com

Why Oil Prices Will Likely Drop Below $40 Soon Posted: 04 May 2016 11:44 AM PDT The 70 percent rise in crude oil prices from the lows of $27.1 per barrel to a high of above $46/b in a matter of three months is being driven by speculative activity—make no mistake about it. The speculators have latched on to every bit of rumor and news to bid prices higher, and this has nothing to do with the real fundamentals. However, speculation can boost prices only to a certain extent in the short-term. After this, the fundamentals take over. The extent of speculation is enormous, though the daily production of oil in the U.S. is around 9 million b/d, the WTI crude oil contract trades more than 100 times the produced quantity, as highlighted in this January 2016 post. The trading volume is generated by the algo traders, day traders, and scalpers who are in and out of their positions many times a day. Due to their enormous volume, they set the direction of prices in the short-term. However, these traders are neither involved in the production nor do they take physical delivery of oil; they are usually active only in the near-term contracts until expiry; after which the users of oil take deliveries. Oilprice.com: Lets Stop Pretending Nuclear Power Is Commercially Viable The oil producers have used the sharp rise to hedge part of their production for 2016 and 2017 as reported by The Wall Street Journal. However, Citi Research points out that the oil producers have hedged only 36 percent of their estimated production for 2016, compared to 50 percent in the previous years. If prices creep up further, the producers will not only hedge more, they are likely to increase production to mend their balance sheet. Pioneer Natural Resources has hedged 50 percent of its expected 2017 output and has conveyed its intention to add five to ten horizontal drilling rigs if prices recover to $50/b, with a positive outlook for oil fundamentals. Earlier on, too many U.S. shale oil drillers had indicated that they will be back at around $50/b levels. Oilprice.com: Oil Prices Fall Back as Rally Hits a Ceiling Though the bulls have latched on to the largest U.S. rig count drop in the past six weeks, their bullishness might be short-lived because if prices reach above $50/b, we might see anincrease in the oil rig count, reversing the current trend. Lithium prices have tripled over the last few years as the electric car boom starts to take hold. A number of companies are uniquely positioned to generate huge gains for early in investors. The short-term trend changed with the idea of a production freeze by Russia and OPEC, but the Doha meeting turned out to be a non-event. The chart below by Yardeni Research, a provider of independent investment and economics research, shows that in 2016, the oil inventories continue to rise, confirming that the supply glut continues. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) STEO report expects the supply glut to reduce in the second half of the year; however, if prices remain high, production might increase adding to the supply glut. Oilprice.com: Weak Data, Strong Dollar Pressure Crude Lower Though Nigeria, Kuwait, and Venezuela’s production has been hit hard due to various reasons, OPEC’s production of 32.64 million b/d is very close to its highest level of 32.65 million b/d recorded in January 2016, according to Reuters survey records since 1997. “The market is massively oversupplied,” said Eugen Weinberg, analyst at Commerzbank in Frankfurt. “This rally doesn’t have strong legs,” reports Reuters. There isn’t much by way of fundamentals to rely upon for the rally to continue. Closer to $50/b, additional supply will start trickling in and buyers will be wary to buy at higher prices. With no excuses at hand, the speculators will find it difficult to prop prices higher. The short-term speculative pop in crude is about to end and the long-term fundamentals will take over. Prices should drop closer to $36 to $38/b in the near future. This article originally appeared on Oilprice.com

WiFi in flight - Economist

Air passengers are being offered more ways of getting online 

Feb 22nd 2016, 17:18 BY B.R.

• 

LAST week Icelandair unveiled what it described as Europe’s first “gate-to-gate” Wi-Fi service on most of its routes. It says onboard internet will now be switched on from the moment passengers board the plane to when it reaches the gate at the other end—including during takeoff and landing. 

It is the latest step in the unstoppable rise of connectivity in the clouds. At the same time that Icelandair was trumpeting its new service, American Airlines announced it is suing its onboad Wi-Fi provider, Gogo, because the service it offers is too slow. In this new frontier speed is of the essence. Meanwhile Lufthansa is to trial a service that allows flyers to connect to their 4G networks on their devices. If successful the technology will likely be taken up by other European carriers in 2017. Another system being developed jointly by Inmarsat, a satellite-maker that is also involved in the Lufthansa trial, and Deutsche Telekom, will allow phones to link to ground masts when at low altitude and to satellites when not.

All of which means that, whether over Wi-Fi or a 4G network, the air will soon be abuzz with people making and receiving calls. Ignoring e-mails will no longer be excused just because you are 30,000 feet above the ocean. And Instagram will be even more awash with pictures of passengers’ tepid airline food.

Many will see that as a great step forward. Others will lament that one of the last refuges from the tyranny of constant connection will have gone. That suggests a market opportunity. Some posh spas now offer to block mobile signals, ensuring that high-rolling guests who lack the willpower to use an off-switch get a chance at seclusion. Might, in the future, a far-sighted airline do the same? Call it Isolation Air, the internet- and chatter-free carrier. Then again, perhaps not: it would no doubt be impossible for business travellers to convince their firms of the benefit of severing ties with the office. Maybe at the very least, one of the less sadistic airlines will offer to turn off the signal when the lights are dimmed and passengers are trying to sleep. That doesn't seem too much to ask.

Apple to share " i phone " name with a small company in China - CNN

Apple has suffered a new setback in its efforts to take greater control over its iconic iPhone brand in China.
A Beijing court ruled recently that a small Chinese manufacturer can keep using the "iPhone" name on a variety of leather mobile accessories that it makes, such as phone cases and wallets.

Apple has been trying to stop the company, Xintong Tiandi Technology, from using the name since 2012 but without success.
Xintong Tiandi holds the trademark in China specifically to sell leather goods with the brand, while Apple holds one for phones, said the Chinese company's lawyer, Xiong Zhi.
It registered its trademark in 2007, roughly two years before Apple started selling iPhones in China. Apple also hasn't launched iPhone-branded products in China like the ones that Xintong Tiandi sells.
Related: Apple movies and iBooks shut down in China
Apple first tried to dispute this issue against Xintong Tiandi with the Chinese trademark authority in 2012, and later filed a lawsuit in 2013,. But it lost on both fronts, according to state media.
The Beijing court's ruling on March 31 upholds a decision from 2013 that Apple couldn't prove its "iPhone" brand was already well-known before Xintong Tiandi registered it, and that it couldn't demonstrate it was damaging the Apple brand in China, the state media publication Legal Daily reported.
An Apple spokeswoman said the company planned to issue a statement later on the matter.
This latest ruling is unlikely to affect iPhone sales or negatively impact Apple, though China remains an important market for the company.
In 2012, Apple paid $60 million to a Chinese company to settle a separate dispute over the "iPad" name.

Australian budget 2016 - The Age

Play
0:00
/
2:46



Fullscreen
Captions

Budget 2016: long term faith required
Cuts to company tax are designed for long term benefit explains Fairfax's Peter Martin.
* Budget 2016: Full coverage
* Michael Gordon: Time for the great persuader to sell it
* Peter Hartcher: A Tony Abbott detox
* Budget winners and losers
* Your five minute guide to the budget
In the words of pop music legend George Michael: "You've got to have faith."
Morrison and Turnbull have delivered something of a Labor budget.
The Treasury and Reserve Bank are more gloomy than they were a year ago. They say the economy will grow by only 2.5 per cent in the coming financial year, down from 3.25 per cent expected last budget. Over four years, the budget outlook will be $22 billion worse.

Treasurer Scott Morrison is congratulated by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull after he delivered his first budget. Photo: Andrew Meares
So what are Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull going to do? Scarcely anything when their measures are taken together. This financial year their revenue decisions (mainly tax cuts) have swelled the deficit by $1.7 billion. Their spending decisions have swelled it by a further $1.4 billion. That's $3.1 billion added to the deficit as a result of decisions in the six months since the December budget update.
Advertisement

Over time they say the build-up of measures such as attacks on tax avoidance and tougher rules for superannuation will move things in the other direction. Over the four years to 2019-20 they say their measures will have shrunk the deficit by $1.7 billion, which is the equivalent of nothing much in the context of $44 billion of deficits.
But we've got to have faith. The new "Ten Year Enterprise plan" of immediate tax cuts for small businesses, followed by cuts for big businesses that eventually deliver a uniform tax rate of 25 per cent, along with very modest cuts for high earners will "boost new investment, create and support jobs and increase real wages".
It's the sort of thing an advertising agency would say. It's exactly what the advertising agency that prepared a series of leaked scripts did say: the budget will promote jobs and growth, and there's Treasury modelling to prove it.
Sponsored by NAB
The budget papers say the modelling finds the measures will "permanently increase the size of the economy by just over 1 per cent in the long term". It doesn't sound like much, and it's not. Treasury defines the long-term as two decades. That's a boost to the economy of less than 0.05 per cent a year, if the modelling is credible.
It's hard to tell. Bizarrely, the government directed Treasury not to release the modelling during the budget lock-up where it could be examined along with the other budget documents. It'll be released instead on the Treasury website later Tuesday night, meaning it'll be examined the day after the budget rather than on budget day.
Most of the boost is said to come from the cut in the standard company tax rate from 30 to 25 per cent. When the Centre for Policy Studies at Victoria University modelled the effects earlier this year, it found that while it would boost economic growth, it would cut national income, a more important measure. Many Australian companies don't really pay corporate tax anyway. Their shareholders get back the tax they've paid through dividend imputation.
The main beneficiaries of the company tax cut will be overseas-owned companies, and not all of them will increase their investment as a result. Some will simply pocket the gift. Those that are already here will get a reward for something they were going to do anyway. The government will have to make up the lost tax by collecting more from other people, or so the argument goes.
It'll be economic models at 50 paces. There are reasons for thinking we won't have faith. Two years ago, Morrison's predecessor claimed victory at the G20 leaders meeting in Brisbane when he got his counterparts to agree to measures that would boost the global economy by 2 per cent. Since then global growth has shrunk. Modelling is inherently unreliable. It doesn't inspire faith.
Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan learnt two big lessons from their failed attempt to sell the mining tax in 2010. One was that modelling isn't enough. The other was that success depends on the persuasiveness of the seller. Neither Swan nor Morrison is particularly persuasive.
Morrison now presides over the highest budget deficit of any Coalition treasurer, in absolute terms ($37.1 billion over the year ahead) and as a proportion of GDP.
It's happening because his government is cautious, because of the coming election and because of the still fragile state of the Australian economy.
To their enormous credit, they haven't been cautious about superannuation. They're going to raise an extra $2.6 from Australia's highest earners (the top 4 per cent), give some of it back in super payments to the lowest earners (the bottom 28 per cent) and still come out in front. While they've only cut the threshold for paying the 30 per cent contributions tax from $300,000 to $250,000, the change will hit many more people than is widely realised.
It'll cut in not at $250,000 as it appears to, but at a figure of $250,000 calculated by lumping in salary with super contributions (typically 9.5 per cent of salary) and negating tax deductions including negative gearing. Yes, the Coalition supports negative gearing, but not when it is used by high earners to escape paying its extended super surtax. Some will be asking why.
Morrison and Turnbull have delivered something of a Labor budget. There's a Labor-style tax on tobacco, there's a (small) move against negative gearing, and an attack on super tax concessions for the rich. The biggest spending initiatives are measures that unwind parts of earlier Joe Hockey budgets – those that cut back projected payments to the states for hospitals and schools and restored funding to the Clean Energy Finance Corporate and the Australian Renewable Energy Authority.
If it all turns out like they think, we'll be grateful, but for now we'll need faith that the iron ore price will stay at or around $US55 a tonne for years. A few months ago it clipped $US38. We'll need faith that this time multinational technology giants will start paying tax, and we'll need faith that the Reserve Bank will keep cutting rates. The budget's factored that in.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/federal-budget/budget-2016-the-coalitions-call-for-an-act-of-faith-20160502-gojr4k.html?&utm_source=social&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn:twi-14omn0023-optim-nnn:nonpaid-27062014-social_traffic-all-organicpost-nnn-age-o&campaign_code=nocode&promote_channel=social_twitter#ixzz47anTXKzK
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

Creator of Bitcoin reveals himself ? - TIME

Bitcoin’s Creator Has Finally Unmasked Himself
* David Meyer / Fortune 4:30 AM ET
SHARE
“Satoshi Nakamoto” has offered up his cryptographic key as proof
The creator of the bitcoin virtual currency, who has long been known by the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto,” has come out of the shadows. His name is Craig Wright.
Wright, an Australian entrepreneur and prominent bitcoin backer, had previously been identified by Wired and Gizmodo, but their stories were met with some skepticism, as previous attempts at unmasking Nakamoto had not gone so well.
Now Wright has gone to the BBC, the Economist and GQwith proof that he says ties him to the identity of Nakamoto: He signed an encrypted message with the cryptographic key that was associated with the first bitcoin transaction.
“Some people will believe it, some people won’t, and to tell you the truth, I don’t really care,” Wright told the BBC, explaining that he was stepping into the light to stop people hounding him and people he cares about.

Jon Matonis, the founding director of the Bitcoin Foundation, is convinced that Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, and has written a blog post in which he says previous interactions with Wright .

How I Met Satoshi

Matonis sat in on a meeting in London where Wright demonstrated that he was Nakamoto.
“During the London proof sessions, I had the opportunity to review the relevant data along three distinct lines: cryptographic, social, and technical. Based on what I witnessed, it is my firm belief that Craig Steven Wright satisfies all three categories,” Matonis wrote.
Of course, not everyone’s sold on Wright’s claim just yet:

 For reasons, I'm exceedingly suspicious of the assertion that Craig Wright is Satoshi, and I remain so given the weakly validated evidence.

The Wired and Gizmodo stories in December were swiftly followed by a raid by the Australian tax authorities, though they claimed it had nothing to do with bitcoin. Wright now says he is cooperating with them on working out how much he needs to
If Wright has the million bitcoins that Nakamoto is believed to have amassed, that means he’s sitting on around $457 million.
“Satoshi Nakamoto” released the bitcoin system in 2009. It allows people to make peer-to-peer transactions without the aid of an intermediary such as a bank, by using a public ledger called a blockchain.
While bitcoin itself is no longer the hot property it was a couple years back, when speculation ran rampant, the blockchain mechanism itself is still of great interest to banks and others, such as those building new online voting systems — although bitcoin is famous for allowing its users to stay anonymous, the blockchain mechanism is terrific for reliably tracking the transactions themselves.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com
- [ ]

Eurozone growth is bucking global trend - Wall Street Journal

What Slump? How Eurozone Growth is Bucking the Global Trend
Unusually, the eurozone is leading the way, strong first-quarter growth bodes well for the year

Economic growth in the eurozone in the first quarter compared with the fourth quarter was 0.6%, or 2.2% annualized, exceeding estimates by analysts.
By RICHARD BARLEY
April 29, 2016 8:37 a.m. ET

The eurozone has provided investors with plenty of surprises in the past few years, most of them unpleasant. The economic data released Friday make for a refreshing change.
Eurozone growth in the first quarter versus the fourth came in at 0.6%, or 2.2% annualized. That was better than economists expected. It was also better than first-quarter growth in the U.S. and U.K., although the eurozone remains a laggard overall, with real gross domestic product only just above its precrisis peak. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to fall, reaching 10.2% in March, down 1 percentage point from a year ago. The only fly in the ointment was inflation, which dipped back into negative territory at an estimated minus 0.2% in April.
There is a caveat on growth: this is the first time Eurostat has released such an early estimate of first-quarter GDP, and as such it may be revised. Details are still missing, with no growth estimates publicly available for Germany and Italy in particular, which together account for 45% of the eurozone economy. However, the headline number does suggest decent performance. France and Spain posted strong numbers, with the former recording the biggest jump in household spending since the end of 2004. Domestic demand looks to be driving the recovery.,

The performance of the economy is in contrast to the nerves that infected European markets in the first quarter. The end of March saw the Stoxx Europe 600 down some 7.7% for the year, and 10-year German yields nearly half a percentage point lower than at the end of 2015. There was even a panic about eurozone banks, with violent swings in prices for subordinated bonds that count toward capital—although this was a crisis more about investors’ assumptions than the banks themselves.
True, growth may not be sustainable at the first quarter’s pace, as it appears to be well above trend. The European Commission, for instance, thinks potential annual growth is just 1% in 2016-2017. Even so, there could be upgrades of the eurozone’s prospects rather than downgrades: BNP Paribas, for instance, notes there are “upside risks” to its 1.3% full-year forecast.

The upshot should be a period of calm in monetary policy, too. The European Central Bank unveiled new measures in March and accompanied them with a plea to allow time for them to take effect. Friday’s data suggest that is the right approach to take. The eurozone, for now at least, is bucking the global gloom on growth.
Write to Richard Barley at richard.barley@wsj.c