Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Facebook Reportedly Willing to Restrict News Stories in China - TIME

Posted: 23 Nov 2016 05:42 AM PST

Many analysts and insiders thought Facebook would never come back to China after its service was blocked there in 2009. Facebook’s mission of making “the world more open and connected” was at odds with China’s mission to wall off its Internet and censor content its government finds objectionable.
Now it seems many analysts underestimated Facebook’s willingness to make concessions to Chinese authorities over the terms that have kept it out.
Facebook is working on a program to restrict stories from showing up in news feeds based upon a user’s geography, the New York Times reports, the first time the tool that actively caters to censors has been revealed.

The tool was created to help Facebook get into China, the Times said, but the company has also labeled the censorship program an experiment and one that may never be used.
Still, the news is surprising. It reflects both the pragmatic desires of the world’s most valuable social network to expand in a market of 1.4 billion people, and the moral concessions it must make in order to be everywhere for everyone.
China is Facebook’s biggest untapped potential market. The country’s Internet population numbers 700 million and grows more affluent every year. At the same time, China’s Internet has been receding from the rest of the world’s. China’s President Xi Jinping has called for a sovereign Internet in China, and his administration has pushed through new rules to regulate Western media content.
After Twitter and Facebook were blocked in 2009, homegrown social networks—Tencent’s Facebook-like WeChat, and Sina’s Twitter-like Weibo—have become the market leaders, heavily censoring content as requested by the government in order to sustain their business operating licenses.
[fortune-brightcove videoid=5219073864001]
Facebook’s reported censorship tool could be used by a potential partner in China, the Times suggested. Many foreign companies have a joint Chinese partner for their Chinese operations. Such a partner might allow Facebook to sidestep accusations of censorship by passing it off on someone else, especially in China, a market where other U.S. tech companies including LinkedIn and Microsoft’s Bing search engine have agreed to censorship.
In a statement to Fortune, a Facebook spokesperson neither confirmed nor denied the existence of a censorship tool. But news of the program will likely ramp up pressure on the Silicon Valley company, which is already under fire for the spread of fake news on its site that may have influenced the U.S. presidential election.

Making America white again - New York Times

NOVEMBER 21, 2016

Charles M. Blow
This may well be the beginning of the end: the early moments of a historical pivot point, when the slide of the republic into something untoward and unrecognizable still feels like a small collection of poor judgments and reversible decisions, rather than the forward edge of an enormous menace inching its way forward and grinding up that which we held dear and foolishly thought, as lovers do, would ever endure.
So many of President-elect Donald Trump’s decisions herald a tomorrow that is bleak for anyone who held hope that he could be a different, better man than the one who campaigned (I was not among that cohort), or those who simply assumed that the gravity of the office he is to assume would ground him.
Hard-line Trumpism isn’t softening; it’s being cemented.
Increasingly, as he picks his cabinet from among his fawning loyalists, it is becoming clear that by “Make America Great Again,” he actually meant some version of “Make America a White, Racist, Misogynistic Patriarchy Again.” It would be hard to send a clearer message to women and minorities that this administration will be hostile to their interests than the cabinet he is assembling.
He has promoted Stephen Bannon, an alt-right, white nationalist cheerleader and sympathizer, to chief White House strategist.
Senator Bernie Sanders responded to the Bannon announcement with a blistering statement:
“The appointment by President-elect Trump of a racist individual like Mr. Bannon to a position of authority is totally unacceptable. In a democratic society we can disagree all we want over issues, but racism and bigotry cannot be part of any public policy. The appointment of Mr. Bannon by Mr. Trump must be rescinded.”
But of course, Trump had no intention of rescinding the appointment. Indeed, he had more controversial appointments to come.
He has chosen the extreme anti-Islam hyperbolist Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn — who also happens to be a stop-and-frisk apologist and has tweeted that “fear of Muslims is RATIONAL” — as his national security adviser.
As The New York Times reported Thursday:
“General Flynn, for instance, has said that Shariah, or Islamic law, is spreading in the United States. (It is not.) His dubious assertions are so common that when he ran the Defense Intelligence Agency, subordinates came up with a name for the phenomenon: They called them ‘Flynn facts.’”
In October, Flynn tweeted:
“Follow Mike @Cernovich He has a terrific book, Gorilla Mindset. Well worth the read. @realDonaldTrump will win on 8 NOV!!!”
The New Yorker dubbed Mike Cernovich “the meme mastermind of the alt-right” in a lengthy profile.
The magazine pointed out:
“On his blog, Cernovich developed a theory of white-male identity politics: men were oppressed by feminism, and political correctness prevented the discussion of obvious truths, such as the criminal proclivities of certain ethnic groups.”
Then there was the choice of Senator Jeff Sessions for attorney general. In 1986 Sessions famously became only the second nominee in 48 years to be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to racist comments and behavior.
When confronted by the committee about remarks he was accused of making about the N.A.A.C.P. and the A.C.L.U., Sessions responded:
“I’m often loose with my tongue. I may have said something about the N.A.A.C.P. being un-American or Communist, but I meant no harm by it.”
But not all of Sessions’s issues regarding minorities have a 30-year vintage.
In response to the attorney general announcement, the Southern Poverty Law Center issued a statement that read in part:
“But we cannot support his nomination to be the country’s next attorney general. Senator Sessions not only has been a leading opponent of sensible, comprehensive immigration reform, he has associated with anti-immigrant groups we consider to be deeply racist, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Security Policy.”
Indeed, FAIR was quick to congratulate Sessions on his nomination Friday, saying in a statement: “It’s hard to imagine a better pick for the attorney general position than Senator Jeff Sessions”; the group called on Sessions to rid the country of sanctuary cities.
The S.P.L.C. has written about FAIR, saying:
“FAIR leaders have ties to white supremacist groups and eugenicists and have made many racist statements. Its advertisements have been rejected because of racist content. FAIR’s founder, John Tanton, has expressed his wish that America remain a majority-white population: a goal to be achieved, presumably, by limiting the number of nonwhites who enter the country.”
Trump is making a statement that it would behoove America to heed: The America he envisions, and is now actively constructing from his perch of power, is not an inclusive America. It is a society driven by a racial Orwellianism that seeks to defend, elevate and enshrine the primacy of white men and is hostile to all “others.”
That orange glow emanating from the man is the sun setting on America’s progress, however slow and halting, on race and gender inclusion and equity.

Trump meets Indian business partners showing he will manage his private business hand in - New York Times

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump met in the last week in his office at Trump Tower with three Indian business partners who are building a Trump-branded luxury apartment complex south of Mumbai, raising new questions about how he will separate his business dealings from the work of the government once he is in the White House.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump described the meeting as a courtesy call by the three Indian real estate executives, who flew from India to congratulate Mr. Trump on his election victory. In a picture posted on Twitter, all four men are smiling and giving a thumbs-up.

“It was not a formal meeting of any kind,” Breanna Butler, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, said when asked about the meeting on Saturday.

One of the businessmen, Sagar Chordia, posted photographs on Facebook on Wednesday showing that he also met with Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump. Mr. Trump’s children are helping to run his businesses as they play a part in the presidential transition.

Ms. Butler and Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, declined to comment when asked on Saturday if the meeting with the Trump family members included any discussion of Trump businesses in India or expanding that business.

The three Indian executives — Sagar Chordia, Atul Chordia, and Kalpesh Mehta — have been quoted in Indian newspapers, including The Economic Times, as saying they have discussed expanding their partnership with the Trump Organization now that Mr. Trump is president-elect.

Sagar Chordia did not respond to a request for a telephone interview. But in a series of text messages with The New York Times early Sunday, he confirmed that the meeting with Mr. Trump and members of his family had taken place, and that an article written about it in the Indian newspaper, which reported that one of his partners said they had discussed the desire to expand the deals with the Trump family, was accurate.

Washington ethics lawyers said that a meeting with Indian real estate partners, regardless of what was discussed, raised conflict of interest questions for Mr. Trump, who could be perceived as using the presidency to advance his business interests.

“There may be people for whom this looks O.K.,” said Robert L. Walker, the former chief counsel of the Senate Ethics Committee, who advises corporations and members of Congress on government ethics issues. “But for a large part of the American public, it is not going to be O.K. His role as president-elect should dictate that someone else handles business matters.”

In an account of the meeting that appeared in The Economic Times, Mr. Trump was quoted as praising the United States’ relationship with India and its prime minister, Narendra Modi.

The Economic Times reported that the meeting occurred on Tuesday. A spokeswoman for the Trump Organization would not confirm the day of the meeting.

Internationally, many properties that bear Mr. Trump’s name are the result of marketing deals — like the one in India — in which he is paid by someone for the use of his name but does not actually own the underlying property. He has such marketing agreements in South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, the Philippines and Turkey, according to a list published by his company Independent journalism.



Atul Chordia and Sagar Chordia are well-known figures in real estate in Pune, a city of about three million people in the western Indian state of Maharashtra. Their father, Ishwardas Chordia, was born into a family of sugar traders, but as a young man forged a close friendship with Sharad Pawar, who became an important politician in Maharashtra and now sits in the upper house of India’s Parliament.

Beginning in the 1990s, Chordia businesses built luxury hotels, corporate parks and residential projects in upscale neighborhoods in Pune.

The third executive at the meeting, Mr. Mehta, is the managing partner of a real-estate firm named Tribeca, which is also a part of the Trump projects in India, which go by names including Trump Towers Pune and Trump Towers Mumbai.

Dave Besseling, a former deputy editor at GQ India, hosted an event at Sagar Chordia’s hotel during the 2016 presidential campaign and said Mr. Chordia expressed “elation” about Mr. Trump’s candidacy and the opportunities it would bring.

The same week, Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka — an executive at the Trump Organization hotel chain — attended a meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. The move drew criticism from former State Department officials, given that Ms. Trump does not have security clearance and is helping run the family business enterprises.

Separately, The Washington Post reported on Saturday that the recently opened Trump International Hotel in Washington invited representatives from local embassies to the hotel after the election to encourage them to use it when leaders from their countries visited Washington.

Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a liberal government watchdog group in Washington, said the meeting at Trump Tower was inappropriate even if there had not been conversation about business. “Donald Trump’s children and son-in-law have been deeply involved in the transition and selecting who will be part of his administration,” Mr. Bookbinder said. “At the same time they are deeply involved in the business. There does not seem to be any sign of a meaningful separation of Trump government operations and his business operations.”

Ms. Butler, the spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, said the family was moving to try to formally separate Mr. Trump from his family’s business ventures.

“Mr. Trump is not going to have dealings in the day-to-day business of that organization,” she said.

Another spokeswoman for the Trump Organization added in a written statement that “the structure that is ultimately selected will comply with all applicable rules and regulations.”

Asked if such a separation had already taken place in the aftermath of the election, she said she did not know.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Why China does not like a JP Morgan investigation - Financial Times

The Chinese Communist party’s corruption watchdog has a tricky problem that the US Securities and Exchange Commission, of all organisations, may be able to help solve.
The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has been a victim of its own success when it comes to catching “tigers” — Chinese government, military and state-owned enterprise officials with vice-ministerial rank or higher.
When you have bagged, on average, more than 50 tigers a year for three years running, the public expects the skins to keep coming. But that is easier said than done, even in a country where corruption flourishedas much as it did before the launch of President Xi Jinping’s unprecedented anti-corruption campaign in 2013.
This is where the SEC could come in. All the CCDI needs to do is start pulling on some of the threads recently unravelled by the US securities regulator.
Last week the US regulator accepted a $264m settlement offer from JPMorgan, which admitted to running a sophisticated jobs-for-mandates scheme. Chinese “princelings” — the progeny of some of China’s most senior government officials and executives at state-owned enterprises — were granted jobs or internships in return for which some of the same officials and executives steered business towards the US investment bank.
According to the SEC, at least 100 “referral hires” on behalf of Chinese officials at more than 20 SOEs and 10 government agencies yielded JPMorgan tens of millions of dollars in investment banking revenues.
It constituted a blatant violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The SEC’s 26-page summary of JPMorgan’s “Sons & Daughters” programme would be amusing were it not so outrageous.
Some of the referral hires were so incompetent they were referred to internally at JPMorgan as “photocopiers”. Contracts often ran from mid-January until mid-December so the hires would not show up on end-of-year headcount tallies — and were renewed only if the mandates kept coming.
Chinese officials have been given very long jail terms for less.
Two years ago, Liu Tienan, a former vice-minister at China’s powerful economic planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, was sentenced to life in prison after he and his son were charged with accepting bribestotalling Rmb36m, or $5.2m at the current exchange rate.
The bribes included a shareholding in a car dealership for Liu Junior. The arrangement was facilitated by a state auto executive whose company was regulated by NDRC.
Just $5.2m in alleged bribes? What amateurs. In last week’s settlement with JPMorgan, the SEC documented more than $100m in investment banking revenues attributable to the jobs-for-mandates scheme.
The CCDI could easily increase its tiger count if it asked some awkward questions of the Chinese executives and officials who directed more than $100m in state funds JPMorgan’s way so their sons and daughters could work or take internships there.
However, there are a few reasons why the party’s corruption investigators are unlikely to pick these low-hanging fruit.
It is one thing when official graft involves state-owned enterprises. That does not surprise the average man or woman on the Chinese street. But a corrupt intersection between the Chinese Communist party and Wall Street? That is too sensitive a connection.
The CCDI also likes to control its corruption investigations start-to-finish, and there is no telling where some of the SEC’s threads might lead.
In one example of the often collusive nature of Chinese corruption, a government official was able to get his son an internship in JPMorgan’s Hong Kong office but not a coveted analyst position in New York. So the official asked for help from an executive at a Chinese SOE, who joined the eventually successful lobbying effort.
The whole sorry saga does, however, highlight one big difference between Chinese and American justice. When Chinese officials find themselves in the CCDI’s crosshairs, they often spend the rest of their lives behind bars. When investment bankers are targeted by Uncle Sam, their employers just pay a fine.

Financial Times

Monday, November 21, 2016

Difference between white supremacy & white nationalism in USA - New York Times

A question has been posed in a puzzled whisper in many of the nation’s living rooms and newsrooms ever since Donald J. Trump’s triumph in this month’s presidential election: What, exactly, is white nationalism?
Self-proclaimed white nationalists have happily embraced Mr. Trump’s victory and, particularly, his choice of Stephen K. Bannon as chief strategist, as a win for their agenda. A barrage of groups that fight discrimination and hate speech have, in turn, criticized Mr. Bannon’s appointment, warning that his embrace of the “alt-right” movement was little more than an attempt to rebrand racism and white nationalism into something palatable enough for mass consumption.
And much of the rest of the country has been left to wonder what this unfamiliar term actually means.
While white nationalism certainly overlaps with white supremacy and racism, many political scientists say it is a distinct phenomenon — one that was a powerful but often-unseen force during the presidential election and will most likely remain a potent factor in American and European politics in coming years.
Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at Birkbeck University in London, has spent years studying the ways that ethnicity intersects with politics. While most researchers in that field focus on ethnic minorities, Professor Kaufmann does the opposite: He studies the behavior of ethnic majorities, particularly whites in the United States and Britain.
White nationalism, he said, is the belief that national identity should be built around white ethnicity, and that white people should therefore maintain both a demographic majority and dominance of the nation’s culture and public life.
So, like white supremacy, white nationalism places the interests of white people over those of other racial groups. White supremacists and white nationalists both believe that racial discrimination should be incorporated into law and policy.
Some will see the distinction between white nationalism and white supremacy as a semantic sleight of hand. But although many white supremacists are also white nationalists, and vice versa, Professor Kaufmann says the terms are not synonyms: White supremacy is based on a racist belief that white people are innately superior to people of other races; white nationalism is about maintaining political and economic dominance, not just a numerical majority or cultural hegemony.
For a long time, he said, white nationalism was less an ideology than the default presumption of American life. Until quite recently, white Americans could easily see the nation as essentially an extension of their own ethnic group.
But the country’s changing demographics, the civil rights movement and a push for multiculturalism in many quarters mean that white Americans are now confronting the prospect of a nation that is no longer built solely around their own identity.
For many white people, of course, the growing diversity is something to celebrate. But for others it is a source of stress. The white nationalist movement has drawn support from that latter group. Its supporters argue that the United States should protect its white majority by sharply limiting immigration, and perhaps even by compelling nonwhite citizens to leave.
Mr. Trump’s appointment of Mr. Bannon as his senior counselor and chief West Wing strategist has, more than anything, brought white nationalism to the forefront of conversation. He is the former editor of Breitbart News, a site he described in August to Mother Jones as “the platform of the alt-right.” Although the alt-right is ideologically broader than white nationalism — it also includes neoreactionaries, monarchists, and meme-loving internet trolls — white nationalism makes up a significant part of its appeal.
For instance, Richard Spencer, who runs the website AlternativeRight.com, is also the director of the National Policy Institute, an organization that says it is devoted to protecting the “heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”
Mr. Spencer argues that immigration and multiculturalism are threats to America’s white population, and has said his ideal is a white “ethno-state.” He has avoided discussing the details of how this might be achieved, saying it is still just a “dream,” but has called for“peaceful ethnic cleansing” to remove nonwhite people from American soil.
Mr. Bannon, the Trump adviser, told The Times upon his appointment that he does not share those ethno-nationalist views. But under his leadership, Breitbart News has gone to considerable lengths to cater to an audience that does. And in a 2015 radio interview that was resurfaced this week by The Washington Post, Mr. Bannon opposed even highly skilled immigration, implying he believed it was a threat to American culture.
“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the C.E.O.s in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” he said, trailing off midsentence before continuing a moment later, “a country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”
White nationalists, including Mr. Spencer, have rejoiced at Mr. Bannon’s appointment to such a senior position in the Trump White House. But focusing on high-profile figures like Mr. Bannon may obscure the more significant way that white nationalist ideas are affecting politics — and fueling the rise of politicians like Mr. Trump in the United States as well as anti-immigrant populist movements in Britain and continental Europe.
Several studies of other countries have found that a desire to protect traditional values and culture is the strongest predictor of support for the sort of populism that propelled Mr. Trump to power in the United States.
Many of those voters would not think of themselves as white nationalists, and the cultural values and traditions they seek to protect are not necessarily explicitly racial. However, those traditions formed when national identity and culture were essentially synonymous with whiteness. So the impulse to protect them from social and demographic change is essentially an attempt to turn back the clock to a less-diverse time.
A recent working paper by Pippa Norris, a political scientist at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, concluded, based on an analysis of wide-ranging survey data, that populists have succeeded by appealing to the cultural anxiety of groups like older white men, who once formed the cultural majority in Western societies, “but have recently seen their predominance and privilege eroded.”
Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, a professor of politics at the University of Bergen in Norway, came to a similar conclusion after studying anti-immigrant policies in Europe. Their supporters, she found, were motivated by a desire to protect their national culture — suggesting they believed that immigrants posed a threat to it.
Mr. Trump’s criticism of immigrants and promise to “make America great again” may have tapped into those same cultural anxieties, fueling his success with older and less-educated white voters. (Over all, he won white voters by 21 percentage points.
Professor Kaufmann argues that anxiety over white identity and anti-immigrant populist politicians can have a symbiotic relationship, each strengthening the other. When populist politicians gain mainstream success, that can make white nationalist ideas more socially acceptable.
“It’s not just a question of ethnic change and people being alarmed over it,” he said. “It’s also a question of what people see as the boundaries of acceptable opposition. It’s about what counts as racism, and whether it’s racist to vote for a far-right party.”
“This is all about the anti-racist norm,” Professor Kaufmann continued. “If it’s weakening or eroding because people think the boundaries have shifted.”

Fed Chair Janet Yellen Says Interest Rate Hike Could Come ‘Relatively Soon’ - TIME Business

Posted: 17 Nov 2016 05:26 AM PST

(WASHINGTON) — Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen sketched a picture Thursday of a U.S. economy that’s still not at full health but is showing enough gains in hiring and growth to raise expectations that the Fed will raise interest rates in December.
In prepared testimony to a congressional committee, Yellen notes that the Fed concluded at its meeting early this month that the case for boosting its benchmark rate had strengthened and that an increase “could well become appropriate relatively soon.”
Yellen, in her testimony, points out that the job market has made further improvement this year and that inflation, while still below the Fed’s 2 percent target, has started to pick up. With investors and economists expecting the Fed to boost rates, Yellen notes that further delaying a rate increase would present its own risks.

The Fed chair’s answers later Thursday to questions from Congress’ Joint Economic Committee will be scrutinized for any hints of what action the central bank will announce at its meeting in mid-December.
Yellen is also sure to be asked about President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for tax cuts and infrastructure spending — and their likely effects on government deficits. Since Trump’s election victory last week, investors have driven up long-term bond yields in anticipation that his economic proposals would increase federal debt and elevate inflation.
The president-elect’s idea to spend more to upgrade roads, bridges and airports, though, in general mirrors Yellen’s frequent point that Congress should act to supplement what the Fed has done through low rates to encourage spending and spur growth.
Trump’s election could affect Yellen’s Fed in other ways, too. The president-elect will be able to fill two vacant seats on the Fed’s seven-member board, which wields outsize power on the panel that sets rate policy. The board has, like Yellen herself, long favored a go-slow approach to rate increases. Trump’s new appointees potentially could affect that consensus.
Next month, if it the Fed raises rates as expected, it will be its first move since December of last year, when it raised its key rate from a record low near zero, where it had been for seven years. The December meeting will include a news conference by Yellen, when she will be able to explain the Fed’s action and perhaps provide guidance on how many further rate increases it foresees in 2017.
As measured by the gross domestic product, the economy grew at a 2.9 percent annual rate in the July-September quarter, the government has estimated, more than twice the rate in the April-June quarter. The unemployment rate is 4.9 percent, around the level typical of a healthy economy, down from 10 percent in 2009.
The housing market, whose meltdown triggered the 2008 financial crisis and the recession, has largely recovered, though. Still, the sharply higher bond yields that have followed Trump’s election, if they continue, would mean higher mortgage rates that could depress home purchases.
Even so, stronger economic growth and a recent uptick in inflation have bolstered the argument of Fed officials who have been pushing for a rate hike.

Mark Zuckerberg Continues to Miss the Point on Facebook as a Media Entity - Fortune


Posted: 17 Nov 2016 10:49 AM PST

As critics slam Facebook for the role they believe it—and in particular its penchant for fake news stories—played in the election of Donald Trump, CEO Mark Zuckerberg continues to resist any attempt to pin some of the blame on his company. But in doing so, he misses the point.
Over the weekend, the Facebook co-founder took to the site to respond to some of those criticisms. He said he “cares deeply” about the fake news problem and wants to get it right. But he also said that he doesn’t believe fake news contributed to the election’s outcome.

“Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic,” Zuckerberg wrote. And since only a very small amount of those hoaxes relate to politics, and an even smaller number related to Clinton specifically, he argued that “this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other.”
The Facebook CEO also scoffed at the suggestion that the company is actually a media entity, or that it should behave like one, something many have argued for some time.
“Facebook is mostly about helping people stay connected with friends and family. News and media are not the primary things people do on Facebook, so I find it odd when people insist we call ourselves a news or media company,” Zuckerberg said. “We are serious about building planes to beam internet access, but we don’t call ourselves an aerospace company.”
Zuckerberg responded to the “filter bubble” argument by saying the company’s research shows that people “are exposed to more diverse content on Facebook and social media than on traditional media like newspapers and TV.” In other words, filter bubbles used to be worse.
All of these arguments are true to some extent, but they still miss the larger point. And if anything, they reinforce the idea that Zuckerberg is desperately trying to avoid responsibility for the way Facebook influences the media consumption of its users. Even some of his own staffers are wrestling with this problem, according to a New York Times report.
As a number of people have pointed out, the social network can’t have it both ways. It can’t argue that Facebook is hugely influential for advertisers, or that it plays a key role in social movements like the Arab Spring, and yet also argue that fake news has no effect on users.
To borrow Zuckerberg’s aerospace analogy, if Facebook flew planes and 1% of them crashed and killed all passengers on impact, most people probably wouldn’t accept the argument that this is a small number, and that in any case it isn’t really an airplane company because its real focus is the technology that keeps them from crashing most of the time.
In a sense, debating whether Facebook should call itself a media company or not is a red herring. Whatever it calls itself, it is one of the largest distributors of news that has ever existed.
This problem doesn’t just affect Facebook either. Google has also come under fire for pointing to fake news sites in Google News, including one site that topped its election results but had the wrong numbers. The company said it is “looking into” what happened.
In today’s news environment, traditional outlets have lost control over the distribution of their content, and platforms like Facebook and Google have taken over. In the process, they have become the most powerful media companies in history. And that brings with it certain responsibilities.
It’s obvious why Facebook doesn’t want to admit that it has these responsibilities, of course. As a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist and Facebook investor told my colleague Jeff Roberts recently, admitting this would open the company up to an avalanche of criticism for being biased on one side or the other. And that would be a recipe for disaster.
That’s exactly what happened during the Trending Topics fiasco, when editors responsible for weeding out bad sites were accused of bias against conservative sites. Facebook’s response was to fire them all and sweep the problem under the rug by pretending it could all be done algorithmically.
According to a report from Gizmodo, Facebook’s engineers actually developed a way of using its algorithms to detect and block fake news, but a test of the feature found that a disproportionate number of these stories were from right-wing sites.
Because the social network was afraid of more backlash over allegations of bias, Gizmodo says the feature was never released (Facebook has since denied that this occurred).
In his post, Zuckerberg said the company is working on ways for users to flag fake news. But are users who see fake articles that reinforce their beliefs going to flag them? That seems unlikely.
The core problem for Facebook is that what it wants more than anything else is engagement, and as a former Facebook staffer argued recently, “bullshit is highly engaging.” That means despite Zuckerberg’s protest that he cares deeply about the problem, finding a solution is never going to be as economically advantageous as not finding a solution.
One other point: The Facebook CEO says he doesn’t want his company to become “arbiters of truth.” But the reality is—as technology publishers Tim O’Reilly pointed out in a recent blog post—that the social network is already doing this on a regular basis by deleting posts and censoring content it deems unacceptable.
Figuring out what “fake news” consists of and flagging it in some way, or even down-ranking it in the news feed, may be a difficult technological challenge. And it may expose Facebook to charges of being biased in one direction or another. But the status quo is not going to work.
Regardless of whether he personally wants to grapple with this thorny problem or not, Zuckerberg will have to admit that Facebook is a large and increasingly powerful player in the news business, and that certain duties and responsibilities come along with that. And the sooner he does so, the better.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Sunday, November 20, 2016

Why Obama helped Tump although Trump seeks to destroy Obama legacy - NBC News

President Barack Obama said Sunday that he would withhold criticism of the Trump administration once he's out of office — even if President-elect Donald Trump tries to dismantle his legacy.
"I want to be respectful of the office and give the president-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance," Obama said.
Obama urged his fellow Democrats to try to work with Trump's team if what it's doing is good for the country. But he cautioned that if the Trump administration begins to attack American values, he might be compelled to speak up, and so would the Democratic Party.
"As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then I'll examine it when it comes," he said.
Speaking at a news conference at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Lima, Peru, Obama — on his last foreign tour — was at times reflective and humorous, candidly discussing his views on the United States' position as a world leader and touching on the strife within his own party.
Obama reiterated his administration's commitment to policies like the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and the Paris climate change deal, while doling out advice for the future Democratic leaders.
"I'm not worried about being the last Democratic president, not even for a while," he said. "And I say that not being cute — the Democratic nominee won the popular vote."
He later advised against the apocalyptic tone that has come to characterize the Democratic Party in the wake of Hillary Clinton's loss on Election Night.

UK republican elements call for abolition of monarchy after budget increase - Independent

Campaigners have renewed calls for the monarchy to be abolished after it was revealed that taxpayer funding of the royal family is set to soar by up to 66 per cent to enable the Queen to renovate Buckingham Palace.
The Government has agreed to increase the royal grant to cover the £396 million cost of the refurbishment.
The funding was agreed by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who together act as the Royal Trustees who determine how much public money is given to the royal family. 
In a report they said Buckingham Palace was “in urgent need of a major overhaul to avoid the very real danger of catastrophic failure leading to fire or flood".
This would result in “incalculable damage”, they added. 
But republican campaigners said the decision was an "absolute disgrace” and called for the public grant given to the Queen to be “stripped right back”. 
Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, said: “This is an absolute disgrace. An indictment on the Queen’s scandalous mismanagement of royal finances over six decades.
“MPs have repeatedly called on the palace to fund repairs by opening up to tourists all year round and they’ve refused. If the royals can't look after the buildings and raise their own revenue to fund maintenance, it’s time to give them up.
“The royals cost the taxpayer over £334m a year and that keeps going up. We need independent inquiry and full disclosure into their spending. The monarchy's costs need to be stripped right back, put the institution on a proper budgetary footing and allow parliament to approve the budget each year.” 
The Queen is reported to have around £300m in personal wealth, while land owned by the monarchy is thought to be worth more than £7bn. The royals also receive hundreds of millions of pounds from taxpayers each year.

Queen leads the nation in Remembrance Day commemorations
The renovation of Buckingham Palace will see 100 miles of electric cables being replaced, along with 6,500 electrical sockets, 5,000 light fittings and 2,500 radiators. Some 30,000 square miles of floorboards will be taken up.
Parts of the Palace’s plumbing, electric cabling and heating have not been updated since just after the Second World War. 
The Queen will remain in residence while the renovation work is carried out and official functions will continue as usual.
A spokesperson for Buckingham Palace said: "The 10-year phased refit will address the essential building services on which the Palace depends.
"Miles of ageing cables, lead piping, electrical wiring and boilers will be replaced, many for the first time in 60 years.
"An independent specialist report concluded that without urgent work there is a risk of serious damage to the Palace and the precious Royal Collection items it houses from, amongst other scenarios, fire and water damage."
The monarchy is funded by the profits of the Crown Estate – land that is owned by the royal family but cannot be sold. The royals were previously given back 15 per cent of the profits but that will now rise to 25 per cent.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Trump's ex-wife eyeing ambassador job in Czech Republic - Independent

Ivana Trump’s expertise might lie in modelling, professional socialising and of course Celebrity Big Brother but the Czech-American businesswoman is now keen to try her hand at international diplomacy. The first wife of the President-elect, who is the mother of his three children, recently announced she wanted to become an ambassador for the Czech Republic under Mr Trump's presidency.
To her no doubt delight, the President of the Czech Republic has now expressed his support for her bid. According to a statement released by the President’s office, President Milos Zeman informed Ms Trump of his enthusiasm in a phone call on Wednesday. “They could not send a better US ambassador to Prague,” Mr Zeman told her.
He also told Ms Trump that her bid for ambassador had made him “feel very happy” and he was looking forward to meeting her alongside his wife who is also called Ivana.
The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic also applauded the news, saying Ms Trump’s role could strengthen connections between the country and Mr Trump. “If Ivana feels up for it and decides to do so, it would be a nice way to underline the link between the Czech Republic and Trump,” he told Czech Radio.
Ms Trump, who was born in Zlin at the time it was called Czechoslovakia, expressed her eagerness for the role on Sunday.
“I will suggest that I be an ambassador for the Czech Republic,” Ivana, who is the mother of Ivanka, Donald Trump Jr, and Eric, told The New York Post.
“[It] is where I’m from and my language and everybody knows me. I’m quite known all around the world. Not only in America,” she continued. “I have written three books, and they were translated in 40 countries in 25 languages. I’m known by the name Ivana. I really did not need the name Trump.”
Mr Zeman, a populist politician who previously urged the international community to take military action against Isis to defend itself against a “super-holocaust”, was one of the few European politicians who was explicitly pro-Trump during the election.
“Today, I congratulate the newly elected president of the United States Donald Trump. I hope you visit soon to the Czech Republic, where are you I have the honour to invite. Once again congratulations,” a post on his Facebook read.
The Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka has also expressed his support for Mr Trump in the wake of his victory. “Trump, unlike some of his predecessors, at least knows where the Czech Republic is located,” he tweeted.
If Ms Trump, who is revered as a local girl done good in the country, were to become the ambassador, she would not be the country’s first so-called celebrity diplomat of her time. Shirley Temple went from child star to Czechoslovakian ambassador, being appointed to the role by President George Bush in 1989.

Friday, November 18, 2016

Donald Trump’s Many, Many, Many, Many Conflicts of Interest - TIME

Jeff Nesbit was the communications director to former Vice President Dan Quayle (R-IN) at the White House. He is the author of Poison Tea
And Rudy Giuliani's, too
When Donald Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States in January, it seems quite likely that he will bring hundreds of potential financial conflicts of interest with him into the Oval Office.
Yet none of it will matter. Instead, incredibly, several congressional oversight committees have said that they will continue to investigate potential financial conflicts of interest between the Clinton foundation and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State during the Obama administration. The irony here is beyond strange. It’s also unprecedented.
What is astounding about this is that few seem to care—not the 59 million Americans who voted him into office because they wanted an outsider who has never been involved in politics to run the national government, and certainly not the new GOP Congress that will, instead, continue to investigate potential conflicts of interest of the Democratic presidential candidate who lost the 2016 election.
Donald Trump Runs for President: A Look Back
In one of the most shocking U.S. elections in modern political history, Donald Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton.Trump’s conflicts of interest range from small matters like his investment in a controversial oil and gas pipeline in North Dakota that he may ultimately have to rule on, to large trade issues with China that will affect Bank of China ties to his business organizations that will be managed by his three children.
Presidents are largely exempt from oversight from Congress on matters of financial conflict of interest, and the GOP Congress wouldn’t launch investigations of him regardless. The FBI tilted in his favor in the run-up to the presidential election, so it’s unlikely it will take an interest in this subject either. There isn’t anyone left on the playing field in Washington to investigate any of his potential conflicts of interest.
Trump didn’t release his tax returns during the presidential campaign, and he has shown no inclination to be any more transparent about potential financial conflicts of interest once he becomes president. Despite intense media pressure on Trump to be more forthcoming about his business dealings and how they might intersect with the White House, Trump has simply stonewalled. That isn’t likely to change.
Past presidents have placed their financial holdings in blind trusts and released their tax returns each year to show good faith to the American public. Trump has said he’ll simply allow his children to continue to run his varied financial interests while he’s president, and isn’t likely to allow anyone to scrutinize the inner workings of his many and varied businesses while he’s president.
His campaign personal disclosure form lists more than 500 legal business entities, as well as 21 large financial properties that he says are worth more than $50 million each. Many of the decisions he makes as president will undoubtedly affect those small and large financial interests, yet there is no mechanism that can compel him to be more transparent about how those interests might overlap—and there are no federal investigative bodies either in Congress or his own administration to conduct any meaningful oversight. The media will continue to investigate, of course, but Trump has convinced much of America that the media can’t be trusted.
Take just two examples of how this might work once he’s in office. Trump is a small investor in Energy Transfer Partners, which is one of the business interests behind the Dakota Access Pipeline that has spurred dozens of protests. The decision on the Dakota pipeline could very likely be made from the Oval Office, in favor of his investing partners. It is an obvious and clear financial conflict of interest, but Trump has shown no indication that he will avoid such conflicts—and there is no public call for him to divest his political decisions from such financial interests.
At a larger scale, the state-run Bank of China has a financial interest or stake in at least two of Trump’s large real estate properties. During the campaign, Trump said he would consider trade sanctions on China in an effort to promote American business interests. Should he follow through on those campaign threats, triggering reciprocal actions by the Chinese government, those Bank of China loans to his business interests will be squarely in the crosshairs.
No one—other than the media—has made an issue out of Trump’s potential financial conflicts of interest as president. And in yet another level of bizarre political irony, one of the central elements of Trump’s presidential campaign was a populist demand from his followers to put Clinton in jail for perceived conflicts of interest between the Clinton foundation and her time as secretary of State. “Lock her up” was a central theme of the Trump campaign, one that he often repeated from the podium. But do such potential financial conflicts interest extend to Trump when he becomes president? Apparently not.
The sheer irony of all of this doesn’t stop at the White House, either. The loudest, most vociferous cheerleader at many of those Trump rallies—where his populist movement was demanding that Clinton go to jail for any financial conflict of interest transgressions while she was serving as secretary of State—was former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani. Like Trump, he was a willing and eager political cheerleader for this demand that Clinton be investigated and jailed. Both he and Trump have said they would still consider appointing a special prosecutor to pursue Clinton.
Giuliani is now the leading candidate to become secretary of State in the Trump administration. He has any number of business ties that might come under intense scrutiny should he, in fact, be named to that position.
Giuliani has dismissed the questions of any potential conflicts of interest that might intersect with the State Department. “I have friends all over the world,” he told the New York Times. He’s said his financial dealings, which ranged from contracts with the government of Qatar and the huge Canadian company behind the Keystone XL pipeline to paid speeches to groups with financial interests in countries that he would deal with as secretary of State, aren’t the same as the charges that he and Trump leveled during their “lock her up” campaign tour.
And yet it is precisely the same thing. The question, at least for the foreseeable future, is whether anyone beyond the media will ever show any interest in the subject. Congress hasn’t shown any interest. The FBI isn’t likely to look into it. Trump isn’t compelled by ethics laws to list potential conflicts of interest when he becomes president. So who’s left to conduct oversight?

How Giuliani made money after leaving his office as NYC mayor ? - New York Times

By ERIC LIPTON and RUSS BUETTNER
NOVEMBER 17, 2016
WASHINGTON — It was a golden year for Rudolph W. Giuliani, a mad dash that would take him to 11 countries on four continents, and by the time 2006 was done, earn him $16 million — a princely sum compared with the $7,000 he claimed to have in 2001, when he went through a divorce.
With salaries from a law firm and a consulting firm, and most of all $10 million from 108 speeches he delivered to audiences around the world, the lucrative year of 2006 will now, along with the rest of Mr. Giuliani’s career after his tenure as New York’s mayor, be getting a new round of scrutiny if he is nominated as secretary of state by President-elect Donald J. Trump.
The blitz of activity by Mr. Giuliani in 2006 — speaking to Wall Street banks; oil, gold mining and pharmaceutical companies; and investor groups in Japan and Singapore — is public because the next year, he began a campaign for president and had to file a financial disclosure form.

But that public ledger offers the most detailed look at just how Mr. Giuliani managed to become so wealthy after he left office, with assets worth tens of millions of dollars, including homes he now owns in Palm Beach, Fla., the Hamptons and New York City.
Mr. Giuliani’s speeches and travel that year and in the decade since were often related to business deals he was pursuing, or even standing agreements he had reached, like one with backers of the dissident Iranian political party known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, which until 2012 was considered a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department.
They offer a road map of sorts to the kinds of potential conflict of interest questions that are already emerging as Mr. Giuliani’s name is floated as a possible Trump cabinet member, particularly given that Mr. Trump repeatedly mocked Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, for the many speeches she and her husband gave after they left public office.
“When she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests in less than two years — secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public,” Mr. Trump said in June. “Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, C.E.O.s and foreign governments in the years since 2001. They totally own her, and that will never change.”
In particular, Mr. Trump criticized Mrs. Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street banks. But Mr. Giuliani, in a one-year period that ended in January 2007, earned $750,000 in speaking fees — before the 20 percent cut taken by the speakers’ agency — for eight speeches he gave to Wall Street banks and other major financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, before its collapse. As with Mrs. Clinton, there is little public record of what Mr. Giuliani said during these events.
Mr. Giuliani had rules about keeping his remarks private, as a contract “addendum” to which organizations that invited him to speak had to agree makes clear. Mr. Giuliani stipulated that his remarks could not be recorded, nor could “general press or other media coverage” of the remarks be allowed without his explicit permission. He also had some elaborate demands, including that if he traveled by private plane, it be a Gulfstream IV or bigger, a plane that costs about $40,000 for a one-day trip within the United States.
Some members of the Senate, which will hold hearings and vote on his nomination if Mr. Trump selects him, are already saying they want to learn more about Mr. Giuliani’s work in the years since he left City Hall.
“I’m concerned generally about conflicts of interest on the part of prospective members of the administration, in every role,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said when asked about Mr. Giuliani’s business ventures since he left office. “And that concern is well justified in terms of the backgrounds of some of the potential nominees that have been discussed.”
Mr. Giuliani, in an interview this week, defended his activities since he left office, saying he had been open about his dealings with private companies and foreign states or political parties, including the Iranian group.
“My ties to them are completely open,” Mr. Giuliani said.
Mr. Giuliani certainly kept up a feverish pace. In one month alone during 2006, he gave 20 speeches. From 2001 to 2008, the year he ran for president, he was on the road as much as 200 days a year, according to Anthony V. Carbonetti, a former New York City Hall aide.
“Every time I turned, he was calling me from a different country or a different city,” Mr. Carbonetti said.
For most of those trips, he had a standard speech that mixed a retelling of leadership lessons outlined in his book and memories from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which ultimately earned him the nickname “America’s mayor.”
“I heard it so many times, I could have given the speech,” Mr. Carbonetti joked.
One area of particularly focused travel was Asia. Mr. Giuliani formed a partnership with Sage Capital Growth, a Manhattan-based investment firm that was exploring business opportunities in Japan. Mr. Giuliani’s disclosure form showed a $300,000 speaking fee for one event in November 2005, the largest single fee on the form, which covered 123 speeches given over a 14-month period.
Mr. Giuliani was separately retained by Mark Advent, a Las Vegas-based casino developer, to help him with his attempt to build a resort and casino in Singapore. Mr. Giuliani personally presented parts of the plan to Singapore’s authorities in hearings during an arduous review process.

One of Mr. Giuliani most frequent employers as a speaker was HSM, a company that arranges “executive education” events around the world. In 2006, he made eight speeches for the company and was paid $550,000 (his booking agent kept 20 percent of that).
At least three times, in 2003, 2004 and 2006, Mr. Giuliani was to be among the featured speakers at HSM World Business Forums, along with Bill Clinton.
The speeches that have drawn the greatest scrutiny are those he gave from 2012 through last year at events organized by the Mujahedeen Khalq, a dissident group of Iranians that holds a rally in France every year to draw attention to the persecution of its members by the government of Iran.
Mr. Giuliani was paid for “three or four” speeches he delivered to the group, said Robert G. Torricelli, a former senator from New Jersey who served as a lawyer for the M.E.K., as the group is known, as it sought to be removed from a State Department list of terrorist organizations.
Mr. Giuliani, after receiving payments from American-based groups of Iranian immigrants who had ties to the Iranian dissidents, gave rousing speeches at these annual rallies condemning Iranian leaders and the Obama administration for negotiating with them.
“The ayatollah must go,” Mr. Giuliani yelled, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, as thousands stood and cheered him. “Gone, out, no more,” he said, adding that Mr. Khamenei and other leaders of Iran should “be put on trial for crimes against humanity for the thousands and hundreds of thousands of people that they have killed.”
Paul S. Ryan, a vice president for policy and litigation at Common Cause, a nonprofit group that examines special interest influence in politics, said there would be no legal prohibition on Mr. Giuliani’s moving from being paid by the group to a government job. But he still found it troubling.
“People would reasonably question his fitness for this political appointment given that he received payments from supporters of this organization, and these are matters he would be charged with dealing with as secretary of state,” he said.
Mr. Torricelli said that Mr. Giuliani had agreed to give the paid speeches because he supported the group’s message, and that he had volunteered his time to participate in negotiations in Europe to help prevent further attacks on refugees from the group who were then living in Iraq.
Mr. Giuliani’s work earned him a spot on several lists of the highest-paid speakers in the world, just one spot below Mr. Clinton in one ranking.
In one instance in 2006, Mr. Giuliani collected $100,000 for speaking at Oklahoma State University. His contract with the university, which is public, laid out what appeared to be his standard demands beyond a fee.

Besides the requests related to air travel, his team required a sedan and an S.U.V., and an extra S.U.V. for luggage when he traveled to other countries. His room tastes were specific: a “large two-bedroom, nonsmoking suite with a king-size bed, on an upper floor, with a balcony and view if applicable.” He required four more rooms on the same floor for security and staff.
Eric C. Money, who led the speakers bureau at Oklahoma State University at the time Mr. Giuliani visited the campus, said Mr. Giuliani’s speech to students and faculty members in the university’s basketball arena had focused on leadership and Sept. 11. Mr. Money said the fee was high, but he did not recall hearing complaints.
“That is what Bill Clinton was getting at the time,” Mr. Money said. “It was on par. I did not have sticker shock.”
In the afterglow of his post-9/11 fame, Mr. Giuliani could certainly ignite large rooms.
Mr. Giuliani spoke at dozens of events with Zig Ziglar, a motivational speaker. Mr. Ziglar’s daughter, Julie Ziglar Norman, who traveled with her father in those years, said Mr. Giuliani was a crowd favorite, along with her father and Colin L. Powell. “I know everybody always loved what he had to say,” Ms. Ziglar said. “It was always very pro- American. And he was just beloved. That’s the best way I can describe him.”
Eric Lipton reported from Washington, and Russ Buettner from New York. Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting from Washington, and Susan Beachy contributed research.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

No New Trump Bull Market,’ Says Growth Plan Flawed - Bloomberg


Bill Gross doesn’t see Donald Trump making America great again.
The president-elect’s plan to reduce taxes and increase infrastructure spending is unlikely to bolster economic growth or equities, Gross, manager of the $1.68 billion Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund, wrote Wednesday in a November commentary.

Bill Gross
  
Photographer: Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg

“There is no new Trump bull market in the offing,” said Gross. “Investors must drive with caution, understanding that higher deficits resulting from lower taxes raise interest rates and inflation, which in turn have the potential to produce lower earnings” and price/earnings ratios.
Since Trump’s stunning election victory money managers have been grappling to interpret the result and offer insight to clients. The vote has also whipsawed the financial markets, triggering a rally in equities and soaring bond yields on the expectation that Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress will champion programs to fuel growth.
In a piece he titled “Populism Takes a Wrong Turn,” Gross said many of the policies Trump favors represent the status quo -- and a Clinton administration would have been no better. “Neither party as they now stand has bold policies beyond the reach of K Street lobbyists,” he wrote.

‘Populist Henhouse’

Gross questioned the need for corporate tax cuts, saying that U.S. companies are among the world’s most lightly taxed. Another popular Republican idea, the repatriation of trillions of dollars of corporate profits held overseas, probably won’t lead to more investment in America, he said.
Pundits who think that Trump’s win represents a victory for middle-class America are mistaken, he said, using a fox-in-the-henhouse metaphor.
“The Trumpian Fox has entered the Populist Henhouse, not so much by stealth but as a result of Middle America’s misinterpretation of what will make America great again,” he said. Trump’s “tenure will be a short four years but is likely to be a damaging one for jobless and low-wage American voters.”
Gross, who said he didn’t vote for either major party candidate for President, said the U.S. would be better served by a jobs program that puts people to work helping other people. Government should be the employer of last resort, he said.
The Janus Global Unconstrained Bond fund gained 4.7 percent this year through Nov. 14, better than 67 percent of peers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Dalio’s View

Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio said on Nov. 15 that he’s bullish on Trump and bearish on bonds.
“We think that there’s a significant likelihood that we have made the 30-year top in bond prices,” Dalio wrote on his LinkedIn page. “We probably have made both the secular low in inflation and the secular low in bond yields relative to inflation.”
Trump’s presidency will mark a move to the right akin to the Ronald Reagan era, he said, a period that will likely be characterized by decreasing globalization, increased U.S. growth as well as higher inflation.
Jeffrey Gundlach, co-founder of DoubleLine Capital, said yesterday the stock market is in for a "bumpy ride" as expectations are dashed that Trump can quickly spur growth.