10 Billionaires With Surprisingly Frugal Money Habits - TIME Business

10 Billionaires With Surprisingly Frugal Money Habits Posted: 23 Jul 2017 07:00 AM PDT As Belarusian-American chess master Charles A. Jaffe once claimed, “It’s not your salary that makes you rich, it’s your spending habits.” Not surprisingly, many of the wealthiest people on earth have distinct penny-pinching habits that have paved the road to their success and vast fortunes. Incorporate some of these habits into your own life and perhaps your own net worth will grow. 1. Mark Zuckerberg drives a $30,000 car  Getty ImagesDespite being able to buy a Ferrari for every day of the month, the Facebook founder drives a non-ostentatious Volkswagon GTI with manual transmission, which costs only $30,000. Other cost saving tricks: He reportedly married longtime girlfriend Priscilla Chan in their backyard, and the two were seen eating at a McDonald’s during their 2012 Italian honeymoon trip. When Zuckerberg bought his most recent home in 2011, a $7 million house in Palo Alto, some called it “still well below his means.” 2. Warren Buffet still resides in the same home he bought for $31,500 in 1958  ReutersKnown as the ‘Oracle of Omaha,’ longtime chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Warren Buffet is one of the richest people on the planet. But he still lives in his 6,000 square-foot, five-bedroom stucco house in Omaha. He’s described the purchase as “the third best investment I ever made.” A similar five-bedroom house located next door went on sale in 2015 for a list price of ten ‘A shares’ of Berkshire Hathaway stock, equal to over $2.5 million today. 3. Bill Gates wears a $10 watch  ReutersForget Rolex. Adorning Bill Gates’s wrist is a $10 watch. And perhaps most frugally, Gates remains old-fashioned in that he still likes to wash the dishes at home every night for his family. Dishwashers use electricity after all! 4. Charlie Ergen, founder and chairman of Dish Network, still packs a brown-bag lunch from home every day  Denver Post via Getty ImagesOf course eating out is super expensive. Dish Network founder battles those costs with a simple and inexpensive paper-bag lunch before work every day, consisting of a sandwich and Gatorade from home. He and his wife have lived in the same Denver house for over 20 years. Until recently, the Dish CEO also stuck to company policy by sharing hotel rooms with colleagues while traveling for business. As Ergen once told the Financial Times, “My mom grew up in the Depression… I don’t have a mahogany desk.” 5. Carlos Slim Helú, Mexico’s richest man, drives himself around town and to work everyday  AP ImagesMany who dream of being rich dream of a chauffeur. Not Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim Helú, who drives himself around town in an old Mercedes-Benz, buys clothes off the rack at his own retail stores, and for over 40 years, has lived in the same modest six-bedroom house in Mexico where he raised his kids. 6. Jim Walton works out of a plain old brick building in his hometown ReutersWalmart scion and member of America’s richest family, Jim Walton inherited the down-to-earth spending habits of his father, Walmart founder Sam Walton. These days, he runs the family’s Arvest Bank, which boats assets of more than $16 billion, from the upstairs floor of a “plain old brick building.” Despite his massive fortune, Jim Walton prefers pickup trucks to fancy sports cars; he reportedly drives around a rusting Dodge Dakota pickup that is over 15 years old. 7. John Caudwell, English businessman and co-founder of mobile phone retailer Phones 4u, cuts his own hair  Getty ImagesThis now-retired, self-made billionaire who built a British cellphone empire still maintains many aspects of a budget lifestyle. He reportedly still cuts his own hair, refrains from buying expensive wines, and buys his clothes off the rack at British retailer Marks & Spencer. He once told Forbes, “I don’t need Saville Row suits.” 8. Amancio Ortega, founder of Spanish multinational clothing conglomerate Inditex, eats lunch with employees in the Zara cafeteria  APThe tycoon behind Zara still lives humble. Not only does Ortega live in a discreet apartment building with his wife, but he also frequents the same local coffee shop, in his home city of La Coruña, Spain, on a regular basis. Known as the pioneer of “fast fashion,” Ortega dresses very modestly given his status – with a uniform of a blue blazer, white shirt, and gray pants everyday. Perhaps most surprising, however, is that he still eats lunch alongside his employees in the company cafeteria. 9. David Cheriton, the ‘Professor Billionaire’ who teaches at Stanford University, reuses teabags  The New York Times/Redux PictureFood can be a huge source of wasted money, as computer scientist and Stanford professor David Cheriton attests. He makes sure to save half of his meal for the next day when eating at an expensive restaurant. Instead of luxury cars, Cheriton prefers to ride his bike; when he does need to drive, he relies on his 1986 Volkswagen van or an old Honda sedan. He has also said that he only flies commercial, prefers jeans instead of expensive designer clothes, and even reuses his teabags. 10. Azim Premji, India’s wealthiest tech tycoon, is said to monitor the number of toilet-paper rolls used by employees  Getty ImagesDespite his success serving over five decades as chairman of Indian tech-services giant Wipro Ltd., Premji lives a surprisingly low-budget lifestyle and is extremely careful with his spending. The “bare bones billionaire” often takes a three-wheel auto rickshaw from the Bangalore airport when returning home from business trips. When traveling, he only drives secondhand cars – such as an old Toyota Corolla, flies in economy class, and stays at company guest houses instead of five-star hotels. His well-known frugality also extends beyond his personal life. At Wipro facilities, he reportedly keeps close tabs on toilet-paper usage and always reminds employees to turn off the lights when leaving their offices. As one worker anonymously told Bloomberg, Premji “makes Uncle Scrooge look like Santa Claus.”

Donald Trump's Boy Scouts speech broke with 80 years of tradition - Independent

Donald Trump's Boy Scouts speech broke with 80 years of tradition

Most Presidents have spoken about unity, citizenship or coming together. Current White House occupant talked about crowd size, 'fake news' and Hillary Clinton

• Katie Mettler, Derek Hawkins
• Wednesday 26 July 2017

For 80 years, American Presidents have been speaking to the National Scout Jamboree, a gathering of tens of thousands of youngsters from around the world eager to absorb the ideas of service, citizenship and global diplomacy.

In keeping with the Scouts' traditions, all eight presidents and surrogates who have represented them have stayed far, far away from partisan politics.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt used the occasion to talk about good citizenship. Harry S. Truman extolled fellowship: “When you work and live together, and exchange ideas around the campfire, you get to know what the other fellow is like,” he said.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the “bonds of common purpose and common ideals.” And President George H.W. Bush spoke of “serving others.”

For a brief moment at this year's jamboree in West Virgina, President Donald Trump indicated that he would follow that tradition - sort of.

“Who the hell wants to speak about politics when I'm in front of the Boy Scouts?” he said.

Then, standing before all 40,000 of them, he bragged about the “record” crowd size, bashed President Barack Obama, criticised the “fake media” and trashed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. In the 35-minute speech, the President threatened to fire his health and human services secretary if he couldn't persuade members of Congress to vote for the Republican healthcare bill.

• READ MORE

PARENTS PULLING SONS OUT OF SCOUTS OVER TRUMP'S 'DRUNK STEPDAD SPEECH'

At one point, he told a rambling story about a conversation he had at a New York cocktail party with a once-successful home builder who “lost his momentum.” The lesson, apparently: “You have to know whether or not you continue to have the momentum. And if you don't have it, that's okay.”

Throughout the address, Trump dropped in praise for “the moms and the dads and troop leaders” and thanked the Scouts for upholding “the sacred values of our nation.”

It was yet another example of Trump ignoring the custom that past presidents have dutifully observed in such public ceremonies. In his first full day in office, Trump bucked tradition at the CIA when he delivered a campaign-style speech in front of a memorial wall for fallen agency employees. In May, he used a commencement ceremony at the Coast Guard Academy to lament that he has been treated “more unfairly” than any other politician in history. And so it was at this year's jamboree. Trump, who promised to be different from all the rest, was indeed just that, talking to the Scouts in a way no president ever has.

Here, by way of illustration, is an abbreviated history of American presidents and their encounters with the Boy Scouts jamboree.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1935 and 1937)

Roosevelt, once called the “greatest friend Scouting ever had in the White House,” helped secure support from federal and local officials to host the inaugural Scout Jamboree in Washington, DC, in 1935. There were plans to line the scouts along Constitution Avenue and throw a party on the White House lawn. But the gathering was derailed when a polio outbreak near the nation's capital put the Scouts at too great a risk.

The President, who said he had looked forward to the jamboree for more than a year, addressed the Boy Scouts by radio instead.

Roosevelt said that Boy Scouts, present and former, “constitute a very real part of our American citizenship” that relies on unselfishness and cooperative attitudes. “Scouting revolves around not the mere theory of service to others but the habit of service to others,” he said.

The young boys should be engaged in civic affairs in their home communities, even before they can legally vote, Roosevelt said, praising “the many contributions that individual Scouts and Scout organizations have made to the relief of suffering, the relief of the needy, to the maintenance of good order and good health, and to the furtherance of good citizenship and good government.”

The great outdoors, he added, are to be loved and understood, and he reminded the boys of their Scout Motto to always “be prepared.”

“When you go out into life, you have come to understand that the individual in your community who always says 'I can't' or 'I won't' or 'I don't,' the individual who by inaction or by opposition slows up honest, practical, far-seeing community effort, is the fellow who is holding back civilization and holding back the objectives of the Constitution of the United States,” Roosevelt said.

“We need more Scouts,” he added. “The more the better. For the record shows that taking it by and large, boys trained as Scouts make good citizens.”

Two years later, Roosevelt joined the Scouts in DC, where they found his face on the first page of the Jamboree Journal with a greeting and plug for good citizenship, according to Scouting Magazine.

The former president toured the camp site, took 12 Eagle Scouts to the Major League Baseball All-Star Game and visited with a group from New York that had built a large replica of the Roosevelt family home, reported the magazine.

President Harry S. Truman (1950)

This jamboree was on July Fourth at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where General George Washington brought his army in the winter of 1777. Truman noted the soldiers' struggles - the bitter cold, lack of food, poor shelter and tattered clothing - to make a greater point about perseverance.

“But the men of Washington's army stuck it out,” Truman said. “They stuck it out because they had a fierce belief in the cause of freedom for which they were fighting. And because of that belief, they won.”

Truman's speech morphed into a lesson on international diplomacy, world peace and freedom for all. He listed off the many states and foreign countries from which Scouts had come to attend the jamboree.

“When you work and live together, and exchange ideas around the campfire, you get to know what the other fellow is like,” Truman said. “That is the first step toward settling world problems in a spirit of give and take, instead of fighting about them.”

The “Scout movement,” the former president said, is “good training” for nation building work across the globe. Truman took shots at the dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, then shifted his criticism to “Communist-dominated countries” that are giving children “a completely distorted picture of the world.”

He said:

“'The great tragedy of our times is that there are movements in the world that deny this fundamental ideal of human brotherhood. These movements have devoted themselves to preaching distrust between nations. They have made a religion of hate. They have tried to turn the peoples of the earth against one another - to create a gulf between different peoples that fellowship cannot bridge. As a part of this effort, they have tried to poison the minds of the young people.'”

The United States, Truman said, “is striving to build a world in which men will live as good neighbours and work for the good of all.” He said he hoped all Boy Scouts in attendance would take home an understanding of “human brotherhood” and “work for freedom and peace with the same burning faith that inspired the men of George Washington's army here at Valley Forge.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Vice President Richard Nixon (1953, 1957 and 1960)

Eisenhower, who visited the jamboree in 1950, was unable to physically attend three years later as president but recorded a video message for the Scouts.

Like Truman, he noted the importance of rubbing elbows with fellow Scouts of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. He predicted they would leave the gathering with “a new sense of the vastness and complexities of this nation and of the world.”

“I am confident that, in meeting and talking with your fellow Scouts, you will gain a renewed awareness of the need for cooperating - working together - in our country and in the world,” Eisenhower said. “Bonds of common purpose and common ideals can unite people, even when they come from the most distant and diverse places.”

Nixon spoke on Eisenhower's behalf in 1957 and Eisenhower delivered another speech three years later, but the transcripts were not readily available.

President Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)

Johnson, eight months into his first presidential term, built his address around the theme of the great “American idea,” encouraging the Scouts to remember the country's history as they work to better its future.

“This country of ours is a community built on an idea,” Johnson said. “Its history is the history of an idea. And its future will be bright only so long as you are faithful to that idea.”

He used their location - again at Valley Forge - to speak of the “idea and a dream” that gave the troops at Valley Forge “the strength to survive the winter.”

The “American idea,” Johnson said, was what the founders outlined in the Constitution: a government of and by the people, religious freedom and the right to speak without censorship.

“As a result, in America we have a Government which exists to protect the freedom and enlarge the opportunities of every citizen,” he said. “That Government is not to be feared or to be attacked. It is to be helped as long as it serves the country well, and it is to be changed when it neglects its duty.”

It's time to vote for repeal of Obamacare in Senate today - CNN

Washington (CNN)It's time to vote.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the Senate set to vote Tuesday on the first major test for the GOP effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. It's a vote on the motion to proceed to debate and amendments on the House-passed health care bill (i.e. the AHCA.)

John McCain to return to Senate Tuesday for health care vote

John McCain to return to Senate Tuesday for health care vote

President Donald Trump ratcheted up the pressure Tuesday morning, tweeting: "Big day for HealthCare. After 7 years of talking, we will soon see whether or not Republicans are willing to step up to the plate!"

McConnell needs 50 out of the 52 Senate Republicans to support him. Here's everything else you need to know for today:

John McCain is coming back

This was the big news Monday night. Sen. John McCain's office said the Arizona Republican is going to be in the Senate Tuesday for the vote. That means McConnell has a teeny bit more wiggle room. Now, instead of only being able to afford one defection, McConnell can have two. That gets McConnell closer, but these are still very narrow margins and a lot of senators on the fence (see below.)

While he remains undecided on a final bill, McCain has always said he would support moving forward to debate health care. His surprise return puts some pressure on his colleagues to ensure McCain didn't come back for nothing.

Does anyone know what they are voting to proceed to

Technically yes -- the House-passed bill. That was always going to be the case procedurally. After that and debate, an open amendment process would begin.

Donald Trump's political jamboree

Donald Trump's political jamboree

In McConnell's ideal world, the idea was to have an agreed upon substitute amendment, with 50 votes in support in hand, that would serve as the final amendment of the process, pass the Senate, pass the House and hit Trump's desk. Or something close to that.

But too many GOP senators opposed that amendment last week, so the motion to proceed could open up a can of worms. As Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, put it to reporters, we're entering a "wild west" type of scenario if the procedural vote passes. Anything that's germane to the bill and falls within the confines of the budget reconciliation rules, can be offered on the floor.

How this will all play out

Republican senators will meet behind closed doors for their weekly lunch at 12:45 p.m.

Democrats pitch 'A Better Deal' agenda: Focus on job training, lowering costs

Democrats pitch 'A Better Deal' agenda: Focus on job training, lowering costs

During that meeting, the final pitch will be made, not just by leadership, but by rank-and-file members who want to move forward with this process. The order in which specific amendments will be offered -- from the 2015 repeal-only bill, to Cassidy-Collins, to Graham-Cassidy, to everything in between -- will also be discussed, aides say. Immediately following this meeting, the Senate will proceed to the procedural vote (at 2:15 p.m. or so).

What's happening right now

The final lobbying blitz. The President. The Vice President. Administration officials. Senate GOP leadership. All are pushing members not to be the vote that shuts this process down. The pressure inside the building right now is immense, something that has become exceedingly clear as senators who have clearly, and publicly, opposed past iterations of this bill have remained firmly in the "undecided" camp.

Who appears firmly in the "no" camp

No surprise here: Maine Sen. Susan Collins

Who to watch:

These senators will decide if health care moves forward or not. Period. They have different asks and needs and to this point, none have been publicly, sufficiently provided to them. But there are a lot of promises being made, along with near unlimited pressure from the White House and leadership to just. Let. The. Process. Move. Forward.

On Tuesday we'll see if that's enough.

Sen. Rob Portman

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito

Sen. Lisa Murkowski

Sen. Dean Heller

Sen. Mike Lee

Sen. Rand Paul

Sen. Jerry Moran

Sen. Ron Johnson

Here's a sampling of what some of them are saying

"I'm not blindly voting," Paul said Monday night when members were still waiting to see if leadership had a plan on what bill to ultimately substitute.

"I'm not real happy with the process. I think you guys are more than aware of that," Johnson said.

McCain returning to Senate for critical vote 01:30

Why vote yes on this, with no clear "replace" plan or final product already locked in

There are a myriad of reasons this could move forward, among them: No senator wants to be the senator to kill the effort. Senators have received specific promises and/or assurances regarding which amendments will be considered on the floor. Senators have received specific promises and/or assurances regarding specific policy provisions that will be in any final product before the final vote.

So why vote yes to proceed?

The most common answer is so that there can be an open debate.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: "We can't vote to amend the bill or debate it unless we get on it."

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas: "Any senator can introduce any amendment that he or she wishes ... that's the way the process works."

Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana: "It's inexplicable to me why anyone including Democrats wouldn't vote to allow us to debate the bill and offer amendments."

Why vote no on this, with no clear "replace" plan or final product already locked in?

Several senators (among them Collins, Capito and Murkowski), have said they want a "replace" plan ready to go before voting "yes." Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, has made clear "repeal-only" is not a satisfactory option for him. All of these senators have said the House-passed bill, and, up to this point, every version of the Senate bill that has been offered, haven't struck the right balance on Medicaid.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee has said his procedural vote is contingent on the 2015 repeal-only bill being the final product, or changes to Cruz's regulations amendment. Sen. Rand Paul has asked for similar assurances regarding the 2015 repeal-only bill, or a very clear opportunity to separate the insurance stabilization aspects of any bill from the repeal portion. On top of all of that, entering an open amendment process, where Democrats' sole goal will be to offer politically damaging amendment after politically damaging amendment, is a risky move for any senator who may one day seek re-election.

When will we know how everyone is voting

When they call the yeas and nays.

There is tremendous pressure not to the "no" vote that can be blamed for sinking this process, which means senators, up to this point, are keeping their powder dry. That may change Tuesday morning, or even as senators walk from their closed-door lunch to the floor. But at the moment, there is a very real possibility it will not. We're all just going to have to find out if this thing lives or dies on the Senate floor.

If the procedural vote passes, does that mean the bill eventually will?

No.

Short of an agreement on some final substitute amendment that locks in 50 votes -- something they've repeatedly come up short on accomplishing -- the process going forward is far from a sure thing. But momentum -- and hour after hour of amendment votes -- can be a unifying process. That's what leadership is counting on right now.

If this thing goes down, is it really dead?

If there's one lesson that everyone should've learned over the last six months, it's that when you've promised to do something for seven years on the campaign trail, failure is an awfully tough pill to swallow. There will be every reason to give another go. Just take a look at what Sen. John Thune told CNN Monday night:

Sanders calls GOP health care bill 'destructive' and 'irresponsible'

Sanders calls GOP health care bill 'destructive' and 'irresponsible'

CNN: If it fails, is health care dead for at least a while or do you go right back to figuring it out?

Thune: "I don't. I think it might get slotted in behind something else that we might move to. You know, we have a reconciliation vehicle that's available until the end of the fiscal year so we have to move at some point. I don't think the issue is going away. I don't think it gets any easier to solve the longer this things hangs around. I've been of the school for a long time that at some point you have to listen and modify and adjust and get it to where you think you have the best possible product you can have but at some point you have to vote and that's I think where we are. People are going to hold us accountable for processing and handling at some point on this issue. It could become, maybe not front and center as it is at this point, but it's going to have to be dealt with."

What does the majority whip think?

The man in charge of counting votes for Senate Republicans, whip John Cornyn of Texas, said he expects enough Republicans will vote to take up the bill. But when asked what the GOP would do it the bill is blocked, he too said his party would not walk away from the contentious issue. If they get 48 or 49 votes, he explained, leaders will know who they need to work with to get a bill over the finish line.

He added that Republicans would not start from scratch with committee hearings and the like but would stay with the leadership-led process underway now.

What is Trump saying?

Trump to Tom Price: Get votes or you're fired 01:15

The President spent Monday telling his fellow Republicans it's time to fulfill their long-term promises to voters to repeal Obamacare.

In a White House speech, Trump said the GOP hasn't done it's job.

"For the last seven years, Republicans have been united in standing up for Obamacare's victims. Remember repeal and replace, repeal and replace, they kept saying it over and over again. Every Republican running for office promised immediate relief from this disastrous law," Trump said. "We, as a party, must fulfill that solemn promise to the voters of this country to repeal and replace.

"But so far, Senate Republicans have not done their job in ending the Obamacare nightmare," he added.

These Are the Next 5 Industries That Amazon Could Take Over - TIME Business

These Are the Next 5 Industries That Amazon Could Take Over

Posted: 24 Jul 2017 07:06 AM PDT

No one should doubt Amazon.com’s power to disrupt new industries. While the onetime online bookstore has grown to dominate retail, it has also become a major player in businesses ranging from cloud computing to Hollywood — and even has experimented seriously with drones.
It’s no wonder that fear strikes investors and executives when they learn — or even hear rumors — that Amazon wants to compete in their industry. It’s the business-world equivalent of seeing viking sails appear on the horizon.
Just last month, grocery store stocks plunged when news arrived that Amazon planned to acquire trendy, upscale grocer Whole Foods. Then Amazon struck again late last week, with home improvement stores taking the hit.

Here are five industries that have all suffered recently from what one stock analyst has dubbed, “the Amazon effect” — the threat, real or perceived, that Amazon is on the verge of upending their business models.

Home Improvement Stores

Even as more and more retail moves online, big-box home improvement retailers Lowe’s and Home Depot have continued to thrive. After all, chances are you want to see your kitchen tile in person before ordering hundreds of dollars’ worth. And it’s not always easy to know exactly what size of bathroom fixture you need until you’re standing in front of a display model.
The upshot: Brick-and-mortar do-it-yourself stores have so far been able to keep customers coming in. But on Thursday, at least one lucrative segment of the business — home appliances — came under threat when also-ran Sears Holdings announced it had struck a deal for Amazon to sell the popular Kenmore-brand appliances. Appliances aren’t a perfect fit for online commerce; installation can be a big job and requires expertise. But some investors headed for the exits anyway: Shares of Home Depot closed down 4% by end of day, while Lowe’s fell 5.5%.

Grocery Stores

The news last month that Amazon planned to acquire Whole Foods for $13.7 billion might have rated as a blip. Sure, Whole Foods enjoys outsize cultural cachet among the arugula-munching set, but its overall market share in the grocery business is a measly 2%. But market watchers immediately began to speculate that Whole Foods’ roughly 450 stores would be turned into killer distribution hubs, enabling Amazon to deliver fresh groceries and other goods to upscale neighborhoods — or that the stores would become pickup points allowing customers to buy online, then have groceries put right in the trunks of their cars.
Either way Wall Street figured the consequences for other grocers would be dire: Kroger shares plunged more than 9% on the day the news emerged, while Target fell 5.1% and Wal-Mart dropped 4.7%.

Meal Kit Companies

When a young company has an IPO — the first time it sells shares to the public — it’s supposed to be the belle of the ball. Investment bankers work hard to drum up hype, so starry-eyed investors will pay top dollar.
For meal kit company Blue Apron, however, rumors that Amazon might be preparing a competing service put a huge damper on the party. Blue Apron had originally planned to sell shares for $15 to $17 late last month, but ended up settling for $10 after Amazon’s Whole Foods purchase gave investors jitters. Blue Apron took another big hit early last week when news broke that Amazon had filed for a patent, and may already be testing its own kits. Blue Apron shares closed Friday at $6.55, having lost roughly a third of their value.

Banks

So far, America’s biggest banks have been largely immune to Silicon Valley disruption. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been looking over their shoulders, however. In February, a rumor that Amazon might buy Capital One prompted banking industry bible American Banker to (sort of) reassure readers, “No way that could happen … well, er, right, everybody?”
Such a deal might, indeed, prompt a veto from regulators. Yet Amazon is already enmeshed in the banking industry, and its ties are only poised to deepen. Amazon Marketplace — the part of Amazon.com that lets consumers purchase goods from third-party merchants (when you use Amazon to buy an out-of-print book from a bookstore across the country, for instance) — already allows shoppers to send payments directly to vendors in the U.S. and Europe, according to the FT. Amazon also offers loans to some of those small businesses; last month, for instance, it said loaned them $3 billion. No wonder Inc. recently warned that Amazon could swallow small business lending “like a python.”

Real Estate Brokers

Sometimes, all it takes is a hint. Earlier this month, in the runup to Amazon’s popular Prime Day sale, some shoppers noticed what appeared to be the beta version of a new “Hire a Realtor” service on Amazon’s home page. Soon screen shots of the page were circulating on trade Web sites, while the stock price of would-be competitor Zillow tumbled 3.5%.
The industry breathed a sigh of relief when the dummy Web page disappeared a day later, as quietly as it had arrived, and the National Association of Realtors reassured members that Amazon does not have permission to use the trademarked word “realtor.” Zillow stock also bounced back.
Yet trade publication The Real Deal predicted that Zillow “may soon meet its match.”

The constants of nature are among the things you just do not want to mess with - Economist

The constants of nature are among the things you just do not want to mess with

IF YOU give a balloon a modest electric charge—by rubbing it on your jumper, say—you can stick it to the ceiling, thereby both delighting small children and revealing a basic truth about the universe: electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitational ones. Despite the fact that there is a whole planet pulling down on that balloon with all the gravity that its six billion trillion tonnes can provide, your party trick is enough to thwart it. This disparity in the forces’ strengths, though, tells you little about why the absolute strengths are what they are. Nor, when it comes down to it, does the hard-won wisdom of the world’s physicists.

The way that the laws of nature, expressed in mathematics, describe the relationships between space, time and matter has a great formal coherence. But some aspects of this systematic and highly successful description stand alone. There are fundamental constants in physics that are apparently arbitrary—numbers that seem to exist entirely in their own right, without reference to the rest of the universe. No obvious reason seems to exist for them to be as they are; they are simply the way the world is.

One of these, called the fine-structure constant, says how strong electromagnetic forces are. Its value is 1/137. If it were larger, balloons would stick more strongly to ceilings. If it were smaller, their weight would more easily pull them down.

Such possibilities might seem to be of no particular importance. It is obvious that the universe would be fundamentally different if either force went away: no electromagnetism, no molecules; no gravity, no planets. That a small change in the strength of either might matter is harder to imagine. But it would.

In the 1950s Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astrophysicist, realised that the abundance of carbon in the universe was a bit of a conundrum. Carbon, like almost all other elements, is made in stars, where fusion creates heavier elements from the nuclei of lighter ones. Nuclei all have positive electric charges, and since like charges repel each other, this means that the nuclear banging together needs to be pretty forceful. If electromagnetism were only a little stronger, then even in the hearts of stars nuclei would not be banged together hard enough to bring forth carbon. That said, if it were just a little weaker, carbon would be simply one step on the way to nuclei that were heavier still, no sooner made than consumed.

• In either case, the result would be a universe radically less amenable to life. The quality and number of the bonds that carbon atoms can form with each other and with atoms of other elements provide a unique versatility when it comes to the creation of large and complex molecules; no other element comes close. Without carbon there would be no polymers with which to make either wool or rubber, no muscles with which to rub the two together, no brains to conceive of doing so—or of explaining what happens afterwards. According to the most recent studies, which take into account far more subtleties than Hoyle knew about in the 1950s, if the fine-structure constant were 4% higher, or 4% smaller, the universe would be essentially rubber-, wool- and carbon-free, and there would be no chemical basis for life.
  This is far from the only example of what is sometimes called “fine tuning” in the physical universe: that is, seemingly arbitrary arrangements which turn out to be necessary for life. The rate at which the universe expands, its ratio of matter to energy and various other apparently arbitrary factors can be seen as showing signs of such fine tuning.
  Some, including some scientists, take this as evidence for the role of an intelligence in the creation of the universe, or the setting of its laws. Hoyle himself had a tendency to such views, though he did not hold them in a way that fitted into any religious tradition. Others see it as a selection effect: of all the universes that there could be, only those in which observers are possible get observed. There should be no surprise to carbon-based life forms in the discovery that their universe is well supplied with carbon; what other sort of universe could they expect?
  This way of thinking has become particularly pertinent as physical theory has opened up the possibility of a “multiverse”—wherein that which is observed, or will ever be observable, from Earth is but the tiniest fraction of all there is, with other universes subject to other rules in an endless panoply beyond. Seen in this light, untuned, un-lived-in universes may not be mere counterfactuals, but real and profuse. Maybe there is something that can be learned by considering them not just as thought experiments, but in the context of the rules that govern what gets created in the whole great ensemble.
  Curiouser and curiouser
  Perhaps the most fruitful way of thinking about fine tuning is to appreciate it as a focus for curiosity. In the 1970s there was talk of fine tuning as an explanation of why, cosmologically speaking, the universe was both smooth and flat (unlike a billiard ball, smooth but not flat, or a shingle beach, flat but not smooth). In the 1980s physicists fascinated by this conundrum came up with a theory that explained both attributes in terms of a single process, known as cosmic inflation, a theoretical path which led, in time, to the interest in multiverses. Perhaps some things which currently appear to be fine-tuned—such as the rate at which the universe’s expansion accelerates—may similarly, with enough hard thought, come to be seen as consequences of a deeper necessity in the laws of nature.
  It is not clear why things which seem fine-tuned should be more likely routes to deeper insights than other aspects of reality. But perhaps they do not need to be. Perhaps a seeming quirk or coincidence that captures the imagination is enough in and of itself to provide the spur to progress. Finding, or appreciating, a way in which the universe appears fine-tuned generates the same sensations as a balloon stuck out-of-reach on the ceiling: delight, curiosity and an exquisite frustration. That is often all the path to understanding needs.
• Economist
  
  
  
  
  

Jared Kushner sealed Manhattan real estate deal with oligarch's firm cited in money-laundering case - Guardian

Jared Kushner sealed Manhattan real estate deal with oligarch's firm cited in money-laundering case

Donald Trump’s son-in-law bought part of old New York Times building from Soviet-born tycoon, Guardian investigation into Russian money in NYC property market finds

Jared Kushner, seen in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in May.

Monday 24 July 2017 16.00 AEST

Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Donald Trump, who acts as his senior White House adviser, secured a multimillion-dollar Manhattan real estate deal with a Soviet-born oligarch whose company was cited in a major New York money laundering case now being probed by members of Congress.

Trump not convinced Russian meddling took place, communications chief says

A Guardian investigation has established a series of overlapping ties and relationships involving alleged Russian money laundering, New York real estate deals and members of Trump’s inner circle. They include a 2015 sale of part of the old New York Times building in Manhattan involving Kushner and a billionaire real estate tycoon and diamond mogul, Lev Leviev.

The ties between Trump family real estate deals and Russian money interests are attracting growing interest from the justice department’s special counsel, Robert Mueller, as he seeks to determine whether the Trump campaign collaborated with Russia to distort the outcome of the 2016 race. Mueller has reportedly expanded his inquiry to look at real estate deals involving the Trump Organization, as well as Kushner’s financing.

Kushner will go before the US Senate intelligence committee on Monday in a closed session of the panel’s inquiry into Russian interference in the election in what could be a pivotal hearing into the affair.

Leviev, a global tycoon known as the “king of diamonds”, was a business partner of the Russian-owned company Prevezon Holdings that was at the center of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit launched in New York. Under the leadership of US attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by Trump in March, prosecutors pursued Prevezon for allegedly attempting to use Manhattan real estate deals to launder money stolen from the Russian treasury.

The scam had been uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky, an accountant who died in 2009 in a Moscow jail in suspicious circumstances. US sanctions against Russia imposed after Magnitsky’s death were a central topic of conversation at the notorious Trump Tower meeting last June between Kushner, Donald Trump Jr, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin.

Donald Jr and Manafort have been called to testify before the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, at which they are certain to face questions about the Trump Tower encounter.

Two days before it was due to open in court in May, the Prevezon case was settled for $6m with no admission of guilt on the part of the defendants. But since details of the Trump Tower meeting emerged, the abrupt settlement of the Prevezon case has come under renewed scrutiny from congressional investigators.

Four Russians attended the meeting, led by Natalia Veselnitskaya, a lawyer with known Kremlin connections who acted as legal counsel for Prevezon in the money laundering case and who called the $6m settlement so slight that “it seemed almost an apology from the government”. Sixteen Democratic members of the House judiciary committee have now written to the justice department in light of the Trump Tower meeting demanding to know whether there was any interference behind the decision to avoid trial.

Constitutional experts are also demanding an official inquiry. “We need a full accounting by Trump’s justice department of the unexplained and frankly outrageous settlement that is likely to be just the tip of a vast financial iceberg,” said Laurence Tribe, Harvard University professor of constitutional law.

Separately, the focus of investigators on Trump family finances stem from the vast flow of Russian wealth that has been poured into New York real estate in recent years. As Donald Trump Jr put it in 2008, referring to the Trump Organization: “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia

Among the overlapping connections is the 2015 deal in which Kushner paid $295m to acquire several floors of the old New York Times building at 43rd street in Manhattan from the US branch of Leviev’s company, Africa Israel Investments (AFI), and its partner Five Mile Capital. The sale has been identified as of possible interest to the Mueller investigation as Kushner later went on to borrow $285m in refinancing from Deutsche Bank, the German financial house that itself has been embroiled in Russian money laundering scandals and whose loans to Trump are coming under intensifying scrutiny.

Court documents and company records show that AFI was cited in the Prevezon case as a business partner of the defendants. In 2008, Prevezon entered a partnership with AFI in which Prevezon bought for €3m, a 30% stake in four AFI subsidiaries in the Netherlands. Five years later, AFI tried to return the money to the Russian-owned company, but it was intercepted and frozen by Dutch authorities at the request of the US government as part of the Prevezon money-laundering probe.

In Manhattan, Leviev’s firm also sold condominiums to Prevezon Holdings from one of its landmark developments at 20 Pine Street, just a few blocks from Wall Street.

Real estate brochures describe the lavish interior decor of the condominiums, replete with bathrooms bedecked in stone and exotic woods, and boasting “the ultimate in pampering; a sybaritic recessed rain shower”. The 20 Pine Street apartments that Leviev sold to Prevezon were later frozen by US prosecutors seeking to block the flow of what they alleged to be money stolen from the Russian treasury and laundered through New York real estate.

Prevezon’s 20 Pine Street apartments and €3m in assets were all released as part of the settlement in May.

The Guardian contacted both Kushner and Leviev for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

The pursuit of Prevezon Holdings for alleged money laundering took on enormous political significance as it unfolded. For the prosecutors, it was a test case over suspicious Russian money flows designed to show the US was serious about going after money launderers. For the Russians, it was an opportunity to push back against stringent US sanctions that had long infuriated the Kremlin.

In court documents, US prosecutors accused Prevezon and its sole shareholder, Denis Katsyv, of participating in the laundering of proceeds of the vast tax fraud that stole $230m from the Russian treasury and moved it out of the country in chunks. Prevezon was alleged to have received some of the fraudulent spoils through a network of shell companies, hiding the money by investing in Manhattan real estate including the Leviev condominiums in 20 Pine Street.

Prevezon and Katsyv have consistently denied any involvement in money laundering and have dismissed the lawsuit as “ill-conceived”. In a statement released at the time of the settlement, they said they had “no involvement in or knowledge of any fraudulent activities”.

Magnitsky discovered the massive tax fraud, said to be one of the largest in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, in 2007. After he blew the whistle on the scam, he was arrested by the same officials whom he had accused of covering up the racket and imprisoned, dying in jail having been denied medical treatment.

Magnitsky’s death led to a political backlash in the US that in turn spawned tough sanctions on Russia, known as the Magnitsky Act. Russian individuals associated with the lawyer’s demise and other human rights abuses were banned entry to the US.

Russian man at Trump Jr meeting had partner with Soviet intelligence ties

Veselnitskaya not only acted as Prevezon’s Russian counsel in the money-laundering case, she also was a leading lobbyist against the Magnitsky sanctions. She raised the subject prominently at the meeting in Trump Tower with Don Jr and Kushner, though according to Veselnitskaya the president’s son-in-law left after 10 minutes.

By the time of the Trump Tower meeting, Veselnitskaya was already personally acquainted with Russia’s powerful prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika, and her lobbying against the Magnitsky sanctions had drawn significant attention in government circles.

“Natalia’s main role was coordinating, including regular coordination with Chaika, whom she knew personally,” said a source acquainted with the Prevezon case.

Veselnitskaya told the Guardian: “My meeting with Trump’s son was a private meeting; nobody in the government had anything to do with it.” She declined to answer a follow-up question about whether and how she knew Chaika.

Jamison Firestone, the founder of the Russian law firm that employed Magnitsky at the time that he exposed the fraud, said that Veselnitskaya clearly intended to use the Trump Tower meeting to lobby against the Magnitsky sanctions. “They really made it a state priority to get rid of these sanctions,” he said.