#anyone know any good policies for WTO??

[aeroingspace]

Late Nights-Dark Lights

time: 0109

date: 04092018

song: O Sole Mio {SF9}

emotion: Detached Stess

mun is killllllllllllllling me

[vsplusonline]

How the Government should leverage the Union Budget to promote MSME Exports

New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/how-the-government-should-leverage-the-union-budget-to-promote-msme-exports/

How the Government should leverage the Union Budget to promote MSME Exports

By Puskhar Mukewar

It’s a good thing Nirmala Sitharaman is going to present the upcoming Union Budget 2020-21 as the Finance Minister. She has seen most of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-20 she presented as the Commerce Minister in the last government disparaged by the World Trade Organization (WTO) because of its incompatibility with its Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement). Thus, Sitharaman now clearly knows what’s allowed and what’s not in terms of policy moves to boost trade. What she might not know, just like anyone else, is what will work and what won’t to get the country out of the current economic and export slump — and therein lies the rub.

So, while she can — and must — be given the benefit of doubt for introducing new supportive measures in the upcoming budget, the Finance Minister can’t be excused if she once again bets on schemes and policies that may not be WTO-compliant.

Walk before running When the government introduced the interest equalization scheme for exporters in 2015 – a scheme that gave exporters of primarily labour-intensive goods a 3% subsidy on the interest they paid for availing export credit – it made several rookie mistakes. First, irrespective of what the scheme is called, it is essentially a subsidy to exporters and hence non-compliant with WTO norms. Second, given the high rates of interest in India, particularly for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), even this subsidy doesn’t give them access to capital at par with their global peers. And third, enterprises need access to cheaper capital for more than just exports. There is vast untapped potential in India’s SME ecosystem for promoting exports, but exporters are constrained by lack of credit for tech upgradation, capability development, value addition, etc. By subsidising only a small export-oriented segment of SMEs, this scheme has potentially missed out on larger development of the ecosystem and failed to help more SMEs grow capabilities that could transform into international trade opportunities.

And that’s probably why export credit in India has fallen off a cliff after an initial surge for about two years following the introduction of the scheme. Even an increase in the subsidy to 5% in November 2018, followed by a 16.4% year-on-year increase to Rs. 2,910 crore in allocation towards the same in Union Budget 2019-20, hardly made any difference.

So, if the government is serious about making cheaper capital available to exporters of labor-intensive goods, mostly in the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) sector, it needs to immediately do away with the limited-in-scope interest equalization scheme. Instead, the need of the hour is to introduce such a policy for all MSMEs – irrespective of them being exporters or not. Not only will this help an MSME produce better and cheaper goods, which will provide a competitive advantage in the export market down the line, but will also not draw the ire of the WTO.

If you think providing such a subsidy to the entire MSME ecosystem is fiscally impossible, then you are wrong. A 3% subsidy on interest to all MSME credit, which, as per the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) latest figures was Rs. 4,65,359 crore, works out to just Rs. 13,960 crore – about a third of the subsidy that was provided under the now almost-defunct Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) in 2018-19.

Stop and reverse The Indian government attempts to boost the country’s exports essentially by two types of schemes – tax neutralization schemes that allow duty-free imports of components or ingredients of export goods; and incentive schemes wherein an exporter is rewarded with a certain percentage of the value of an exported item. While the former is allowed by the WTO and have historically been known to yield good results, the government has, for the last five years, been largely betting on the latter, which are neither WTO-compliant nor seem to be yielding results. The global trade body has now made it amply clear that the Indian government can’t provide subsidies through its incentive schemes any longer. Hence, the first thing Finance Minister Sitharaman should do in the upcoming budget is avoid any allocation towards these schemes. This could be a direct saving of over Rs. 41,000 crore from the last budget.

What the money should be used for instead is betting big on tax neutralization schemes, especially the duty drawback scheme (DBK). Under the DBK, the Indian government reimburses a certain percent of the value of an exported good on the assumption that its production/manufacture would have necessitated the use of certain imported goods for which the government would charged customs duty. Since the imported item is not being consumed domestically and is ultimately being exported away, the reimbursement of the customs duty paid on it is only logical. That’s why the DBK is fully WTO-compliant and has been the go-to scheme for manufacturing powerhouses like South Korea and China.

In India, however, the government has failed to capitalise on it. Firstly, the Standards of Input Output Norms (SION) which govern the DBK are outdated. Under the SION, the government puts out a list of components that it presumes are the only imported ones used in the manufacturing of an export good. It then calculates the customs duty paid on these components and arrives at a DBK rate that is a certain percent of the value of the exported goods. Unfortunately, such a one-size-fits-all logic dissuades manufacturers from importing better/newer components and technologies to manufacture and subsequently export superior goods. To further exacerbate the issue, the government has also placed caps on the maximum DBK that is paid for several exported goods.

For example, the DBK rate on the export of a 1,200-cc car is currently 3% — but with a cap of Rs. 19,485. What this means is that the government is essentially disincentivizing manufacturers from exporting a 1,200-cc car for above Rs. 6,61,500. Meanwhile, even the domestic market has multiple variants of 1,200 cc cars priced at above Rs. 6,61,500. Why would then manufacturers attempt to tap foreign markets and provide the Indian government with precious forex?

To first base With the FTP 2020-25 not too far away, the Union Budget 2020-21 is a great opportunity for the government to set India’s trade agenda in place for the next few years. The government may have appealed against the WTO’s ruling against our export incentive schemes to buy some time, but it would be a mistake to make budgetary allocations of thousands of crores towards them. What the government needs to understand is that, ironically, to boost exports, we need to stop focusing on just exports! If, as an economy, we produce superior goods at competitive prices by having access to the best technology and the cheapest capital, these products are bound to find takers in international markets. Post-export incentives, lower rates of interest for exporters, or even lower corporate taxes like the ones announced in September, are mere stop-gaps. Going by the old proverb of teaching a man to fish for himself — the government, so far, has been merely handing out fish to India’s SMEs when instead, it should help the SMEs learn to fish for themselves. The Union Budget 2020-21 must ensure that the ecosystem receives enough fund allocation to facilitate the same.

( The writer is Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Drip Capita)

if(geolocation && geolocation != 5 && (typeof skip == 'undefined' || typeof skip.fbevents == 'undefined')) !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments); if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '338698809636220'); fbq('track', 'PageView');

Source link

[m7-hacertanrikulu-blog]

What I knew & What is new

I consider myself as a knowledgeable person. I also consider myself as a humble, modest person with a good sense of humor. Being knowledgeable for me means acknowledging that there are no limits to knowledge. My attitude is to improve my aptitude to observe and listen to anyone and to learn from everyone since nobody knows everything but everybody knows something.

I’ll dedicate this entry to share some of the knowledge I’ve gained as an intern at ICDC in the last weeks and hope you keep an open mind to take some of it in. Besides, it is in my deep intention to inform all and inspire some to become active volunteers  to support ICDC’s main mission to protect breastfeeding through monitoring industry’s compliance with the Code. I hope I haven’t lost any readers up to this point.

Code Summary

I would like to give you a short summary of the Code which will give you a good overview of its AIM, SCOPE and CONTENT. This will basically enable you to obtain fundamental monitor skills to report Code violations back to IBFAN-ICDC.

AIM 

The aim of the Code and subsequent resolution is “to contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants and the proper use of breastmilk substitutes, when these are necessary, on the basis of adequate information and through appropriate marketing distribution”.  

I want to stress one important fact right away: The Code does not stop or prevent companies from selling products covered by the s Scope of the Code. The Code only BANS companies to promote these products.

SCOPE and Definitions

The Scope applies to all breastmilk substitutes or any foods being marketed or otherwise represented as a partial or total replacement for breastmilk. It also covers feeding bottles and teats. 

A breastmilk substitute should be understood to include any milks …, in either liquid or powdered form, that are specifically marketed for feeding infants and young children up to the age of 3 years including follow-up formula and growing-up milks.”

Therefore, the Scope includes following products

Infant formula (for infants age 0 - 6 or 12 months)

Follow-up milks* (normally marketed for children 6-12 or 24 months)

Growing-up milks* (normally marketed for babies 12 – 36 months)

Bottle-fed complementary foods*

Foods and beverages such as cereals, jarred foods, juices, infant teas and mineral water that are represented as suitable to be fed to infants less than 6 months old*    

The Code also applies to feeding bottles and teats! 

Remember: World Health Assembly Resolution 54.2. (2001) urges member states “to strengthen activities and develop new approaches to protect, promote and support exclusive breastfeeding for six months as a global public health recommendation …and to provide safe and appropriate complementary foods, with continued breastfeeding for up to two years of age or beyond. 

Complementary food means any food, whether manufactured or locally prepared, suitable as a complement to breastmilk or to infant formula  

A Picture is literally worth a 1000 Words. 

Products within the white field of the curve that are marketed or presented as a partial or total replacement for breastmilk for infants and young children up to 3 years, are considered as a breastmilk substitute and are covered by the Code.

Products within the blue field are  complementary foods, as long as they are NOT promoted for infants below six months. These products are NOT covered by Scope of the Code. 

The Code and the resolutions are intended to be adopted as a minimum requirement. Therefore, IBFAN encourages national governments to enforce laws that go beyond the minimum standard and extend the Scope of the Code.

Points 3 to 10 of the 10-point summary (see attachment below) are essential for you to recognize and define Code violations. In the following brief version of the comprehensive monitoring report Breaking the Rules 2014, you can see many examples of Code violations.

You Wanna Bet? 

I bet the majority has only skimmed everything so far. I DON’T blame you. It’s very technical and not personal at all - if you feel this is boring, just scroll down for nice pictures :) I won’t be offended.

HOWEVER, I would like to challenge some of my peers who are spread all over the world interning in different organisations. I’d like to reach to you, particularly those who live in low and middle-income countries and work in health care facilities. I’m calling on you to be more involved in ICDC’s mission to protect breastfeeding through monitoring industry compliance. It would be incredible to see GNH students contribute actively to ICDC’s success by sending in violations you discover in your surroundings.

 To all of you out there in India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Zambia, Barbados, Chile, Mexico, Thailand and Philippines, LISTEN UP! I’m particularly keen on your involvement- I know that you know who I’m talking about, there’s no need to list names here.  

Violations can be send in a very quick and easy form through this website: https://vnhih.enketo.kobotoolbox.org/webform You only need to fill out a few fields and submit it. Remember to take pictures and upload them. Code violations of interest are “Promotion to mothers and in shops” (BTR, 2014:10), Promotion in healthcare facilities and to healthcare workers (BTR 2014:18) as well as Labels (BTR, 2014:27). Just click the titles and have a look at the examples.Do not hesitate to get in touch with me if you have questions.

Enough technical, I’ll continue with lectures on the Code another time.

Let’s get a bit personal and look at what I have been doing so far?

My main occupation in the office is the next global monitoring report Breaking the Rules, 2017 (BTR). This includes comprehensive research on the biggest manufacturers and distributors of breastmilk substitutes and establishing company profiles and overall marketing trends. Further tasks I’m in charge of, include assessing marketing policies of various companies and demonstrating how they differ from the Code and how companies basically find their way to bypass the Code.

I have also been responsible for specific case reports. This involves analysing violations that have been sent by volunteers and collected throughout the last 3 years, assessing trends and reporting which tools and marketing strategies are commonly used by certain companies in certain countries. Right now, I’m focusing on Russia and Turkey where violations occur often due to weak Code implementation. IBFAN’s monitoring capacity may never match with the variety of reckless strategies that companies use to undermine recommended breastfeeding practices for the sake of profit, but the amount of whistle-blowing resulting from monitoring reminds companies that they are being watched. This pushes them to behave better and by IBFAN’s experience they do!  I really feel useful and highly appreciate being part on holding companies to account and naming and shaming them for their endless and relentless tactics to influence the behavior of vulnerable groups for the sake of money. It of course boils my blood to be exposed to such ignorant, money-oriented and aggressive opponents, however it also raises my passion to find ways to have an impact on improving children’s lives through fair, sound and legitimate regulations and laws.

I’m also allowed  to make use of my expertise as a Public Health Nutrition student to bring a new way to assess marketing strategies of companies. This includes analysing studies used by various companies as a reference for nutritional claims. These are rarely based on sound scientific evidence resulting in biased conclusions and nutritional claims on products. My academic supervisor Aileen Robertson, a Public Health Nutritionist herself and an expert in international research, has been a great help supporting me with her expertise and input. I look forward to yield some results from my ongoing analysis.

Speaking of great supervisors, I would like to mention my supervisor here on the ground: Joo Kean Yeong. She has been impressing me with her dedication and commitment to her work as well as her strong ethical values representing IBFAN-ICDC’s mission.  Joo Kean is the legal advisor of the ICDC and has been allowing me to act both backstage and on stage.

Backstage, I have been allowed to help analyzing and reviewing different draft laws we have received to provide legal and technical advice whether these laws reflect the aims and principles of the Code and subsequent WHA resolutions.  These past weeks, I helped to review two draft laws from Europe: the UK and Romania and it was interesting to see the different processes the initiators of these draft laws have to undergo to give effect to the Code at the national level given the different social and legislative framework the two countries have.

These tasks have been valuable opportunities to understand how laws are initiated and how long it takes until these laws come into effect. Basically, how hard policy is or as Aileen would say, “Guys, it’s tough!”. 

I also get to act on stage, taking some minor supporting roles:  2 weeks ago, I had the chance to accompany Joo Kean to Kuala Lumpur. ICDC was invited as an advisory capacity to participate at an internal meeting at the Department of Nutrition of the Ministry of Health. The meeting was arranged to discuss improved Code implementation and how this could in future intersect with the country’s obligations under WTO.

It was very exciting to sit among government officials who are in charge of policy making. Studying in theory how hard it is to draft and implement policies is one story, experiencing it in real is a whole new chapter. This experience was just confirming the importance of collaboration among all participants. It was also a good example to observe how common it is that even within the same ministry, officials work in their own silos, disconnected from eac other sectors and representing only their own views within their own expertise.

The chairperson was very receptive and supportive of the subject matter. I was also allowed to speak up and share my thoughts and expertise on the impact of marketing on consumption behaviour and could also comment on issues such as the meaning of Codex Alimentarius as a global reference for national food safety and international food trade (Thanks Alexandr Parlesak!) The next meeting has been arranged in one month and the ICDC will continue to support the group with advice and help if needed.

“Knowledge is of no value unless you put it in real practice” (Anton Chekhov)

At the moment, I’m getting ready to hold a training session for a group of health workers (doctors, nurses, midwifes) on the Scope of the Code. This is a great opportunity to share my knowledge with professionals who are important agents to protect breastfeeding from inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children. I’ll tell you how it went next time and call it a day for today.

I hope you have the feeling that you know a bit more than you knew before. I’d be grateful if you shared your knowledge with many more aiming to provide a better present that makes the future worth living.

Getting ready to for an internal meeting at the Ministry of Health in KL

Discovering KL with locals.

Jungle in the middle of the city. 

Penang, the island that has been hosting me for the last weeks. 

[jerome-blog1]

peace & ecommerce, a global system view

China is a likely winner of the information age supply chain through ecommerce

Peace and Ecommerce, A Global Systems View

Attending a required Masters class “Policy, Law, and Ethics in Information Management” it was only ethical to admit that I worked three months drafting and publishing policy documents for Microsoft, which was now our current class assignment, to research Web based privacy policies and other related documents such as terms of use, conditions of use, code of conduct and learn more about them, with a diary of examples in the wild, and related materials.

The educational idea is that we would then be able to contribute meaningfully to creating policy statements and understand their underlying implications to end users and companies. But I had already done this work professionally, so it would be of questionable value for me to do the coursework on the same topic as if I had never done it before.

The instructor of the class, Glenn Von Tersch assigned me to present information on freedom of speech, a topic I fell in love with, and wanted to research more. But for my final research, I needed something else.

One of my favorite things to discuss in job interviews, or with anyone in earshot, is that I believe that the networked spread of ecommerce over the Web, filtering into even the poorest nations will aid in understanding through communication; that ecommerce leads to peace. In effect I believed that ecommerce contributes in a direct way to peace because it provides the fuel to grow and maintain the Internet. Also it seemed obvious that people and countries that are invested in and perform transactions with each other are less likely to go war against their own interests. Von Tersch said, “These topics you are interested in have more research value than freedom of speech, because 1st amendment rights have been heavily legislated, written about, and researched.” He mentioned something called “The McDonald’s Effect”, how having a McDonald’s outlet or franchise appears to contribute to peace between countries. So peace and ecommerce became my topic.

What I did not expect to discover is in human society war is considered the norm and peace the exception. I did not expect to learn about how ugly the 3rd world poverty creating monster of WTO became according to one economist, even though I live in Seattle where the initial protests were. I was surprised to know how Reganomics theory hangs on, like an old B-grade movie on late night TV, because someone somewhere in the supply chain makes money. I did not expect to find that privacy and intellectual rights are so tightly interwoven, or how they relate to conflict, security, potential world dominance and growth.

I had no way to guess that I would enjoy the study of economics – statistical, yes, nicely so, but dull no; as a global topic it is juicy-rotten, full of international spies, botched security, with rogue pirate computer chips, and unintended consequences.

Who can accurately predict how patterns of global economics relate to peace, privacy, property rights, policies and their outcome in the one breath away from today, the next 20-40 years? Who would think that China – the nation, McDonalds – the corporation, and Chicago crack dealers and their foot soldiers share so much in common when you view their information through these fascinating multi-dimensional facets?

One must be educated to search effectively for information. My knowledge about the nature of search is not just intellectual knowledge; this is conditionalized through my own experience of failure to produce relevant search results within massive library databases.

My education began with a simple query on the Web “peace + ecommerce” which returned from Google “Theses on the Balkan War,” by Mike Haynes, from the International Socialism Journal, “Capitalism is inherently a competitively expansionist and therefore conflict-ridden system” , effectively laying the blame for war on the US and Western capitalist nations and on anyone claiming to be fighting a war with good intentions. I read it, thinking I would not see this relate to my project – also surprising very similar material was presented in the global economic books I read later.

As mentioned the pursuit of ‘education justifies anything’, like looking at any results, so I also clicked on an article entitled “Dinosaur Extinction linked to change in Dinosaur Culture” I read it, and it made sense that something like author Daniel Quinn’s theory of “The Law of Limited Competition” is an operant factor in global markets today, with war being genocide, and countries struggling to win economically laying waste to the very place they live. A notable example is Beijing, the air pollution capital of the world struggling to host the Olympic Games this year. I stored that URL for future reference. The theory and the reality imply that in the race to catch up and compete in global economics, the Chinese are killing themselves off before they arrive at their desired goal.

Then I queried in several of the University of Washington interconnected and extensive library databases on the same thing “peace + ecommerce” and found in all of them, zero returns, “0 Results”. My teacher was surprised and advised me to extrapolate and offer conjecture on what was likely, if few sources were available. I notified a friend studying economics who emailed related articles. Very frustrated I tried related queries and turned up articles on the economies of war . How perverse, I thought. I contacted a librarian through the online tool and chatted with her, explaining my quest. She suggested I query on “economics and public policy”. “How is public policy related to peace and ecommerce?” I asked. “Try Conflict Resolution” she replied.

Thus the reason I couldn’t find ‘peace’ is because the term used, in educated facet writers’ metadata which is designed to expose information to search, is ‘conflict resolution’ or ‘conflict prevention’. Oddly the social implication is that war is the norm. Maybe peace doesn’t exist anywhere. A reason I used ‘ecommerce’ instead of ‘global economics’ is due to consulting in that field for technology firms. Searching again returned few meaningful results — the user interface was strange, very slow, and clunky. I longed for Google .

Then I remembered the “McDonald’s Effect” our teacher mentioned, and quickly I located a reference on the Web, but it was deeply nested in a staggering number of oddly worded articles. I stopped without uncovering where the concept originated. The next night I searched again, and found the author Thomas Friedman and his related books. I briefly scanned all the related Wikipedia articles. I realized quickly that to become educated enough on my two topics, I had to some understanding of economics. This is because even to scrape by enough to search among the many interrelated topics one needs to know the central facet. Very esoteric topics require specialized language and deep knowledge of the subject.

More searches turned up substantial evidence that China lags behind other nations in ecommerce.

For years I worked in ecommerce designing interfaces (for Microsoft 2003 and Amazon 2007-2008), and working with supply chain software (as a director of an ecommerce company). But because I didn’t realize that one could understand it better, and that it is not as dull as computer science and its requisite cash register receipts , I never tried.

The "McDonald’s Effect" is named after "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" created by the author Thomas Friedman’s slightly in cheek comments and his book, “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” (the update now titled "The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization").

Those books led me to order Amazon ecommerce overnight book delivery, and I read, ‘The World Is Flat?: A Critical Analysis of New York Times Bestseller by Thomas Friedman’, ‘Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything’ , ‘Making Globalization Work’ which reports that there is hope in the world for peace. The Nobel Prize winning author helps the reader extrapolate based on significant knowledge of statistics and global economic analysis through his personal, professional, and academic connections.

Common Name Academic Name Book Title

McDonalds Effect Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention,

aka democratic peace theory Lexus and the Olive Tree

Dell Theory The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention The World is Flat, A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century

peace conflict prevention

ecommerce global economics

"In his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman proposed The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, observing that no two countries with a McDonald’s franchise had ever gone to war with one another, a version of the democratic peace theory."

"The Dell Theory stipulates: No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain."

———————————————————————

Readings

The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas Friedman

Larry Page, Google Co-Founder quoted by Thomas Friedman, p. 179, entire paragraph. “The more global Google’s user base becomes, the more powerful a flattener it becomes…”

From Friedman’s conversation with Google’s director of operations in China, Kai-Fu Lee, p. 181 entire paragraph ”In time individuals will have the power to find anything in the world at any time on all kinds of devices – and that will be enormously empowering.”

The Quiet Crisis, entire pages 368, 369, chapter on research in China, beating out American innovation in research. “The Chinese government gave Microsoft the right to grant post-docs.” “They work through their holidays because their dream is to get to Microsoft.”

“What are those?” She said the researchers get them from Microsoft every time they invent something that gets patented. How do you say Ferrari in Chinese.”

p. 370 “… whether we are going to implement or China is going to beat us to our own plan.” Council on Creativeness, regarding the Innovate America report, comment to Friedman by Deborah Wince-Smith.

Introduction p. X, Thomas Friedman, “Of course the world is not flat. But it isn’t round anymore either. I have been using the simple notion of flatness to describe how more people can plug, play, compete, connect, and collaborate with more equal power than ever before – which is what is happening in the world. … the essential impact of all the technological changes coming together in the world today. … My use of the word flat doesn’t mean equal (as in ‘equal incomes’) and never did. It means equalizing.”

The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization by Thomas Friedman

Forward to the Anchor Edition, Thomas Friedman, “… my Golden Arches Theory – that no two countries that both have McDonald’s have ever fought a war again each other since they each got their McDonald’s.”

p. 7 “When I say that globalization has replaced the Cold War as the defining international system, what exactly do I mean?”

p. 8 “The cold war system was symbolized by a single word, the wall … “You can’t handle the truth,” Says Nickleson. “Son we live in a world that has walls…”

p. 8 “This Globalization system is also characterized by a single word: the Web. … we have gone from a system built around divisions and walls to a system built around integration and webs.”

p. 19 “What is information arbitrage? Arbitrage is a market terms. Technically speaking, it refers to the simultaneous buying and selling of the same securities, commodities or foreign exchange in different markets to predict from unequal prices and unequal information. The successful arbitrageur is a trader that knows…”

Chapter 3, p. 29. The Lexus and the Olive Tree

Photo: Jerusalem, December 29, 1998: Simon Biton places his cellular phone up to the Western Wall so a relative in France can say a prayer at the holy site. (Photo: Menahem Kahana, Agence France-Presse) [caused my spontaneous tears]

p. 47 “advertising jingle “Let us put a bank in your home” … office … newspaper … bookstore … brokerage firm … factory … investment firm … school in our homes.”

The World Is Flat?: A Critical Analysis of New York Times Bestseller by Thomas Friedman by Ronald Aronica and Mtetwa Ramdoo

Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner

Chapter 5 “Why do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?” p. 89 “So how did the gang work? An awful lot like most American businesses, actually, though perhaps none more so than McDonald’s. In fact, if you were to hold a McDonald’s organizational chart and a Black Disciples org chart side by side, you could hardly tell the difference.”

p. 46 “There is a tale, “The ring of Gygnes,” … could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed?”

p. 58 “Attendance at Klan meetings began to fall … of all the ideas Kennedy thought up to fight bigotry, this campaign was clearly the cleverest. … He turned the Klan’s secrecy against itself by making its private information public: he converted heretofore precious knowledge into ammunition for mockery.”

Making Globalization Work by Joseph E. Stiglitz

My favorite – the entire book was used to write this paper.

Web Resources

Please view attached Appendix www.crito.uci.edu/pubs/20... regarding the reasons one study concludes that hold China back in ecommerce.

[1] Waiting until the time is right, one is good at something, or has collected all the facts, without making any attempts isn’t effective. I had to begin someplace even if it is incomplete so I started with the World Wide Web. “If something is worth doing well, at all, it is also worth doing poorly.” I am not sure where that quote came from but I read it in an article where someone presented their reasoning.

[2] You never know where something will come from in free rights actions or what it will mean later. For example the person at the center of the Alaskan “Bong hits For Jesus” case, Frederick Morse, now teaches English to Chinese students in China. As an adult it appears he has his head on straight in his wish to help others communicate, more so that those he fought in court.

From the CNN news article, published June 26, 2007, “In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "This case began with a silly nonsensical banner, (and) ends with the court inventing out of whole cloth a special First Amendment rule permitting the censorship of any student speech that mentions drugs, so long as someone could perceive that speech to contain a latent pro-drug message." He was backed by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/2... downloaded March 13, 2008

[3] Pentagon attack last June stole an "amazing amount" of data” Joel Hruska Published: March 06, 2008 – 07:13PM CT Pentagon attack last June stole an "amazing amount" of data… from “blueton tips us to a brief story about recent revelations from the Pentagon which indicate that the attack on their computer network in June 2007 was more serious than they originally claimed. A DoD official recently remarked that the hackers were able to obtain an "amazing amount" of data.

We previously discussed rumors that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army was behind the attack. “CNN has an article about Chinese hackers who claim to have successfully stolen information from the Pentagon.” Quoting Ars Technica: "The intrusion was first detected during an IT restructuring that was underway at the time. By the time it was detected, malicious code had been in the system for at least two months, and was propagating via a known Windows exploit. The bug spread itself by e-mailing malicious payloads from one system on the network to another." Via email from Jeremy Hansen on Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters

[4] “Chinese backdoors "hidden in router firmware" Matthew Sparkes, News [Security], Tuesday 4th March 2008 3:17PM, Tuesday 4th March 2008 Chinese backdoors "hidden in router firmware"… The UK’s communication networks could be at risk from Chinese backdoors hidden in firmware, according to a security company.

SecureTest believes spyware could be easily built into Asian-manufactured devices such as switches and routers, providing a simple backdoor for companies or governments in the Far East to listen in on communications.

"Organisations should change their security policies and procedures immediately," says Ken Munro, managing director of SecureTest. "This is a very real loophole that needs closing. The government needs to act fast."

"Would they buy a missile from China, then deploy it untested into a Western missile silo and expect it to function when directed at the Far East? That’s essentially what they’re doing by installing network infrastructure produced in the Far East, such as switches and routers, untested into government and corporate networks."

Late last year MI5 sent a letter to 300 UK companies warning of the threat from Chinese hackers attempting to steal sensitive data. Reports at the time suggested that both Rolls Royce and Royal Dutch Shell had been subjected to "sustained spying assaults".

The issue has been debated by government for some time. In 2001, the then foreign secretary Robin Cook, warned that international computer espionage could pose a bigger threat to the UK than terrorism.

[5] Chip Piracy Might End With Public Key Cryptography. A Web Exclusive from Windows IT Pro Mark Joseph Edwards, Security News, InstantDoc #98491, Windows IT Pro “A group of researchers from two universities have proposed a way to prevent chip piracy. The technique uses public key cryptography to lock down circuitry.

In a whitepaper published this month, Jarrod A. Roy and Igor L. Markov (of the University of Michigan) and Farinaz Koushanfar (of Rice University) outline the problem and details of how their proposed technology will help solve it.

Chip designers sometimes outsource manufacturing and that opens the door to piracy, should someone copy the design plans. The copied plans are then used to created ‘clone’ chips for a wide range of devices, including computers, MP3 players, and more.

"Pirated chips are sometimes being sold for pennies, but they are exactly the same as normal chips," said Igor Markov, associate professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Michigan. "They were designed in the United States and usually manufactured overseas, where intellectual property law is more lax. Someone copies the blueprints or manufactures the chips without authorization."

The groups propose the use of public key cryptography, which would be embedded into circuitry designs. Each chip would produce its own random identification number, which would be generated during an activation phase. Chips would not function until activated, and activation would take place in a manner somewhat similar to that seen with many applications in use today. Via email from Jeremy Hansen.Original source – EPIC: Ending Piracy of Integrated Circuits Jarrod A. Roy, Farinaz Koushanfar‡ and Igor L. Markov, The University of Michigan, Department of EECS, 2260 Hayward Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2121, Rice University, ECE and CS Departments, 6100 South Main, Houston, TX 77005 www.eecs.umich.edu/~imark... March 06, 2008

[6] Chapter 5 “Why do Drug Dealers Still Live with Their Moms?” p. 89 “So how did the gang work? An awful lot like most American businesses, actually, though perhaps none more so than McDonald’s. In fact, if you were to hold a McDonald’s organizational chart and a Black Disciples org chart side by side, you could hardly tell the difference.”

[7] Mike Haynes, Theses on the Balkan War, “Capitalism is inherently a competitively expansionist and therefore conflict ridden system” Issue 83 of INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM JOURNAL Published Summer 1999 Copyright © International Socialism, pubs.socialistreviewindex... accessed March 3, 2008.

[8] Readings p.7 “When I say that globalization has replaced the Cold War as the defining international system, what exactly do I mean?” p. 8 “The cold war system was symbolized by a single word, the wall … “You can’t handle the truth,” Says Nicholson. “Son we live in a world that has walls…”p. 8 “This Globalization system is also characterized by a single word: the Web. … we have gone from a system built around divisions and walls to a system built around integration and webs.”

“What is information arbitrage? Arbitrage is a market term. Technically speaking, it refers to the simultaneous buying and selling of the same securities, commodities or foreign exchange in different markets to predict from unequal prices and unequal information. The successful arbitrageur is a trader that knows…”

[9] Shared by miles on Feb 13, 2006 3:39 pm that I located through a Gmail…

[10] “As it gears up to host the 2008 Olympic Games Beijing has been awarded an unwelcome new accolade: the air pollution capital of the world.Satellite data has revealed that the city is one of the worst environmental victims of China’s spectacular economic growth, which has brought with it air pollution levels that are blamed for more than 400,000 premature deaths a year” Satellite data reveals Beijing as air pollution capital of world

[11] “What we call ‘war’ is not all bad,” according to Virginia Johnson a former governmental planning consultant, who reminded me, “Without conflict there is no life. You don’t want ‘perfect peace’ there is no movement. The human standard is actually what we broadly call ‘war’; because without conflict, change, motion, growth we would learn nothing, we would have nothing, we would be dead.” Personal conversation, March 14, 2008, Seattle, Washington

[12] Readings Larry Page, Google Co-Founder quoted by Thomas Friedman, p. 179, entire paragraph. “The more global Google’s user base becomes, the more powerful a flattener it becomes…”

[13] Ranganathan, faceted classification, Five Laws of Library Science, S. R. Ranganathan – Wikipedia, www.boxesandarrows.com/vi... Personality, Matter, Energy, Space, and Time. (PMEST)

Personality—what the object is primarily “about.” This is considered the “main facet.”

Matter—the material of the object

Energy—the processes or activities that take place in relation to the object

Space—where the object happens or exists

Time—when the object occurs

[14] www.crito.uci.edu/pubs/20...

[15] I learned about supply chain management mainly from the supply chain wizard Marc Lamonica, Regional Chief Financial Officer at Sutter Connect, Sutter Shared Services, and our mutual friend Web entrepreneur and ecommerce product engineer Adam Kalsey, and Sacramento State University teacher Stuart Williams, of Blitzkeigsoftware.net, <a href="https://ift.tt/37GUdHS;" blitzkriegsoftware.net/St...

[16] Introduction to Computer software classes in the 1970s consisted of FORTRAN cash register receipt programming, which is by implication is what ecommerce actually does.

[17] Freakonomics is a must read book of comedy and connections.

[18] Golden Arches, definition on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Golden Arches – Wikipedia, accessed March 13, 2008

[19] Readings “The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century” by Thomas Friedman, p. 421

[20] Readings p. 19 “What is information arbitrage? Arbitrage is a market term. Technically speaking, it refers to the simultaneous buying and selling of the same securities, commodities or foreign exchange in different markets to predict from unequal prices and unequal information. The successful arbitrageur is a trader that knows…”

[21] “Conservation groups say acid rain falls on a third of China’s territory and 70% of rivers and lakes are so full of toxins they can no longer be used for drinking water.” Satellite data reveals Beijing as air pollution capital of world, Jonathan Watts in Beijing The Guardian, Monday October 31 2005, Satellite data reveals Beijing as air pollution capital of world

[22] “…After watching Jobs unveil the iPhone, Alan Kay, a personal computer pioneer who has worked with him, put it this way who has worked with him, put it this way: "Steve understands desire." … Fortune CNN Magazine March 5, 2008, http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/02/……

accessed March 5, 2008

[23] Mac Margolis, “How Brazil Reversed the Curse, Latin America used to suffer the deepest gap between rich and poor. Now it is the only region narrowing the divide. Upwardly Mobile: Middle-class Brazilians” How Brazil Reversed the Curse NEWSWEEK Nov 12, 2007 Issue

[24] Mike Haynes, Theses on the Balkan War, “Capitalism is inherently a competitively expansionist and therefore conflict ridden system” Issue 83 of INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM JOURNAL Published Summer 1999 Copyright © International Socialism, pubs.socialistreviewindex... accessed March 3, 2008. “The optimism that the end of the Cold War might lead to a new world order has been shown to be false. The hope that it would release a peace dividend that would enable a new generosity in international relations has been belied by experience, as some of us sadly predicted it would.3 Though the arms burden has declined, there has been no outpouring of aid to Eastern Europe, no new ‘Marshall Plan’. The result has been that the burden of change has fallen on the broad masses of the population, wrecking lives across the old Soviet bloc in general and in one of its poorest components in south eastern Europe in particular. According to the World Bank, the number of people living in poverty (defined as having less than $4 a day) in the former Soviet bloc has risen from 14 million in 1990 to 147 million in 1998.4 Worse still, the advanced countries have continued to reduce further the miserly sums they devote to aid to the even poorer areas of the world. The OECD countries are rhetorically committed to an aid target of 0.7 percent of their output. In 1990 they gave 0.35 percent, and by 1997 the figure had fallen to 0.22 percent, with the United States under this heading giving 0.09 percent of its output, a figure in startling contrast to the expenditure devoted to destruction.”5

[25] Readings p. 46 “There is a tale, “The ring of Gygnes,” … could any man resist the temptation of evil if he knew his acts could not be witnessed?”

[26] Readings p. 58 “Attendance at Klan meetings began to fall … of all the ideas Kennedy thought up to fight bigotry, this campaign was clearly the cleverest. … He turned the Klan’s secrecy against itself by making its private information public: he converted heretofore precious knowledge into ammunition for mockery.”

Some of the research in this paper on piracy was provided by Jeremy Hansen of Seattle, Washington, USA. Mr. Hansen’s email regarding economics served to inform me on this topic. Teacher: Glenn Von Tersch.

Posted by Wonderlane on 2008-03-02 23:09:26

Tagged: , city , Seattle , towers , blue , buildings , nessled , in-between , bardo , 1804 , peace , ecommerce , global , system , view , peace & ecommerce , ecom , systems , Education justifies everything. , Research Diary , conflict , prevention , economics , “The McDonald’s Effect” , a global system view

The post peace & ecommerce, a global system view appeared first on Good Info.

[mikemortgage]

Tethering Canada, containing China: Will USMCA boost Trump’s efforts to isolate Beijing?

Hardly a day had passed after the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement was announced when jarringly different views of it began to emerge from officials on either side of the border.

“I think the continent as a whole now stands united against what I’m going to call unfair trading practices by you know who,” White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday. The USMCA “sends a signal to China that we are acting as one and I think that’s very good,” he added.

Canadians relieved trade deal is done, but they won't forget Trump's 'disgraceful' attacks

U.S. not invited to Canada's save-the-WTO summit of 13 'like-minded' countries

Speaking to reporters in Vancouver that same day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau struck a very different note on relations with the Asian superpower. China is “a significant, growing player on global trade, and as always, we’ll look for ways to engage, deepen and improve our trading relationship with them,” he said.

Trudeau was responding to growing concerns about Article 32.10, a surprise provision in the USMCA that would give any party the option to exit the pact with six months notice if another enters a free trade agreement with a “non-market economy.”

Though no specific country is named, analysts agree that the obvious target is China.

There is a diverse range of views on what the provision might mean for Canada’s sovereignty and for its efforts to diversify its trade relationships away from the United States.

“I think it is more rhetoric than substance, I don’t know for sure,” Derek Burney, senior strategic advisor at the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and the former ambassador to the United States, said in a webcast with clients Thursday. “I would hope our government would do everything possible to show that this has no binding effect on Canada. This would be extraterritoriality gone nuts as far as I’m concerned.”

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with U.S. President Donald Trump at the G7 leaders summit in La Malbaie, Que.

“We have misfired in our approach to China so far,” he added. “I think we need to redouble those efforts and get more serious.”

Previous trade talks with China went off the rails when Beijing resisted Canadian efforts to add provisions on the environment, human rights, labour and gender issues. Those differences haven’t gone away, suggesting a full-scale free trade agreement wasn’t coming soon, argues Robert Wolfe, professor emeritus at Kingston-based Queen’s University who has studied Canada’s international trade policy for several decades.

Under the terms of both the original NAFTA and the new deal, a party can already exit with six months notice, he said. And Canada can still pursue smaller-scale talks with China that advance trade relations.

“It would be better not to include something like Article 32.10 but it’s unlikely to have much impact on what we actually do,” Wolfe said. “The provision is mostly symbolic, given the broad U.S.-China standoff and it changes very little. It’s basically a transparency requirement.”

The clause has nevertheless fuelled worries that Washington will exercise outsized power in Ottawa’s trade relationships, and is using the USMCA to entangle Canada and Mexico in its trade war with Beijing.

“America is trying to bring all its allies onside in this trade war,” said Gregory Chin, a professor of political economy at York University and a former Canadian diplomat in Beijing. “There has been a toughening on China across the board in the United States and the question for Canada is are we going to be swept along by that?”

At the very least, the clause and the U.S. messaging surrounding it should prompt Canada to clearly state where it stands on China and what sort of investments and trade relationship it wants from the Asian superpower, Chin added.

“I do think now would be the time to set out in very clear terms how we view China strategically.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed US$250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods so far and is threatening more levies if Beijing doesn’t change what the U.S. views as unfair trading practices. China has been accused of dumping subsidized goods into other markets and forcing companies to transfer their technologies to state owned firms in exchange for access to the Chinese market.

Indeed, the clause in the USMCA is at least partly intended to address American fears that Beijing will attempt to evade American tariffs and trade rules by forging individual free trade pacts with Canada and Mexico, analysts say.

Foreign Canadian Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, center, talks with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, right, and Mexico’s Secretary of Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal a in January.

The U.S. concern is that those deals will enable the practice of “illegal transshipping,” in which subsidized goods would be moved into Canadian and Mexican markets free of tariffs, and then into the U.S.

“I think that is mostly what this is about, preventing a flow of Chinese goods from entering the U.S. under the cover of USMCA,” said Gordon Houlden, director of the China Institute at the University of Alberta, adding that the clause nevertheless could have a “chilling effect” on Chinese investment and trade talks with Beijing.

“We still have the sovereign right to conclude an agreement I think, but anyone in Canada at a senior level will look at that clause and think is this worth a fight with the United States? So this just hangs there.”

There are other concerns. Under the terms of the clause, the countries alone determine what qualifies as a “non-market economy,” rather than relying on a common definition, such as the one used by the World Trade Organization.

That looseness in terms “opens up a lot of leeway for interpretation and manipulation,” said Chin. “There are a lot of Asian nations they could argue that against.”

Others suggest the U.S.’s blunt approach to pulling trade partners into its trade dispute with China could ultimately benefit Canada. While the clause opens up “some real concerns about sovereignty”, it also addresses a central worry about Chinese trade practices that is shared by many countries, said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

“There’s different ways to see this,” Bown said. “Clearly the Trump administration has taken a very provocative approach to China, but I also think China’s practices are among the biggest challenges facing market-oriented economies. So the question is how do you get a coalition of countries to take on the task of changing that? I’m not a fan of the stick over carrot approach but what the U.S. is doing is getting at this issue.”

The U.S. likely placed the clause into the USMCA so that it can then have a template to work with in the raft of other trade deals it intends to negotiate while simultaneously taking on Beijing, analysts say.

That ongoing effort to reform Chinese trade “doesn’t need to happen under U.S. leadership,” said Sherman Robinson, non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “That should be an international effort, under the WTO, not a U.S. project.”

• Email: npowell@nationalpost.com | Twitter: Naomi_Powell

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2DXZEar via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

[fightingforfreedomblr]

“America first?” or “Donald Trump first?” (2-2)

6/5/18 is my 5 years ordeals in America. I thought that Donald Trump maybe different from OBAMA because he can “make America great again!”  But actually has he “made America great again?” or “made America worse?”

-Word-of-God:

It seems pretty noble that Donald Trump has a Bible study group in White House. Does he really follow the Word-of-God to lead the nation or just for the show to fool people? Well, I just list two facts here. Bible asks any nation to love strangers. But his administration brutally separate Parent-and-Children recently. That’s absolutely un-American! That’s why protesters across the U.S. decry policy of separating immigrant families at the southern border. Moreover, UN demands Trump administration to stop that. But he just ignores UN. Now I talk about myself. He absolutely knows that I have been treated very unfairly by America governments (U.S government, California State and City of Sacramento). But he pretends nothing happen. Moreover, he can find excuse that California State and City of Sacramento are beyond his reach. Really? California State and City of Sacramento are still under the union of the U.S. In addition, based on Luke: 17:3: Take heed to yourself. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. See, Jesus said clearly that “If any sinner repents, then we can forgive him.” Moreover, Based on Matthew 18:22, Jesus said: Forgive 70x7=490 times. I have forgiven sinners hired by Donald Trump, Jerry Brown, Darrell Steinberg and their evil allies Lee Hsien Loong and more for more than 1,825 times (This number based on one time sin every day. But every day I have faced different sins, such as either food poison, harassment or annoyance and more). Still not enough?

-Diplomacy:

Everyone knows that diplomacy is very important because now it is in cold war era. But he thinks in different ways. That’s see what he said when Russia expel many U.S diplomats “Thanks Putin, he saves my White house salary.” Now I list some facts:

a. Inappropriate remarks: He is a president of the U.S. His every word and deed are under international scrutiny due to convenient spy anytime and anywhere. However, he vented about immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti and Africa coming to the United States as *hithole countries. Then he denied it and his ally Georgia Senator David Perdue (on the scene) defended for him. But another honest ally Lindsey Graham allegedly confirmed reports of Trump's immigration comment on Jan/12/2018. Well, he is a human and imperfect. He can explain that he said that due to high pressure or other reasons. So, do Donald Trump and David Perdue have credibility? Then on May/16/2018, he blasted some deported immigrants: “These aren't people. These are animals. “And then he denied it again and defended that “he refers to MS-13 gang.” But the fact is he said it in California sanctuary city. So, does he have credibility? Because his “good examples”, then his Chief staff named John Kelly called him “idiot” first but after that planned to deny it; moreover, his Press aide named Kelly Sadler said “John McCain is dying anyway…” when John McCain opposed his nomination of CIA Chief Gina Haspel because John McCain questioned Gina Haspel’s involvement of torture. Gina Haspel did not answer that but passed the hearing. Wow, that’s America democracy.

b. Iran Deal: This deal was made by 7 parties (U.S, U.K, France, German, Russia, China and Iran) in year 2015. He just overturned it recently unilaterally. Does he respect other countries? If he thinks the deal is the worst deal. He can initiate negotiations among 7 parties to make it better. If he can’t get what he wants, at least he can ask 7 parties to vote. If vote 4:3, that’s call fair. But he just ignores other 6 parties and sanctions unilaterally. The ridiculous is: He forces other 5 parties to sanction Iran too otherwise U.S will sanction them. So, now, U.S government has worked as “World Financial Police”. Wow!

c. North Korea Deal: Again, he did not use diplomatic approach to negotiate the deal but added fuel to the deal. Just ask one simple question: If South Korea President did not ask him to postpone military drill after Winter Olympic of 2018, is there any talk on Jun/12/2018? Absolutely no! It is Moon Jae-in’s good diplomatic skill to use Winter Olympic of 2018 opportunity to make that happen. Moreover, if China opposes behind, there is not any talk on Jun/12/2018. See, since Trump-Kim agreed to talk on Jun/12/2018 but he abrupt cancelled meeting on May/24/2018 after North Korea demolished its nuclear test sites just one hour later. Why? Because North Korea released 3 Americans and demolished its nuclear test sites already. So, Trump thought he got what he wants and needed not to talk anymore. Is it not concrete proof of Ponzi Scheme? Then on Jun/01/2018, he revived summit with N. Korean leader in complete reversal. Can Trump-Kim reach the deal on Jun/12/2018 and what’s the matter? Even they reach the deal, the next president may repeal that deal again. So, people can ask one simple but burning question: Can U.S government be trusted?

d. Jerusalem: That’s another example that he defies U.N and considers Jerusalem as the capital of Israel unilaterally. Well, the remaining 14 council members voted in favor of the Egyptian-drafted resolution on Dec/18/2018. The U.N. draft resolution affirmed "that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council."

e. On Jun/01/2018, U.S. vetoed U.N. resolution denouncing violence against Palestinians. But France, Russia, China, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Bolivia, Peru, Sweden, and Equatorial Guinea joined Kuwait in voting in favor, while only the United States voted against. Britain, the Netherlands, Poland and Ethiopia abstained.

-Trade wars:

Every country wants free-trade otherwise man-made quotas and tariffs create unnecessary barriers and costs. If he initiates trade wars against adversaries, that’s reasonable but against allies, such as, Europe, Mexico and Canada, Japan and South Korea. See, Europe is the biggest trading partner with U.S and shares the same values with U.S. If he really thinks those trades are unfair. He can file complaint to WTO first; if WTO dismisses his complaint, then it is not too late to initiate such wars. But he ignores WTO. Moreover, his trade negotiation team almost won such war with China but he suddenly stopped. Why? Because China government sweetened his daughter named Ivanka Trump by approving eight trademarks (other 5 trademarks are still pending). So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Peace:

Now I talk about FDR’s “Freedom from Fear” again which translated into international terms means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor. Well, every nation and everyone want peace. How he gets peace? Strength! And how he gets strength? Military! See, The White House is calling for Iran and North Korea to reduce their nuclear capabilities. But the U.S. is moving in a different direction, with plans to spend billions of dollars building the factories needed to rejuvenate and expand America’s nuclear capacity.

Not ridiculous? As U.S. Demands Nuclear Disarmament, It Moves to Expand Its Own Arsenal.

-Climate change:

A healthy planet concerns to everyone and no one country can do it alone. Again, there are countless examples of men-made global disastrous. That’s why 144 countries, even Syria have rectified of 197 parties to the convention of “Paris Climate Agreement” in year 2016 to protect our environment. But he pull out that agreement even America is the 2nd polluter.

-Nepotism:

Last time I talked about he did not choose the most competent candidates for his cabinet but chose his inner circles as his cabinet instead, and then caused him White House chaos. This time I talk about his Son-in-Law Jared Kushner. If he was sharp enough, he should not choose Jared Kushner to work for him. But he has chosen Jared Kushner without any political and diplomatic experience as his senior advisor. Why? Because Donald Trump does not trust anyone except his family members or relatives or inner circles. Even he can do whatever he wants but from common sense, Jared Kushner must get security clearance prior to employment. But Jared Kushner did not until May/23/2018. Next why? Because Jared Kushner has business in Middle East. So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Free press:

Again, The Framers of the Constitution believed that liberty could not be maintained without a free press. A free press must serve as the public’s “watchdog” of the government. For example, CNN is more liberal and FOX is more conservative, nothing wrong with that. But he has attacked free-press as “vicious”, “mean” and “fake” if he dislikes not only domestically but in World-Economic-Forum of 2018. Supposed America has many voices but now he wants only one voice from him (He has turned America into Singapore-only one voice from Lee’s regime). So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Judgment:

Everyone knows how important of judgment is, especially as a president of the U.S. Does he have a good judgment? See, how many his chief staffs either have been forced to resign by him or have resigned as a way of protest to his dictatorship during his presidency? Ironically, those staffs are chosen by himself not others.

Can America afford to his White House chaos for how long?

-Tax cut:

His only accomplishment is Tax Cut at the expense of huge deficit. How to get that? Bypassing the Democratic and sweetening his allies for DACA Compromise. After it was passed, the DACA is dead. Is it America way of democracy or his way of democracy? Does it really “Enhance competiveness, boost economy, create job and benefit middle-classes Americans?” Moreover, this idea is not his idea but Ronald Reagan’s idea. From economic point of view, the demand/supply, inflation and interest rate in Reagan’s era are much difference from now. In addition, the government debt to GDP ratio was at healthy level (42.875%) in Reagan’s era but now government debt to GDP ratio is more than 106% to dangerous level. Finally, now economy in America and global is pretty robust. Does his radical Tax Cut (from 35% to 21%) really “Enhance competiveness, boost economy, create job and benefit middle-classes Americans?” I doubt it. For issue of boosting economy, it depends not only America but also dynamic global economy and Geopolitical which are beyond control of U.S government. I would say this radical Tax Cut benefits rich people only (about 1%-his regime and his inner circles). So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Retaliation:

Federal law forbids retaliation or reprisal by any Federal employee against a person who makes a complaint or discloses information to CRCL. As a president of the U.S, he should act as a role model to follow the “Rule of Law”, but he has retaliated his dissents. Here I list some facts:

1) He chose Steve Bannon as his “Chief Strategist” because Steve Bannon contributed a lot to his presidency. However, he fired Steve Bannon without sound reason. Then Steve Bannon slammed him that “A meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a group of Russians was ‘treasonous’" after being fired and worked as a CEO of Breitbart. As a result of his criticism, Steve Bannon was fired as a CEO again due to Trump’s networks.

2) On Jan/13/2018: his supporters tried to arrest London mayor over criticism of Trump.

3) If he is a good president, he should welcome any comments, questions, especially criticism. However, he has chosen retaliation as a way of his strength. See, he can tweet to public but public can’t feedback. That’s why Federal judge Naomi Reice says Trump violates First Amendment by blocking critics on Twitter on May/23/2018.

4) John McCain’s case. See, “Inappropriate Remarks” of Diplomacy.

5) Now I talk about me. If I record down something news linking to him on my journal, the computer hackers delete it from my journal. Are computer hackers nothing to do with him? Or If I criticize him on my journal, I get “mysterious medical problems” from charities. Co-incidents again? Only idiots believe.

For “mysterious medical problems” from charities, not only he, but also Jerry Brown, Darrell Steinberg and their evil allies Lee Hsien Loong and more because I have experienced  countless times of such problems.

I anticipate that “he will retaliate me after I post this article online.” “Just do it,” Donald Trump. Not new.

-Hypocrisy:  

Donald Trump thinks only he has head and all others do not.  See, how he has covered up actually bungling cover-up.

.Human Rights: He wants America to be a shining example in the world. But my case is the worst human rights abuse in America history.

.Next is racism. Countless people label him as racism and it is a matter of fact. How has he covered up? He pardoned a Black because “he was treated by our government very unfairly.”

3rd is homophobia. After “Orlando massing killings” he promises that “He is friendlier than Hillary Clinton.” But see, his 21 members of cabinet, such as, Mike Pence, Jeff Session, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, James Mattis, Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos, Elaine Chao and more are homophobia. How to cover up. He chose his first gay named Richard Grenell as an ambassador to Berlin.

-Robert Muller’s Probe:

From surface, he seems “democratic” to cooperate Robert Muller’s Probe. But actually he has limited Robert Muller’s Probe even investigated Robert Muller in dark. Why? Fear.

Well, he can use his final weapon: Pardon himself. If that is the case, he will open a floodgate to other presidents because they can do whatever they want and then pardon themselves.

 Well, ha has another accomplishment-forcing me to die. This one he needs full cooperation from Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg to cover up their bloody wrongs. Of course Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg are happy to cooperate with him because I have more than 4 years ordeals in California State and City of Sacramento.

My hope is in Jesus Christ. But Donald Trump, Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg’s hope is my death. That’s why the pastors named Linda and Matthew from “The Table UMC” had a serious sermons “Hope in dying” to threaten me hidden. “I am dying anyway…” Donald Trump, Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg: They can work together to pray to God. Will God grant their wish?  

Donald Trump has created White House chaos, the whole nation chaos and international chaos. Then he can use those chaos to get what he wants. He defies not only God but also U.N and WTO. Why? Because he perceives himself as Jesus Christ-King of Kings in the world but he is a president of the U.S not a King of the U.S.  

So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?” Let people (responsible Americans and global citizens) make up their own minds.

 Note: 1) I speak out for the Holy Spirit.

2) 6/14/18 is Donald Trump’s 72 years birthday. My life has been destroyed by Donald Trump, Jerry Brown, Darrell Steinberg and their evil allies Lee Hsien Loong and more. I have nothing except “free speech.” “Happy birthday, Donald Trump!”

3) This article is about Donald Trump, why I add Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg because I have more than 4 years ordeals in California and City of Sacramento? That’s why I call them “Work in Concerted.”

[billehrman]

Only In The Sixth Inning

There is no one better to ask than Warren Buffett about investing. The same can be said for asking Jamie Dimon for his perspective on the global economy, the financial markets and politics.

We have known and worked with Jamie for nearly 35 years, since his early days as second in command and protégé of Sandy Weill, a hugely successful dealmaker and manager of some of the largest financial services companies in the world. Jamie is Chairman of JP Morgan Chase and is easily considered the best and most respected banker in the world. He probably has more information at his fingertips about the global economy, business/consumer sentiment and spending plans than anyone, including heads of state. He sees it all, has all the data, speaks to everyone, and knows how to synthesize all of it such that his bank is number one in the world.  So when he says something, listen, as it means something. You can take it to the proverbial bank. Chase has long been one of our core holdings.

Last week Jamie spoke at a Bernstein conference. His key points were:

·     The economy was only in the sixth inning of growth;

·     Capital spending is entering a super cycle;

·     Banks are entering a golden age as they are over capitalized with reduced regulations with great opportunities ahead;

·     Chinese banks are becoming increasingly aggressive and competitive.

·     World leaders need to work together on trade policies as the consequences of trade wars are negative for growth and business sentiment

We concur with his comments as you can glean from our past blogs. Our portfolios continue to emphasize companies that will benefit from Trump’s pro-growth, pro-business, America First policies. We strongly believed that the financial market’s counter trend rally two weeks ago was off-base; that the pundits were wrong, once again, looking through their rear view mirror. We used the market correction to add to your core holding. And kept shorting bonds!

Let’s briefly update our comments from last week on the issues in the forefront concerning investors and the pundits:

1.    Russia and Saudi Arabia are under pressure from other OPEC members notto increase production such that oil falls beneath $75/barrel.

2.    Global economic growth has not materially slowed despite weakness in the Eurozone and Japan. Economic performance in the U.S (#1 economy by size), China (#2), United Kingdom (#5) and India (#6) are all above expectations. Our employment numbers reported last week were sensational!

3.    The United States and North Korea have set June 12thto meet in Singapore. Don’t expect a deal to conclude anytime soon but consider this meeting is a positive move.

4.    Trade talks continue with China but don’t be surprised to see some skirmishes along the way before a real deal is reached. We continue to believe that one will ensue down the road.

5.    We remain concerned about trade negotiations with Europe and Japan. It is very hard for them to give up on the trade benefits given after WW2.  Also, the WTO is outmoded, outdated and ineffective. It was wrong that German and Japanese auto companies built plants in Mexico to benefit from NAFTA after Trump was elected as it was a slap in his face. There is nothing wrong with fair and  reciprocal tariffs.

6.    We remain hopeful that a trade deal can be worked out with Canada and Mexico, as the mutual benefits are clear-cut for both sides. It may turn into bilateral deals in the end.

7.    Fed policy is held captive right now by what is happening overseas. Economic weakness in Europe and Japan combined with political issues in Italy have tied the hands of the BOJ an ECB. On the other hand, the Fed cannot raise rates much despite a strengthening economy for fear of a further significant move up in the dollar, which would only exacerbate our trade deficit and put downward pressure on inflation. Foreigners keep buying our debt with both hands suppressing the longer end of our yield curve. A flattening yield curve does not mean that the Fed is overly restrictive.

8.    We remain convinced that Italy will not exit the Eurozone nor default on any of its debt. However, our banks are benefitting significantly from perceived financial weakness in the European banks. Score one for Jamie and the other U.S multinational banks.

A number of cross-currents occurring at the same time are certainly challenging the financial markets. Opportunities come when views are disparate such that pricing is inefficient. Now is the time to play the long ball as new investable trends are obvious and will be very rewarding for the patient investor.

We have argued for months to emphasize those companies that will benefit most from Trump’s policies and to sell/short the losers. Same goes for the new policies in China.  The most obvious investable trend here is that we have entered a multi-year surge in domestic capital spending. Whether you were a domestic or foreign producer that sold in the U.S either from domestic plants or imported from abroad, where would you choose to build that next plant? Here, of course. It does not hurt that our new tax and trade policies along with reduced regulations help make the U.S destination of choice. Clear-cut winners include industrials, capital good, technology and low cost, well-financed industrial commodity companies including domestic steel and aluminum. All of these companies should be re-rated over the next few years as growth and returns easily exceed historical levels.  We want to avoid the historic stable growers that can be hurt by disruptors as their volumes and margins will remain under pressure for years to come.

A second area that we continue to emphasize is the U.S large multinational financials. The banks have entered a golden area as they have had huge increases in their capital ratios and liquidity; benefit tremendously by a surge in capital spending; are gaining market share at the expense of its weakened foreign competition; have much more opportunities to profit due to decreased regulations and are benefiting from widening spreads although not as much as earlier anticipated. It does not hurt that most of the strongest banks have huge stock buybacks going along with dividend hikes. We expect financials to be re-rated higher in the years ahead.

Finally our portfolio is full of special situations where managements are making huge internal changes that will lead to higher valuations over time. M & A is extremely high too as the sum of the parts in many of our investments exceeds the whole. Patience is needed here too.

It really is very easy to create a profitable that will outperform over time by identifying new investable trends.  Broadly speaking we want to emphasize companies in the U.S that will benefit from the capital spending surge and higher domestic production while emphasizing companies in China that will benefit from growth in consumption and technology. Patience is a necessity as none of this occurs over night. But the rewards will be huge for the investor.

Remember that we are only in the sixth inning with much more to come.

Review all the facts; pause, reflect and consider mindset shifts; always look at your asset allocation and risk controls; do independent research and …

Invest Accordingly!

Bill Ehrman

Paix et Prospérité LLC

[melbynews-blog]

Tariffs Defeat Globalists and Return Prosperity   

Neuer Beitrag veröffentlicht bei https://melby.de/tariffs-defeat-globalists-and-return-prosperity/

Tariffs Defeat Globalists and Return Prosperity   

  The corporate media lapdogs are economic illiterates. Their continuous preaching on imaginary virtues of ‘FREE TRADE’, which is a non sequitur used to rationalize corporatist globalism, has destroyed America’s indigenous prosperity. These fraudulent pundits or fake news presenters are presstitutes for the transnational cartels that relish the de-industrialization of domestic enterprises. Collecting a pay check does not qualify as coherent analysis, much less achieving the real world experience of actually owning and running a business. Academics who compile graphs and statistics would find making a payroll for any venture where their own money is at stake, is lacking compared to a lowly business owner who pays themselves last. The correct history of tariffs are ignored and distorted to keep people economically dumb.

Lou Dobbs is consistently the voice of reason when he makes the case that Trump is the first president to fight back against unfair trade. “Just listen to all the usual swamp creatures. The business establishment, K Street and Business Roundtable, is howling and snarling about President Trump’s insistence that U.S. trading partners no longer exploit our markets, but rather engage in fair, reciprocal, balanced trade.”

Note that all these Internationalists refuse to deal with Rational Tariffs Lower Irrational Trade Deficits. All they do is to ignore that the United States has been running a trade deficit since 1975 and never admits that our de-industrialization has been an intentional objective of the monopolists.

“As historical memory diminishes and the lessons of past centuries are forgotten, the practice of systematically destroying economic independence grows. Forget about real prosperity, the concept of interdependence, coined in popular parlances by the Trilateral Commission, has made the United States economy a post industrial dependency and a bankrupt debtor. The global corporatists despise protective tariffs because these excise taxes must be paid by foreign manufacturing enterprises. Since the rush to escape American shores, the transnational ventures seek not just cheap labor, but scheme to evade any effective regulations for the paradise of third world exploitation.

America’s economy was built under the shield of tariffs. The nation became the greatest industrial engine and traded profitably with the rest of the world, when reasonable excise and duties were charged on products entering this country. Just remember, the budgets of government were paid without an income tax under this system of tariffs. Who can logically argue that the deception of Free Trade benefits our population, when the current record of trade deficits continues unabated?”

The case that Tariffs Can Restore America’s Greatness cites that the results from GATT and the WTO did not level the playing field, but allowed “so called” trading partners to dump their good into the U.S. with little push back. Also, the proper introduction of “Flexible Tariffs, when tempered with reforms in our own tax codes that require supra nationals and multinationals to enter a truly Free Enterprise environment, would greatly improve the likelihood of real competition. Consumers have been sold out with the promise of cheap foreign goods. Any short term discount has the high cost of permanent loss in American employment. When one is destitute and out of work, lower prices at Walmart won’t fill the cart.”

This approach defines Global Fair Trade. Contrast this solution with the detrimental practice of Free Trade that our country has been under post WWII.

“Free Trade policies destroy the incentive to produce in America. Living wages paid from equitable profits is sound economics. You know this to be true. So do the globalist! Their objective is to diminish the autonomy of the United States and force the merging of the remaining operations into select conglomerates, under the control of an international cabal of billionaires. Central planners will scheme to replace national sovereign and self-sustaining economies, with approved suppliers operating under the Chinese paradigm of slave labor.”

The Chinese model of exploration is the Globalist method of stripping prosperity from our own economy. The complicity of careerist politicians in this scheme of turning the U.S. into a third world sweat shop is obvious to anyone who has the courage to stare down the sycophants of their intercontinental masters. Pat Buchanan is one such person who has lead the fight against the systematic betrayal of our nation.

Mr. Buchanan has full knowledge and a command of our history that is severely lacking in the establishment political class, who are under obligation to their corporatist donors. Put yourself in the firing line and answer Why Is the GOP Terrified of Tariffs?

“Does Senator Flake think Japan rose to post-war preeminence through free trade, as Tokyo kept U.S. products out, while dumping cars, radios, TVs and motorcycles here to kill the industries of the nation that was defending them. Both Nixon and Reagan had to devalue the dollar to counter the predatory trade policies of Japan.

Since Bush I, we have run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and, in the first decade in this century, we lost 55,000 factories and 6,000,000 manufacturing jobs.

Does Flake see no correlation between America’s decline, China’s rise, and the $4 trillion in trade surpluses Beijing has run up at the expense of his own country?

In 2017, the U.S. ran a trade deficit in goods of almost $800 billion, $375 billion of that with China, a trade surplus that easily covered Xi Jinping’s entire defense budget.

How have EU nations run up endless trade surpluses with America? By imposing a value-added tax, or VAT, on imports from the U.S., while rebating the VAT on exports to the USA. Works just like a tariff.”

Folks, America’s trade surrender are a root cause of the demise of our domestic economy. The DC swamp, the MSM propagandists and Transnational Davos crowd all want to see President Trump fail. They especially want to prevent a resurgence of a robust and flourishing domestic work force. The very notion of revitalizing an independent and domestic produced economy threatens the tyrannical dominance of mega elites.

How ludicrous the reporting on Fox Business News has become with their shift into a globalist backer. 11 nations sign Pacific trade pact as Trump plans US tariffs would have you believe that Trump is a renegade for opposing the Globalists. Well, his dumping of Gary Cohn is a good indication that America First economic policies are on the way back.

“It leaves the U.S. at a disadvantage from both a trade and a broader strategic perspective,” said Joshua Meltzer, senior fellow in the global economy and development program at the Brookings Institution. “It is now a trade bloc that discriminates against the U.S.”

The U.S., originally the biggest TPP economy, was one of the trade deal’s strongest supporters before Trump took office. Trump has said he prefers country-to-country deals and is seeking to renegotiate several major trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement that includes the U.S., Mexico and Canada.”

Who in their right mind would believe anything that comes out of the Brookings Institute? Actually, President Trump has fulfilled his most basic promise to sink the most egregious and detrimental multilateral central planning accords. Trump’s approach to use hard bargaining practices in bi-lateral trade negotiations is pure American common sense.

What is so difficult about understanding this concept? If the TPP pact of countries wants access to the U.S. market, let them sell their products and services under reciprocal trading conditions. Dumping subsidized trade products by foreign regimes must cease. All the whining and yelling from the mass media and establishment economists will not balance our trade deficits. Apparently, this objective does not interest them and certainly the displacement of living wage domestic jobs has never been a concern.

This reality began the groundswell that elected Donald Trump, President. Since he has made the creation of domestic jobs a center piece for his economic policies, the multinational monopolists have become unhinged.

Extracting a reciprocal excise cost does not prevent trade from taking place among nations. On the contrary, it makes the long term practicality of a beneficial and mutual relationship stronger. Prosperity demands ongoing wealth creation. When the U.S. zeros out their trade deficit with foreign exploiters, the achievement of Fair Trade will be realized.

Lastly, the most absurd argument used by cheerleaders for the one way voyage of container ships from China to Long Beach is that American consumers will have to pay higher costs for their purchases. Nowhere within this lament is there a whisper that Total US household debt soars to record above $13 trillion.

Just maybe sweeping a credit card or hitting the order button with your mouse for foreign produced consumption has contributed to the demise and the outflow of American cash flow to overseas conglomerates. Paying the market price for domestic goods and services will contribute more to the health of our economy than any mythical promise of transitory cheap goods sold to you by the snake oil sales reps. America needs and deserves a growing national economy that is based upon homegrown enterprises. Shortsighted “Free Traders” require a re-education to the benefits of America First.

Quelle

قالب وردپرس

[berna2206thames19-blog]

Realistic Hand Chalk Secrets Under Scrutiny

A Useful A-z On Rational Liquid Grip Canada Programs

Many people want to get a great-looking, healthy body by working out and becoming involved in fitness training. It is very important to be in good health and fitness. Being in great shape allows you to lead an active, fun-filled life and greatly increases your life span. For people who are interested in the health of their body, you need to read the tips in this article. If you are serious about becoming more fit, you should select a routine that improves flexibility, burns calories and tones multiple muscle groups. See if any classes are offered in your area. Strenghtening your thighs can help prevent sports injuries to the knees. A ligament tear behind the kneecap is a frequent sports injury that can create life-long issues. Work out both your hamstrings and your quads to ensure that your knees are protected. Try performing leg curls and extensions. Having a strong core is very important. Every physical activity you engage in will be positively influenced by a strong core. Crunches and sit-ups provide a great workout while helping to strengthen your core. Additionally, you can increase your range of motion with sit-ups. This will make your ab muscles to work harder and longer. Do exercises you don't like and feel accomplished that you conquered them. The idea behind this tip is that people usually skip exercises they are particularly weak at. Become a master at the exercise you like the least by practicing it more. Make a regular schedule to prevent you from not making exercise a part of your life. Set a number of days during the week that you will work out, and stick to that number. Try a "make-up" day to make up for a missed workout. Running is an activity that can be helpful, as well as harmful to the body over time. To minimize the damage, every sixth week run only half your usual miles to give your body rest time. By cutting your mileage in half you are letting your body recover from the extensive exercise. This is crucial if you want to prevent injuries. Many are under the impression that daily abdominal exercise is wise. This can actually be counterproductive. Abs are like any other muscle and need rest periodically. Ideally, you will work out your abs every two to three days. Build your quadriceps easily by doing box squats. Do box squats and you will greatly improve your normal squats. Setting a box of the appropriate height behind you is the only preparation you need. Do the squat like normal, but pause when you get to the box. A great fitness tip to help you build up your calf muscles, is to start doing donkey calf raises. Donkey calf raises help greatly build up and tone the muscles in your calves. A partner is helpful to lay on and help you to raise your calves. Remember to balance back exercise with exercise on the front of your body. If you are experiencing back pain when doing abdominal exercises, work to strengthen your back muscles. When you work your abdominal area, spend some time strengthening your back muscles for better back health. Take it slow if you are just starting your workout program. You need to learn the right way to breathe and do the exercises. This will be the best way to advance and not get injured. If you do exercises incorrectly, you could injure yourself. and your goals will be harder to achieve. Ice any muscle sprains that you get right away. It will help minimize the redness and swelling. Once you've done that, elevate the area to encourage proper circulation. Never put ice on bare skin, as it can cause damage. Always wrap it in cloth or a towel first. You should work your core regularly. You should work your abs only twice or three times each week. Let them rest in between just like you would any other muscle. Through exercise and healthy dietary choices, you can be healthy and live for many years. It is critical that you make your health a priority in your life. Following the guidance provided earlier in the article is a great way to start your journey towards becoming more physically fit and healthy.

The Growing Opportunities In Real-world Canada Solutions

Predictably, TPP12 economic studies showed a trivial 0.07-per-cent gain from new Canadian exports over the next 18 years because most tariff barriers have already been removed by long-standing WTO commitments or existing Canadian trade agreements with TPP countries. The Canadian government's own trade modellers expressly stated that their TPP12 studies did not account for the agreement's adverse effects on our innovation economy. Modern trade deals are "Asset Valuation Protection Agreements" for the global knowledge-based economy and only minimally deal with open-border issues. They entrench structural inequalities between owners of IP and their buyers, because this is where the money lies in the 21st century. Innovation has emerged as cause célèbre in Canadian economic-policy discourse, but the pundits who dominate discussions treat IP as a niche purview for high-tech companies. IP, and increasingly data, are the wealth drivers for all industries in the 21st century, because every business today is a technology business. Those who own IP and data are those that continue to enjoy economic growth. That's why smart countries around the world are rapidly increasing their stocks of IP through their domestic companies, maintaining control of their data systems and then turning these intangible assets into national wealth drivers. Successful technology companies never reveal how they shrewdly generate and commercialize knowledge. Instead, they use high-minded language to describe what they do, using words such as "open," "inclusive," "connected," "sharing" and "diverse." Their lobbyists say Canadians will get even more of these benevolent outcomes if we simply "modernize" all trade agreements, including NAFTA. In practice, companies commercialize knowledge not through open borders but through restrictions supported by the legal system. The way you create markets and value in the new global economy is by generating (owning) IP and data, and restricting everyone else from using it unless they pay you. Stronger and longer IP protections and mandated harmonization systems extend the right Canada|Liquid Chalk of existing IP owners to make more money.

For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/why-we-should-raise-a-glass-to-canadas-tpp-team/article37165732/

Every Single Secret We Provide About Basketball Is One You Need To Know

Basketball has been universally loved by the young and old for many years. But, not everyone has a thorough understanding of what it takes to truly play the sport well. The following article will help anyone understand basketball better and become an improved player. Your balance is an important aspect to consider when you are shooting. Everyone has seen professional basketball players make a shot from 20 feet away as they are falling. They are going with the flow when this occurs. By focusing on balance in your shot, you will develop the consistency needed to be a great scorer. Get educated on the way to properly pass the ball on a bounce. Bounce passes need to be at waist level when received. Bounce it 3/4 of the distance to the receiver. There can be other factors in play to keep in mind, as well. Making a free throw takes mental concentration as well as physical prowess. You must be mentally strong to be a consistent free throw shooter. Relax and focus on your shot, and you can make it. A great way to stay prepared at all times is to always face the ball. You have to be aware of what is going on with the ball at all times. Make sure you also have the court in your line of vision as well, so you know when and where you can drive in for the score. Focus on your footwork and your core strength in your workouts. When your core is strengthened, you will have more balance and be able to move more swiftly. Your hip, buttocks, back and abdomen muscles need to be worked on. Jumping rope is great for improving your footwork and also helping you to gain speed. If you have someone who can tape your game, you can view the recording to see how well you performed on the court. This way, you have the opportunity to go through your play at a later time and see your mistakes. Be honest when assessing, but avoid being overly critical. You can learn a lot by watching how you play and what you need to concentrate practicing on. To get better at shooting free throws, make sure to keep a consistent pre-shot routine. That could include a set number of dribbles, knee-bends or some other type of movement. Having a consistent routine is ideal, and that helps train your body to know how to be in the proper position every time you shoot the free throw. If you don't want someone to steal the ball, dribble hard. This causes the ball to return to your hand more quickly, so the offense has less time to try to get it away from you. When someone is right on top of you, pass the ball instead of dribbling. Increase your weak hand's capabilities by using it for everything you normally would not. You'll find it becomes more controllable. This will begin to spill over into your basketball game as well. Bend the knees when you dribble a basketball. If you are standing straight, you will have a harder time controlling the ball and your opponent will be able to steal it more easily. You only need to bend your knees slightly to improve your control of the basketball. To improve 3 point shooting, practice from NBA distance, at least. All the other lines are closer. By practicing at the NBA line, you will be used to getting a look a little further than what most defenses will cover. People from all backgrounds love basketball. To truly enjoy the game, a player must possess both skill and knowledge. Keep what you've read here in mind at all times and you can do great things when you play basketball.

[omcik-blog]

New Post has been published on OmCik

New Post has been published on http://omcik.com/trump-to-ramp-up-trade-pressure-on-china-with-call-for-a-probe-into-intellectual-property/

Trump to ramp up trade pressure on China with call for a probe into intellectual property

President Donald Trump on Monday will order his top trade adviser to determine whether to investigate Chinese trade practices that force U.S. firms operating in China to turn over intellectual property, senior administration officials said on Saturday.

The move, which could eventually lead to steep tariffs on Chinese goods, comes at a time when Trump has asked China to do more to crack down on North Korea’s nuclear missile program as he threatens possible military action against Pyongyang.

Trump has said he would be more amenable to going easy on Beijing if it were more aggressive in reining in North Korea.

An administration official, however, insisted diplomacy over North Korea and the potential trade probe were “totally unrelated,” saying the trade action was not a pressure tactic.

“These are two different things,” the official said, speaking to reporters on a conference call.

Trump will direct U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to determine if an investigation is warranted of “any of China’s laws, policies, practices or actions that may be unreasonable or discriminatory, and that may be harming American intellectual property, innovation and technology,” the official said.

“China’s unfair trade practices and industrial policies, including forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft, harm the U.S. economy and workers,” a second official said. “The action being taken on Monday is a reflection of the president’s firm commitment to addressing this problem in a firm way.”

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer took issue with that assessment.

“President Trump’s pattern continues: Tough talk on China, but weaker action than anyone could ever imagine,” he said in a statement. “To make an announcement that they’re going to decide whether to have an investigation on China’s well-documented theft of our intellectual property is another signal to China that it is O.K. to keep stealing.”

Any investigation that may be launched could take as long as a year to conclude, a third official said. He said it would be premature to speculate on actions that could eventually be taken against China, and added that the issue could be resolved through “negotiated agreement.”

Trump, who will interrupt a 17-day working vacation to make a day trip to Washington for the trade announcement, had been expected to seek a so-called Section 301 investigation earlier this month, but an announcement was postponed as the White House pressed for China’s cooperation on North Korea.

While China joined in a unanimous U.N. Security Council decision to tighten economic sanctions on Pyongyang, Trump has kept up pressure on Beijing to do more.

“We lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year on trade with China. They know how I feel,” he told reporters on Thursday. “If China helps us, I feel a lot different toward trade.”

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke by telephone on Friday and reiterated their mutual commitment to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, the White House said in a statement. It was unclear whether the issue of trade came up.

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a popular trade tool in the 1980s that has been rarely used in the past decade, allows the president to unilaterally impose tariffs or other trade restrictions to protect U.S. industries from “unfair trade practices” of foreign countries.

The process can bypass World Trade Organization procedures for adjudicating grievances. Though widely used worldwide, the WTO process is viewed unfavorably by the Trump administration.

“We’re at the beginning of this process and no firm decisions have been made as to how that is going to work in terms of whether we would pursue WTO action or action outside the WTO,” the first administration official said.

In addition to the United States, the European Union, Japan, Germany, and Canada have all expressed concern about Chinese theft of intellectual property. The technology sector has been especially hard-hit in intellectual property disputes.

[russ-95]

Do Labour have the most popular position on Brexit?

I saw something the other day which claimed that Labour had the most popular position on Brexit. I was a bit surprised by this, but it’s an interesting suggestion. The basis for this claim is that the other parties, particularly Tories and the Lib Dems both have positions which are only popular with a small minority of voters. The Tories want, or are prepared to accept no deal with the EU and trade on terms agreed by the WTO. This is labelled as a hard-Brexit, a term I don’t really like. I’ll call it a WTO-Brexit. The Lib Dems want to reverse the outcome of the EU referendum. Defenders of Labour’s Brexit policy say these options are only wanted by a small minority of voters.

Labour say they accept the referendum result and want to negotiate a Brexit deal with the EU that meets their 6 tests. They were prepared to consider single market access, but now it seems they’re arguing for a deal that gives us the same benefits as being in the single market (whilst not being in it). Negotiating a deal with this expectation is virtually impossible, as the Tories will find out. The only plausible way of keeping the single market benefits is retaining membership of it.

Before considering the popularity (or lack of it) of Labour’s Brexit policy, I should say, it’s unlikely anyone has the most popular position on Brexit. Anyone who takes a position on Brexit is likely to encounter lots of opposition. In order for something to be popular you have to persuade those who disagree this a good thing, and there’s been little of that on any position taken on Brexit. The nature of the EU is you are either in, reaping the benefits and agreeing to the rules or you’re out, which I guess doesn’t help this. There are alternative options or potential compromisers as Switzerland and Norway have, but most Brexiters don’t see it that way and think that these options are tantamount to being in.

Now, the Tory and Lib Dem positions on Brexit are not really what I just stated. The ideal scenario for Labour is if/when voters are convinced the Tories and Lib Dems are pushing for WTO or Reverse. If Labour wants its Brexit position to be popular it’ll have to entail discrediting its opponents positions. It’s certainly true that many activists in the Lib Dems and Tories want WTO-Brexit or reverse-Brexit, but they are not the official positions of either party. Not yet. That’s not what their manifestos will say. But, as we know, manifesto commitments are usually subject to change…

The WTO-Brexit and Reverse-Brexit positions are generally held by the most vocally engaged in politics, party activists and political commentators. Anyone, who has strong views about Brexit, or politics, will hold one of these views or lean towards one. However, the group of people that hold these strong views only represents a small minority of the population.

Let’s assume (for the sake of argument, the figures are guesstimates) a maximum of 10% support a WTO-Brexit and a maximum of 10% support reversing Brexit.  This rises to a maximum 25% for both when you include those who support WTO or Reverse if something else permits it or necessitates it.

For example, the Reverse-Brexit side’s ‘something else’ would mean a second referendum to allow the 2016 EU ref to be reversed. For the WTO-Brexiter a failure to get a good deal would necessitate the attractive ‘something else’ of a WTO-Brexit. I leave aside a maximum of 50% for those who want:

1) A renegotiated deal with the EU, which involves being outside the EU institutions whilst having benefits of being in them, and denying the chances of a WTO-Brexit (official Tory position, potentially official Labour position)

2) Switzerland/Norway Brexit, where we retain membership of single market (EEA) and/or customs union (maybe once was position of Labour, potential Lib Dem position & likely SNP [short term] position)

3) Undecided about Brexit, find the issue too complicated or don’t care (a significant minority’s official position)

Labour have two problems here. Firstly, the other political parties each have a best-case scenario and a worst-case scenario that they believe they can cope with out of Brexit. For, the Tories the best case is an Alice in Wonderland scenario where you sign up to a service or organisation (as a Tory government did), decide to leave (as Tory chaos has allowed to happen), but keep the benefits of your subscription. Sky or BT wouldn’t have any of this. The worst case is a WTO-Brexit which they could probably cope with - but only in the short term.

For the Lib Dems, the best case is also pretty A in W; having a second ref and the British public voting to stay in the EU. This is a dream scenario, almost as devoid from reality as the Tory position, not least because referendums never seem to go the Lib Dems way. The principle of another referendum is a well-intentioned one, but I doubt the UK would vote to reverse Brexit. The worst-case scenario is the Lib Dems being a marginal minority in perpetual opposition to a WTO or bad deal Brexit. Would be awful for them, but Lib Dems would survive and have opportunities to thrive. Similarly, for the SNP their best or worst case scenario can be reframed in terms of their desire for Scottish independence, as that revolves around most of their interests and activities.

However, for the Labour party I have no idea what their best and worst case scenario is. Obviously, no-one knows what’ll happen in Brexit and it is prudent to be cautious about your expectations of the Brexit negotiations. But, not to be so cautious you come across as evasive. In the upcoming general election voters are going need to have an idea of where you’re prepared to go. Whilst it is true very little is known about the Tories Brexit approach, at least what is and isn’t the very basic framework of their Brexit approach is known and Labour seem to be worryingly close to following it. What it is: They want a new deal with the EU which retains same benefits as before, prepared to accept no deal with the EU. What it isn’t: Staying in the single market or having a Switzerland style arrangement.

With Labour, I don’t know to what extent they want the single market option or not. Is their position on the single market now the same as the Tories, if not how is it different? I appreciate that Labour have some important differences with the Tories like guaranteeing EU citizens rights and letting parliament have a proper vote. But, Labour need to be more radical and coherent on the single market and our future relationship with the EU. They need to answer questions like how close do they want to be to the EU post-Brexit? How closely do they want the UK to be tied to EU law, institutions and programmes like Erasmus? And what is their view on freedom of movement? I am sure their position will be elucidated more during the election campaign. But with all respect to them it should have been made clear (or attempted to be made clearer) at the time May was pissing around with a red, white and blue Brexit.

The second problem Labour have is the middle way is not always the popular way. Especially, when there are so many options and outcomes made available by the complexity of Brexit. I thought it was remarkable that the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry recently said that we don’t take a side on Brexit. How can you say that when over 33 million people in this country were capable of taking a side? The Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, made a speech yesterday which was meant to clarify Labour’s Brexit position and I am not really much clearer on what side Labour are taking. Labour officially are saying that they’re moving towards being out of the EU and probably the single market if they’re declaring freedom of movement is going to end. What the all-important Labour membership and its MPs make of this remains to be seen.

Labour are wilfully destroying themselves if Thornberry’s equivocation is reflected in their Brexit policies. They may feel they have no choice but to be equivocal, but they will destroy themselves if they do. Every other political party will have activists going out with passionate views on the EU; enthusiasm about association to or isolation from EU institutions and programmes; and clear expectations of the negotiations. The effect of this is that voters will believe the other parties have a more coherent vision for how post-Brexit Britain will work out, our position in the world, and our association to or isolation from the way the EU works.

It’s tricky to see this as anything but a Brexit election (despite Labour’s desperation to portray it to the contrary) and voters like to know what they’re voting for. I don’t think the British people have much enthusiasm for voting for an impartial adjudicator who doesn’t take sides. That has a lot to do with our system, we don’t have a President of the UK and in most countries political system’s the President takes the adjudicator role, but that’s another story.

More encouragingly, Starmer also said yesterday that Labour would go into government and rip up Theresa May’s plan. But, maybe you should rip up your own 6 tests for Brexit and come up with something more consistent about what you’d actually do. Currently, Starmer’s tests call for the same benefits as we currently have in the Single Market whilst simultaneously calling for managed migration. Wtf? Isn’t this incoherence the kind of thing the anti-Brexiters are criticising the Tories for right now?

If Labour wants to meet all these tests it needs to be honest. It needs to say ok we want managed migration, but we’ll have to sacrifice on some of the benefits of full membership of the single market. Or, it needs to say we want the same benefits of the single market but we’ll have to sacrifice on immigration.

Or even better, Labour could be bold and do something different - unequivocally taking a side. (This is risky, but things can’t really get much worse for them.) Taking a side unambiguously has the potential to work out a lot better than the incoherent and vacuous Brexit position/s they currently have. Then they should come up with a consistent outlook pertaining to their expectations of the Brexit negotiations. This should, at a minimum, outline their best-case scenario from Brexit, describe their worst-case scenario and their response to avoiding, or dealing with, the worst-case scenario. Then, maybe Labour could have the most popular position on Brexit.

Do Labour currently have the most popular position on Brexit? To paraphrase Ed Miliband, Hell no, they don’t. At the moment, they’re pissing off both sides of the argument on the EU. But, if they can work out which side they’re on, formulate a coherent Brexit position, stick to it, and promote it reliably and consistently, then they could. Perhaps, in this case, with such little time till the election, it might just be preferable to piss off one side than failing at the battle to placate two.

[takebackthedream]

Enormous, Humongous Trade Deficit Measures Economy's Problem by Dave Johnson

Our economy has a trade problem. Our trade deficit measures the extent of the problem. Our trade deficit continues to be enormous and humongous.

February’s Enormous, Humongous $43.6 Billion Trade Deficit

The Census Bureau reports the February U.S. deficit on trade with other countries fell to $43.6 billion, down $4.6 billion from a revised $48.2 billion. This follows January’s big increase.

Our exports were up $0.4 billion from January, to $192.9 billion. Imports were down $4.3 billion to $236.4

The United States’ enormous, humongous trade deficit with China increased $1.6 billion to $31.7 billion.

Any way you look at it, our economy bought $43.6 billion more in goods and services in February than it sold. $43.6 billion of our economy’s “demand” is translating into jobs, wages, and production elsewhere in the world. It has done this month after month since the late 1970s and shows no sign of balancing.

What else happened in the late 1970s? Study this now-famous chart from the Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) The wedges between productivity and median compensation growth:

So … the late 1970s saw the beginnings of our trade deficits, which grew and grew. And the 1970s also saw the “decoupling” of wages from productivity growth.

Put another way, until the late 1970s, if companies in the United States were getting orders, they had to hire people here to work for them to fill those orders. So they had to pay what the “market” for workers was demanding. And this kept wages rising. At the same time, people in this country were demanding that our environment be cleaned up, and that companies pay for their own mess.

But then as”free trade” ideology and policies took hold, companies were able to find cheaper labor in countries where there were  few environmental protection costs. So companies were able to tell American workers with their demands to get paid a reasonable amount to f*** off.

Because of “free trade,” labor’s power went away and American wages have stagnated ever since.

While we’re at it, one more thing the late 1970s brought was the big fight against inflation, which over time eats up the value of the cash holdings of lenders, while reducing the obligations of borrowers.

Thanks to the fight against inflation, every time the economy picked up enough that companies might have to start paying more to hire enough people here to meet demand here, interest rates would be increased, slowing the economy just enough to keep unemployment high enough to keep “wage pressures” down.

The war on inflation is another way that labor’s power to demand reasonable wages was crushed and that American wages have stagnated since.

NAFTA, Then China, Then Trump

For many, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has become the symbol for the loss of American jobs. The pact opened up low-wage Mexico for American manufacturers, and was fiercely debated before it took effect in 1994. As a presidential candidate in 1992, Ross Perot warned about the “giant sucking sound” of jobs going south.

Across the country people heard him say this, and then they saw it happen.

People saw how NAFTA and the loss of jobs to other countries beyond Mexico and Canada took manufacturing jobs that people and communities depended on. So NAFTA became the one-word symbol for all of the trade problems that the trade deficit represented, especially in areas where auto and auto-parts manufacturing jobs moved to Mexico, like Flint, Michigan.

Then, in the 2000s companies took job flight to the nth degree, moving production to China as fast as they could, to escape American democracy’s wages and protections, with executives and investors pocketing the difference instead of reinvesting it in our economy. China’s entry into the WTO accelerated the problem, but for many “NAFTA” remained the one-word, shorthand description.

Dean Baker writes about what happened in the 2000s, in Trade Denialism Continues: Trade Really Did Kill Manufacturing Jobs,

The extraordinary plunge in manufacturing jobs in the years 2000 to 2007 was due to the explosion of the trade deficit, which peaked at just under 6 percent of GDP ($1.2 trillion in today’s economy) in 2005 and 2006. This was first and foremost due to the growth of imports from China during these years, although we ran large trade deficits with other countries as well.

There really is very little ambiguity in this story. Does anyone believe that if we had balanced trade it wouldn’t mean more manufacturing jobs? Do they think we could produce another $1.2 trillion in manufacturing output without employing any workers?

The 2000s saw a massive plunge in manufacturing jobs, which also devastated jobs supporting manufacturing along with entire supply chains, communities and regions of our country. There was no response from our from the Wall Street-captured political system, except for lectures about “lower prices” from imports, and places like Detroit, parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio and upstate New York were left in desperate straits. Opioid addiction and other social problems multiplied.

Then, as we all know, the conditions and all the trade problems that the word “NAFTA” represents to people in these regions were exploited by candidate Donald Trump for votes. Trump promised to do something about this trade problem. Enough working-class Democrats swung Republican to put him in office. Massive voter suppression, Russian interference, and the lack of a Democratic economic message didn’t help, either.

Trump said what he needed to say to get votes and got enough of them. Once in office, of course, con-man Trump is reversing himself. He has offered “studies” of the problem, while drafting a notification to Congress that he intends to make only small changes to NAFTA, renegotiating it along the model of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which he opposed during the campaign.

How Do We Fix Trade?

Trade and “trade agreements” are not automatically bad. No one opposes trade. But our popular understanding of what they are is mistaken.

American companies already trade with other countries and don’t need trade agreements to do it. If a democracy has a tariff or trade barrier in place perhaps it is there because the people of the country have a good reason they want it there.

Wall Street’s propagandists declare that our government must be blocked from legislating “protectionism,” in order to “expand trade.” They say that tariffs and barriers are necessarily bad and “agreements” that block countries from imposing them are needed. Many of us have unconsciously absorbed many of Wall Street’s rarely-countered arguments that are used to sell the country on pro-investor, anti-labor policies.

But current “trade” policy is really just about making agreements that do little more than keep governments from being able to legislate to protect their public’s interests from those of giant corporations. Trade agreements bypass a country’s protections, opening their markets in ways that make it easier for larger companies to move production in search of cheap labor and low environmental-protection costs, or to dominate markets across borders by using economies of scale to wipe out local competition.

A typical trade “agreement” today is a corporate-negotiated agreement saying that our democratic government will be prevented in the future from applying a tariff or barrier to entry or other protections to goods or services being brought into the country, in order that businesses can make more profits.

Yes, in the past giant, monopolistic “buggy whip” industries could corruptly purchase protections and subsidies and trade barriers, causing competition and innovative industries to be held back. So “trade agreements” preventing legislation to protect national interests were sold as the solution to this corruption of democracy.

But in a functioning democracy, if We the People decide we want to “protect” wages or industries for whatever reason, that should be our decision. We should not have “agreements” that prevent us from doing so, in order for a particular business to benefit.

We need go into “trade deals” with eyes wide open and not just to “lower tariffs” and fight “protectionism.” We cannot just let corporate interests negotiate agreements. We can’t keep coming up with agreements that restrict our democratic sovereignty, just to benefit businesses. “Stakeholders” like labor, environmental groups, consumer groups and representatives of all the groups and interests of our society might be involved.

Full Employment

Currently “trade” agreements are used to undercut American wages and worker and environmental protections. But trade and our entire economy would be very different if our country had full-employment policies leading to every American being able to find a job of their choosing.

Without policies to support full employment, employers lose money and opportunity because they can’t find enough employees, so the economy is hampered from achieving its full potential. With full employment, labor has the bargaining power to keep trade and immigration from forcing wages down.

It then makes sense to make up the demand for employees with imports and immigration. If done with the interests of working people here and in trading partner countries in mind, it would create a rising standard of living worldwide.

[mightbedamian]

#TMIishTuesday #46 - The Trumpet - But why?

Hey there mighty people of the internet! And welcome to issue #46 of #TMIishTuesday - my weekly Tumblr post about what goes through my weird mind and what you guys want to know more about. It can be something very personal, it can be something political, it can be completely pointless - but in 99.9 % of the cases, it involves opinions. And mine as well. // Last week I talked about make-up. On girls, but more about it on guys: Society's general perception of it, some male YouTubers who look ACE with make-up, and my opinion on whether or not men should or should not wear make-up. Not telling you to read it, but… YOU SHOULD! // Disclaimer: I can't treat certain people the same as everyone else. People who just disrespect of groups of people for one, and only one, reason: Belonging to this group. And by saying this, I do exactly that, I know... And I’m still gonna do it. You know, if they were at least a little bit open-minded or didn't treat people like they're sh*t, I'd respect that. I wouldn't cheer for them, but everyone has different opinions - and that's awesome! But I won't respect people who hate on others for having one attribute that the haters don't like: Gender, sexuality, race, color of skin, this list goes on and on. Okay, so if you're not living on the Moon (and even then), you'll most definitely have noticed that the U. S. have a new president. For the reasons stated above, I will not call him by his name, but rather refer to this person as "the Trumpet". Not much of a difference anyway, right? And now you know who I'm talking about, we can start this post. Did I mention that it's about reasons why this person could even become president? Oh, I didn't? Well… Now you know! There are obviously lots of reasons why the Americans eligible to vote voted like they did. I pick three that seem most important to me.  1. The devil vs. the deep blue sea With the elections coming up one thing that I read a lot in polls and assessments of the candidates is: "I can't possibly choose between two inacceptable candidates." As expected, Democrats and Republicans had voted two extremely opposing candidates to go for president - Clinton: the impersonated establishment who still lives on her father's achievements as president and who is rather conservative for a Democrats candidate. And - the Trumpet: the impersonated American dream: business man, self-made millionaire, the exact opposite of the establishment, who bluntly told his opinions on basically everything, even when not asked about it. And I had the impression that people didn't feel that ANY of the two would be a good president. But given the American political situation, with only these two parties standing a real chance to win the election, most people did choose to distribute their votes between the devil and the deep blue sea - or simply didn't turn up to the polling stations. 2. Jobs vs. trade There is a common misconception that many Europeans might have fallen for: The Trumpet's only focus seemed to be on immigration politics. Constructing a wall at the U. S.-Mexican border and getting rid of TPP* and TTIP* trade agreements, before the latter was even signed. These seemed to be the Trumpet's only political goals. At least if you believed European media. Oh my, were we wrong! The Trumpet actually got lots of votes in the Mid West states promising people to get jobs. Of course that's part of the getting-rid-of-TPP-and-TTIP deal. But that's not what was the most important aspect of this issue. The U. S. still suffer from the global economic crisis that was sparked by the failure of the banking industry in the late 2000s. The most important promise of the Trumpet was jobs. Jobs, jobs, and more jobs. And, please correct me, if I'm wrong, dear Americans, but to me it looks like most Americans don't bother too much about what is going on in the world, if the U. S. is not involved. Am I wrong in assuming that? And to be honest, it's looked to me like that over the last few years/decades. Rather, you guys are more focussed on your own country. You know, I'm not a big fan of overly demonstrated patriotism. But it makes sense that you voted the Trumpet then: He promises to get you all into jobs again. Sure, that will work. But there'll also be massive inflation, if he basically closes down foreign trade and goes back to producing everything domestically. But people don't seem to see that. Or they ignore it. Well, if you don't see it, let me give you a quick tour, okay? The Trumpet wants to put import tariffs into place again against any country out there. Sure, most still have import tariffs - the EU certainly isn’t the norm - but over the last couple decades there has been worldwide understanding that we should thrive for lower tariffs and less trade restrictions. In 1947 32 nations signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which wanted to "reduce tariffs and other trade barriers" among the signing countries. Over the years, with globalisation hitting in more and more, more nations joined the agreement and tariffs and trade restrictions got less and less. Based on the work that had been done under the GATT framework, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established by 123 nations in 1995. A huge part of this hard work is at stake now that one of the biggest economies of the world threatens to leave the WTO. As I'm typing this, the Trumpet has just announced that the U. S. will not ratify TPP. A small step for a Trumpet, but a huge one for humankind. Anyway, I'm drifting off. And the effects of the U. S. leaving the WTO and other international trade policies could fill another #TMIishTuesday. Let me know, if you are interested in that! * TPP - Trans-Pacific Partnership * TTIP - Transatlatic Trade & Investment Partnership 3. Ego vs. opinions This might even be the most important factor that got him the crucial votes in the swing states* which ultimately led to the Trumpet winning the entire election. All the way during his candidacy - in the internal Rep duels as well - he has been very straightforward about basically anything he represented. He made clear his goals basically on day 1 of the Rep internal campaign and, from what I can tell, he sticked to them. All this "The U. S. don't need any foreign trade" thing, all this "I don't give a f*ck about minorities" hatred, all this "I'm the king of the world" behaviour - it was there from the very beginning. And even if Clinton didn't change her campaign too much, too - just by not letting anyone exert ANY influence on his campaign, the Trumpet really presented the "I am me, I won't change for others" attitude. When most candidates try to take on some viewpoints of the other candidates of their party to rule out competitors, he didn't do that. Cause he didn't need to. The whole "I won't change for others" thing was already bearing fruit. Many Americans are apparently still looking for a father figure to look up to. And that's EXACTLY what they got. ...Although you might argue that someone, who is as bold as the Trumpet, is not exactly a father figure… Granted, but he's definitely "the strong man" the people were looking for. And I guess the Americans just thought Obama didn't take measures drastic enough to cope with the (perceived as well as existing) problems the U. S. were faced with. * swing state = "a state that could reasonably be won be either the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate" Finally: Judging from the younger history, it just made sense that a Republican was elected president: The last three presidents all took two terms in office - and after each 8 year period a president of the other "big" party - Democrats and Republicans - was elected into office. Right, I'll leave you with that. This post turned out way more subjective than I planned to. But I never promised that. And remember how I started this post? "Disclaimer: I can't treat certain people the same as everyone else." I guess, that's exactly what's happened now. Sorry not sorry! :P Before I go, please let me know what you thought of this post and what your thoughts on the new president are. Do you hate him, do you respect him, do you like him? Place a comment, tweet me, dm me, or do anything else you can think of to get to me. Oh and today's TMIish Queer Shoutout goes to: Anyway Köln TV, the queer YouTube channel of youth centre Anyway in Cologne. I stumbled across the their YouTube channel last week and really liked the videos in which the team took to the streets to interview the people of Cologne on queer topics: Can they tell who identifies as straight, lesbian, or bi just by appearance? Does it work better when the choices are straight, gay, and pansexual? What do you imagine gay sex to look like? And the one that I liked best: How do people react when they are asked to film two guys for a minute and suddenly one proposes to the other right in front of the Cologne Dom cathedrale? Their videos are well thought of and, most of the times, involve strangers they meet on the street. If understand German, check them out and drop a sub! As always: Next #TMIishTuesday next Tuesday. If you have any questions in the meantime, just ask away. Whatever you’re curious about - I don’t bite. :) Until then: Stay mighty! Linkage: - Wikipedia on TPP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership - Wikipedia on TTIP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership - Wikipedia on swing states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state - Anyway Köln TV channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/AnywayKoelnTV - Anyway Köln website: http://www.anyway-koeln.de/ Oh, and here’s some self-promo: - Last #TMIishTuesday: http://mightbedamian.tumblr.com/post/156001271441/tmiishtuesday-45-guys-cant-wear-make-up - More #TMIishTuesdays: mightbedamian.tumblr.com/tagged/tmi - Poll to decide next week's topic and more very cool stuff: www.twitter.com/mightbedamian - Even more very cool stuff: mightbedamian.tumblr.com

[fightingforfreedomblr]

“America first?” or “Donald Trump first?” (2)

6/5/18 is my 5 years ordeals in America. I thought that Donald Trump maybe different from OBAMA because he can “make America great again!”  But actually has he “made America great again?” or “made America worse?”

-Word-of-God:

It seems pretty noble that Donald Trump has a Bible study group in White House. Does he really follow the Word-of-God to lead the nation or just for the show to fool people? Well, I just give two facts here. Bible asks any nation to love strangers. But his administration brutally separate Parent-and-Children recently. That’s absolutely un-American! That’s why protesters across the U.S. decry policy of separating immigrant families at the southern border. Moreover, UN demands Trump administration to stop that. But he just ignores UN. Now I talk about myself. He absolutely knows that I have been treated very unfairly by America governments (U.S government, California State and City of Sacramento). But he pretends nothing happen. Moreover, he can find excuse that California State and City of Sacramento are beyond his reach. Really? California State and City of Sacramento are still under the union of the U.S. In addition, based on Luke: 17:3: Take heed to yourself. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. See, Jesus said clearly that if any sinner repents, then we can forgive him. Moreover, Based on Matthew 18:22, Jesus said: Forgive 70x7=490 times. I have forgiven sinners hired by Donald Trump, Jerry Brown, Darrell Steinberg and their evil allies Lee Hsien Loong and more for more than 1,825 times (This number based on one time sin every day. But every day I have faced different sins, such as food poison, harassment and annoyance and more). Still not enough?

-Diplomacy:

Everyone knows that diplomacy is very important because now it is in cold war era. But he thinks in different ways. That’s see what he said when Russia expel many U.S diplomats “Thanks Putin, he saves my White house salary.” Now I list some facts:

a. Inappropriate remarks: He is a President of the U.S. His every word and deed are under international scrutiny. He vented about immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti and Africa coming to the United States as *hithole countries. Then he denied it and his ally Georgia Senator David Perdue (on the scene) defended for him. But his another honest ally Lindsey Graham allegedly confirmed reports of Trump's immigration comment on Jan/12/2018. Well, he is a human and imperfect. He can explain that he said that due to high pressure or other reason. So, do Donald Trump and David Perdue have credibility? Then on May/16/2018, he blasted some deported immigrants: “These aren't people. These are animals. “And then he denied it again and defended that “he refers to MS-13 gang.” But the fact is he said it in California sanctuary city. So, does he have credibility? Because his “good examples”, then his Chief staff John Kelly called him 'idiot' first but after that planned to deny it; moreover, his Press aide said: “John McCain is dying anyway…” When John McCain opposed his nomination of CIA Chief. Why John McCain opposed? Because that CIA Chief got involved torture but she did not answer that in the hearing. Again, that’s America democracy.

b. Iran Deal: This deal was made by 7 parties (U.S, U.K, France, German, Russia, China and Iran) in year 2015. He just overturned it recently unilaterally. Does he respect other countries? If he thinks the deal is the worst deal. He can initiate negotiation among 7 parties to make it better. If he can’t get what he wants, at least he can ask 7 parties to vote, if vote 4:3, that’s call fair. But he just ignores other 6 parties and sanctions unilaterally. The ridiculous is: He forces other 5 parties to sanction Iran too otherwise U.S will sanction them. So, now, U.S government has worked as “World Financial Police”. Wow!

c. North Korea Deal: Again, he did not use diplomatic approach to negotiate the deal but added fuel to the deal. Just ask one simple question: If South Korea President did not ask him to postpone military drill after Winter Olympic of 2018, is there any talk on Jun/12/2018? Absolutely no! It is Moon Jae-in used Winter Olympic of 2018 opportunity to make that happen. Moreover, if China opposes behind, there is not any talk on Jun/12/2018. See, since Trump-Kim agreed to talk on Jun/12/2018 but he abrupt cancelled meeting on May/24/2018 after North Korea demolished its nuclear test sites just one hour later. Why? Because North Korea released 3 Americans and demolished its nuclear test sites already. So, Trump thinks he got what he wants and needed not to talk anymore. Is it not concrete proof of Ponzi Scheme? Then on Jun/01/2018, he revived summit with N. Korean leader in complete reversal. Can Trump-Kim reach the deal on Jun/12/2018 and what’s the matter? Even they reach the deal. The next President may repeal that deal again. So, people can ask one simple question: Can U.S government be trusted?

d. Jerusalem: That’s another example that he defies U.N and considers Jerusalem as the capital of Israel unilaterally. Well, The remaining 14 council members voted in favour of the Egyptian-drafted resolution on Dec/18/2018. The U.N. draft resolution affirmed "that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council."

e. On Jun/01/2018, U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution denouncing violence against Palestinians. But France, Russia, China, Ivory Coast, Kazakhstan, Bolivia, Peru, Sweden, and Equatorial Guinea joined Kuwait in voting in favor, while only the United States voted against. Britain, the Netherlands, Poland and Ethiopia abstained.

-Trade wars:

Every country wants that otherwise man-made quotas and tariffs create unnecessary barriers and costs. If he initiates trade wars against adversaries, that’s reasonable but against allies, such as, Europe, Mexico and Canada, Japan and South Korea. See, Europe is the biggest trading partner with U.S and shares the same values with U.S. If he really thinks those trades are unfair. He can file complaint to WTO first. And if WTO un-favors to U.S, then it is not too late to initiate such wars. But he ignores WTO. Moreover, his trade negotiation team almost won such war with China but he suddenly stopped. Why? Because China government sweetened his daughter named Ivanka Trump by approving eight trademarks. So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Peace:

Now I talk about FDR’s “Freedom from Fear” again which translated into international terms means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor. Well, every nation and everyone want peace. How he gets peace? Strength! And how to get strength? Military! See, The White House is calling for Iran and North Korea to reduce their nuclear capabilities. But the U.S. is moving in a different direction, with plans to spend billions of dollars building the factories needed to rejuvenate and expand America’s nuclear capacity.

Not ridiculous? As U.S. Demands Nuclear Disarmament, It Moves to Expand Its Own Arsenal.

-Climate change:

A healthy planet concerns to everyone and no one country can do it alone. Again, there are countless examples men-made global disastrous. That’s why 144 countries, even Syria have rectified of 197 parties to the convention of “Paris Climate Agreement” in year 2016 to protect environment. But he pull out that.

-Nepotism:

Last time I talked about he did not choose the most competent candidates for his cabinet but chose his inner circles as his cabinet instead, then caused him a lot of troubles. This time I talk about his Son-in-Law Jared Kushner. If he was sharp enough, he should not choose Jared Kushner to work for him. But he has chosen Jared Kushner without any political and diplomatic experience as his senior advisor. Why? Because Donald Trump does not trust anyone except his family members or relatives or inner circles. Even he can do whatever he wants but from common sense, Jared Kushner must get security clearance prior to employment. But Jared Kushner did not until May/23/2018. Next why? Because Jared Kushner has business in Middle East. So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Free press:

Again, The Framers of the Constitution believed that liberty could not be maintained without a free press. A free press must serve as the public’s “watchdog” of the government. For example, CNN is more liberal and FOX is more conservative, nothing wrong with that. But he has attacked free-press as “vicious”, “mean” and “fake” if he dislikes not only domestically but in World-Economic-Forum of 2018. Supposed America has many voices but now he wants only one voice from him. So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Judgment:

Everyone knows how important of judgment is, especially as a president of the U.S. Does he have a good judgment? See, how many his chief staffs have been fired by him during his presidency? Ironically, those staffs are chosen by him no others.

Can America afford to his White House chaos for how long?

-Tax cut:

His only accomplishment is Tax Cut at the expense of huge deficit. How to get that? Bypassing the Democratic and sweetening his allies for DACA Compromise. After it was passed, the DACA is dead. Is it America way of democracy or his way of democracy? Does it really “Enhance competiveness, boost economy, create job and benefit middle-classes Americans?” Moreover, this idea is not his idea but Ronald Reagan’s idea. From economic point of view, the demand/supply, inflation and interest rate in Reagan’s era are much difference from now. In addition, the government debt to GDP ratio was at healthy level (42.875%) in Reagan’s era but now government debt to GDP ratio is more than 106% to dangerous level. Finally, now economy in America and global is pretty robust. Does his radical Tax Cut (from 35% to 21%) really “Enhance competiveness, boost economy, create job and benefit middle-classes Americans?” I doubt it. For issue of boosting economy, it depends not only America but also dynamic global economy and Geopolitical which are beyond control of U.S government. I would say this radical Tax Cut benefits rich people only (about 1%-he and his inner circles). So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?”

-Retaliation:

Federal law forbids retaliation or reprisal by any Federal employee against a person who makes a complaint or discloses information to CRCL. As a president of the U.S, he should act as a role model to follow the ‘Rule of Law”, but he has retaliated his dissents. Here I list some facts:

1) He chose Steve Bannon as his “Chief Strategist” because Steve Bannon contributed a lot to his presidency. However, he fired Steve Bannon without sound reason. Then Steve Bannon slammed him that “A meeting between Donald Trump Jr and a group of Russians was ‘treasonous’" after being fired and worked as a CEO of Breitbart. As a result of criticism, Steve Bannon was fired as a CEO again due to Trump’s networks.

2) On Jan/13/2018: his supporters tried to arrest London mayor over criticism of Trump.

3) If he is a good president, he should welcome any comments, questions, especially criticism. However, he has chosen retaliation as a way of his strength. See, he can tweet to public but public can’t feedback. That’s why Federal judge Naomi Reice says Trump violates First Amendment by blocking critics on Twitter on May/23/2018.

4) John McCain’s case. See, “Inappropriate Remarks” of Diplomacy.

5) Now I talk about me. If I record down something news linking to him on my journal, the computer hackers delete it from my journal. Are computer hackers nothing to do with him? Or If I criticize him on my journal, I get “mysterious medical problems” from charities. Co-incidents again. Only idiots believe.

For “mysterious medical problems” from charities, not only he, but also Jerry Brown, Darrell Steinberg and their evil allies Lee Hsien Loong and more because I have experienced  countless times of such problems.

-Hypocrisy:  

Donald Trump thinks only he has head and all others do not.  See, how he has covered up actually bungling cover-up.

.Human Rights: He wants America to be a shining example in the world. But my case is the worst human rights abuse in America history.

.Next is racism. Countless people label him as racism and it is a matter of fact. How has he covered up? He pardoned a Black because “he was treated by our government very unfairly.”

3rd is homophobia. After “Orlando massing killings” he promises that “He is friendlier than Hillary Clinton.” But see, his 21 members of cabinet, such as, Mike Pence, Jeff Session, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, James Mattis, Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos, Elaine Chao and more are homophobia. How to cover up. He chose first gay Richard Grenell as ambassador to Berlin.

-Robert Muller’s Probe:

From surface, he seems democratic to cooperate Robert Muller’s Probe. But actually he has limited Robert Muller’s Probe even investigated Robert Muller in dark. Why? Fear.

Well, he can apply his final weapon: Pardon himself. If that’s is the case, any president of the U.S can do whatever he wants then pardon himself.

 My hope is in Jesus Christ. Donald Trump, Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg’s hope is my death. That’s why the pastors named Linda and Matthew from “The Table UMC” had a serious sermons “Hope in dying” to threaten me hidden. “He is dying anyway”. Donald Trump, Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg: You can work together to pray to God. Does God grant your wish?  

 Donald Trump has created White House chaos, the whole nation chaos and international chaos. Then he can use those chaos to get what he wants. He defies not only God but also U.N and WTO. Why? Because he perceives himself as Jesus Christ-King of Kings in the world but he is a president of the U.S not a King of the U.S.  

So, “America first?” or “Donald Trump first?” Let responsible Americans and global citizens make up their own minds.

 Note: 1) On 6/14/18 is Donald Trump’s 72 years birthday. My life has been destroyed by Donald Trump, Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg and their evil allies Lee Hsien Loong and more and I have nothing. What I have is free speech. “Happy birthday, Donald Trump!”

2) This article is about Donald Trump, why I add Jerry Brown and Darrell Steinberg because I have more than 4 years ordeals in California and City of Sacramento? That’s why I call them “Work in Concerted.”