• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Издания236
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы563
      • Показать ещё
      Люди612
      • Показать ещё
      Формат128
      Компании1292
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации79
      • Показать ещё
      Разное722
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели101
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы1
09 декабря, 08:12

Торговая война с Китаем ударит по США

Жесткая политическая позиция в отношении Китая избранного президента США Дональда Трампа может сыграть против Америки. Экономический удар больше настигнет американцев, чем жителей Поднебесной.

09 декабря, 04:59

CHANGE: US Steel wants to accelerate investments, bring back jobs, CEO says. United States Stee…

CHANGE: US Steel wants to accelerate investments, bring back jobs, CEO says. United States Steel would like to accelerate its investments and hire back laid-off employees now that Donald Trump will be occupying the Oval Office, CEO Mario Longhi told CNBC on Wednesday. “We already structured to do some things, but when you see in […]

09 декабря, 01:00

Here's How Concerned Republicans Are With Trump's Conflicts Of Interest

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― In the absence of a clear plan to address the unprecedented conflicts of interest facing Donald Trump’s presidency, you might think congressional Republicans would be planning aggressive oversight of the incoming president’s financial entanglements and looking to establish clear firewalls between Trump and his business dealings. Or you might think that Republicans don’t really care about Trump’s conflicts of interest. In interviews with The Huffington Post over the last two weeks, congressional Republicans gave the impression of the latter. “I don’t think that Mr. Trump has as big of a problem as people would like him to have with it, so, no, I have no problem,” Rep. Michael Kelly (R-Pa.) told HuffPost this week. When pressed for clarification, Kelly asked who we worked for. We then asked about Bahrain renting out Trump Hotel on Wednesday, a potential opportunity for the Middle Eastern kingdom to influence the incoming president by directing money to him. Instead of answering that, Kelly attacked HuffPost. “I think you folks are going to have a great four years,” he said. Asked what that meant, Kelly shut down. “Well, it just means exactly what I said. I mean, listen, how about call my office if you want to and give me a list of what you want to talk about?” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) ― famous for shouting “You lie!” during one of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union addresses ― repeatedly said he wasn’t concerned at all with foreign or business interests using the open pipeline into Trump’s pocket to try to influence him. “Hey, my view is I voted for Mr. Trump because I knew ― and I was really sold by my wife, all right, she was the one who identified ― he’s such a good businessperson, he surrounds himself by very talented people and would make a good president,” Wilson said. Pressed again on potential conflicts of interest, though, Wilson said Trump was turning over his businesses to his children. And asked if that was sufficient, given the role that Trump’s children seem apt to play in the presidency, Wilson stressed once more that he wasn’t concerned. “I’m sure that they’ll adjust for that too,” he said. Even Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the top watchdog in Congress who had vowed vigorous oversight of Hillary Clinton when he expected her to win the presidency, has taken a decidedly less aggressive tone with Trump. “It’s sort of ridiculous to go after him when his financial disclosure is already online,” Chaffetz told HuffPost recently. While he didn’t rule out eventual investigations, Chaffetz made it clear he had no intention to hold any hearings before Trump takes office, even though the second Trump assumes the presidency, he will be in violation of the lease agreement he signed for Trump Hotel in the historic Old Post Office in Washington, D.C. That lease states that no elected official “shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom,” meaning elected officials aren’t supposed to make money from the Trump Hotel, which Trump, an elected official, will obviously do. And this is just the beginning of the incoming president’s conflicts of interest.  Trump has hundreds of businesses with his name on them that could be used by foreign governments and other individuals or organizations to potentially influence him; hundreds of millions he owes to foreign banks that could complicate U.S. relations; and seemingly endless executive rulemaking opportunities that could affect his wallet. (Trump gets to decide, for instance, whether people making less than $47,476 a year, many of whom work in his hotels, will get overtime pay.) The issues are real and immediate, but Republicans are treating them as if they’re theoretical and far down the road. It wasn’t always this way. For the last eight years, Republicans have forcefully gone after the Obama administration, from the Benghazi investigation and Fast and Furious to ACORN and the supposed political targeting at the IRS. Republicans have also spoken out about alleged self-dealing at the Clinton Foundation and the need to ensure elected officials aren’t enriching themselves. In 2012, the GOP overwhelmingly supported legislation meant to prevent members of Congress and executive branch employees from using insider information to profit. It was Republicans, in fact, who insisted the president be included in the legislation, the STOCK Act.  Then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), that, “‘If we’re going to play by these rules, then President Obama is going to play by these rules,’” Walz recounted this week. “It was smart.” All but four Republicans in Congress supported the STOCK Act ― Rep. Rob Woodall of Georgia and John Campbell of California voted against it in the House, and Richard Burr of North Carolina and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma opposed it in the Senate ― and Republicans made impassioned speeches on the floor, railing against elected officials using their offices to make money. “One of the great causes that impels the separation from Great Britain was the common practice of public officials using their office to increase their personal wealth,” Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) said at the time. But now, Ross told HuffPost, Congress should “wait and see” how Trump separates himself from his business dealings before lawmakers go after him. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House science committee, said in 2012 that government exists to promote the public good, not to enrich elected officials and government employees. “Those who are entrusted with public office are called public servants because their work should always serve the public rather than themselves,” Smith said on the House floor. “No one should violate the sacred trust of government office by turning public service into self-service.” And now that Trump is going to be president? Smith referred us to his office for questions about the STOCK Act and the incoming president. Of course, some Republicans have suggested there might be some issues with Trump’s finances. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) has consistently said Trump’s explanations of his conflicts of interests are insufficient. Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.), one of Trump’s earliest supporters, said he wanted to see Trump follow the law. “He shouldn’t be making money off being the president for his personal interests, so I definitely think that needs to be looked into, and I think he agrees,” DesJarlais said. Even Ross and Chaffetz have indicated they may support investigations at some point. But for those Republicans who are concerned, the “wait and see” approach seems to be the norm ― if Republicans are concerned at all. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) aggressively went after Clinton in July. “No one should be above the rules, no one should be above the law, and that’s what we’re looking for, equality,” Ryan said on CNN. “So that people should be held to the same set of standards. That’s the problem with Washington, is people think there’s self-dealing and they think that everybody is being held to different standards. And the problem is that that’s true!” And yet when Ryan was asked on Wednesday how Trump should handle his conflicts of interest, Ryan’s answer was “however he wants to.” “This is not what I’m concerned about in Congress,” Ryan told CNBC. “I have every bit of confidence he’s going to get himself right with moving from being the business guy that he is to the president he’s going to become.” He’s not alone in that assessment. He just has no evidence that it’s true. And he doesn’t seem interested in getting proof. Christina Wilkie and Paul Blumenthal contributed reporting. Video produced by J.M. Rieger. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 декабря, 00:20

These Are The Unsung Winners And Losers Of Donald Trump's Boeing Tweet

President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday directed one of his infamous impulsive tweets at Boeing, which currently has a contract to build the next version of Air Force One. Specifically, he said: “Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!” Boeing’s stock took a wild ride downward in the immediate aftermath of the outburst, but bounced back to roughly where it began by the time the closing bell rang. As it turned out, the Department of Defense had budgeted $1.65 billion ― not $4 billion ― and Boeing said it currently has a $170 million contract with the Air Force. Such clarity aided the company’s late-in-day stock rally. But the tweet touched off a furious round of “Where did Donald Trump get his information?” questions. Reporters were subsequently tasked with the job of questioning whether Trump had any skin in the game with regard to Boeing. Spokespersons for the president-elect said ― without providing documentation ― that he had sold all of his stock holdings earlier in the year. The whole incident revived concerns about the potential for Trump’s tweets to suddenly manipulate markets for no good reason. But it also uncovered other winners and losers that went relatively unnoticed. BIG WINNER: THE PENTAGON Perhaps the day’s biggest irony is that Trump’s complaints about imaginary Air Force One cost overruns pushed an even bigger story about government waste right out of the newshole. Prior to Trump’s Boeing complaint, most of the media was still absorbing a blockbuster story from The Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock and Bob Woodward. They described how the Pentagon went in search of wasteful spending, found a nonsensical amount of it, and then buried its own findings. As the Post reported: The Pentagon has buried an internal study that exposed $125 billion in administrative waste in its business operations amid fears Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget, according to interviews and confidential memos obtained by The Washington Post. Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results. According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, $125 billion is greater than $4 billion. And yet I have a really good feeling about which story will attract the lion’s share of attention on the Sunday morning political chat shows. The Pentagon caught a nice break. BIG LOSER: CORPORATE CEOS It’s hard to feel bad for our nation’s chief executives, who over the past four decades have enjoyed skyrocketing increases to their take-home pay that don’t align with the relative quality of American CEO-ing over the same period of time. But the Chicago Tribune’s Robert Reed argues that we should feel some concern over the “chilling effect on corporate CEOs speaking out in public.” While not hearing from CEOs isn’t a major hardship for most people, this backing away threatens to damage the already shaky dialogue that exists between business leaders and the rest of us. Even in a controlled environment of a Chamber of Commerce occasion or similar event, businesspeople get out there and share their views about the issues of the day, whether it’s public safety, the environment, markets, free trade or community development. [...] Sounds corny, but at such events the protective corporate bubble can be pierced, if only a little. Community activists, media members, employees, students and other stakeholders get to quiz executives about their corporate strategies and decisions. “We need more healthy CEO dialogues, not fewer,” Reed writes. ALSO WINNING: EVERYONE WHO DIDN’T WRITE THIS CNBC PIECE ASKING US TO CONSIDER THE COST-CUTTING VALUE OF TRUMP’S PRIVATE JET For some reason, CNBC’s Robert Frank wrote a piece titled, “As Trump pushes back on Boeing, consider his private jet cost a fraction of Air Force One.” Hmmm, yes, let’s consider. So, after about two seconds of considering, I’m thinking that maybe one of the big reasons that Trump’s own plane “cost less then a tenth of Air Force One” is because Air Force One was specifically designed with the goal of making sure the president of the United States isn’t getting shot down all the damn time. This isn’t something that I thought we were ready to rethink. But as Frank points out, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s secondhand plane cost Trump merely $60 million after all the renovations were done. Let’s definitely see if Allen has any more planes laying around. Frank pauses momentarily to ponder the innovative way Air Force One has been designed to “the president shouldn’t die” specifications, but dismisses such thoughts in the next breath: Aviation experts say Trump’s plane is more luxurious, but Air Force One is a technology marvel, with an anti-missile system, scramblers, massive communications systems and back-up systems. So the two aircraft are not really comparable. But based on the Trump-gold standard for private jets, it’s no wonder he’s demanding a cost cut from Boeing. Again, based on the “Trump-gold standard for private jets,” you don’t have an anti-missile system or other state-of-the-art countermeasures to being blown out of the sky, but it really makes you think, man. TOO EARLY TO TELL: HIGH-FREQUENCY TRADERS Redeeming CNBC’s coverage of Boeing Tweet Day, Eamon Javers digs into the notion that traders might be able to game Trump’s Twitter activity with computerized algorithms designed to start immediately capitalizing on Trump’s market manipulations. That sounds great, just great. Naturally, people are already working on figuring out a way to do this. Efrem Hoffman, founder of a market analysis firm called Running Alpha, said Trump’s tweets represent a new source of market information for those willing to study them and identify patterns. “One specific strategy that I am working on is looking at tweets that come from Trump’s Android phone — as these have been shown to reflect his personal beliefs and convictions,” Hoffman said. “Somewhat more unfiltered than tweets coming from other mobile devices that reflect the opinions of his colleagues/staff.” Hoffman said he is analyzing the sequencing of Trump’s tweets in terms of volatility between Trump’s episodes of anger or jubilation, and cross referencing those episodes with keywords associated with specific industries of policy categories. He said he is looking at the sentiment of Trump’s followers and how the tweets are received as a possible measure of market player uncertainty. There is a healthy amount of skepticism as to whether something like this could be pulled off, and Javers notes that it “is always possible that algorithmic traders are already analyzing Trump’s tweets and simply decided that the [Boeing] tweet was too vague to trade on.” Nevertheless, that 10-second delay between Trump’s Twitter missive and the market’s convulsions remain exploitable terrain. Someone is sure to find a way to get rich off Trump’s tweets. Probably not you, though! ~~~~~  Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
08 декабря, 22:54

BRIEF-AT&T vice chairman Ralph de la Vega to retire at year's end - CNBC

* AT&T vice chairman Ralph de la Vega to retire at year's end, be replaced by AT&T Mexico chief - CNBC, citing source Further company coverage:

Выбор редакции
08 декабря, 20:53

Vevo After YouTube, the Biggest Challenges for New Video Platforms

By Dan Goikhman, CEO, Unreel Entertainment Music video hosting service Vevo has ramped up its efforts to gain independence from Google’s online video titan YouTube. In seven years, Vevo has grown a large following as a licensed partner with YouTube. However, through syndicating the vast majority of its content to YouTube, the music platform has failed to launch its own brand, bound to the limits of the streaming giant. As Vevo steps out of the shadow of YouTube’s reign, it has rebranded its app and refreshed its logo and senior management team. The video-first music platform wants to be up there with the likes of Spotify or Pandora, and its message to YouTube is clear: We’ve got Bieber and Rihanna, we don’t need you anymore. Vevo faces a saturated video over-the-top (OTT) market, using the Internet to deliver video content without the need for traditional cable or service operators. This industry is dominated by the household names of streaming, from Netflix to Vimeo, none more powerful than its jilted partner, YouTube. The company is working to differentiate itself and it now must confront the mammoth task of persuading the vast majority of its following to abandon their YouTube viewing habits, providing user satisfaction while also monetizing its content. As Vevo establishes itself as a true contender in this space, it faces many of the challenges emerging OTT platforms experience. What are the challenges Vevo faces, and is there still hope for new OTT platforms? Going head-to-head with the gatekeepers of on-demand A rise in connected devices, including a recent surge of smart TVs, and an increasing mass of digital video content has fueled the growth of OTT, as an alternative to traditional TV consumption through major broadcasters. Still a nascent competitor on the video OTT scene, Vevo’s new app is up against giants like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, in an industry estimated to reach $63 billion by 2020. Seven in ten people in the U.S. -  roughly 181 million people - consume online video over the Internet, according to eMarketer’s 2015 report. YouTube is the obvious leader in this industry, with an average of 170.7 million monthly viewers that year. Vevo hasn’t released stats regarding its YouTube versus native app viewership, though of its 400 million active monthly users and 18 billions video views, it’s known that YouTube contributes a huge part. Vevo has historically been the most-viewed YouTube partner, and Vevo accounts for 38% of YouTube’s unique monthly users. Under leadership from CEO Erik Huggers, the company has a vision to build an OTT brand in its own right, taking a larger share of advertising revenues, rather than handing a big yet publicly undisclosed portion to the Google subsidiary. Centralizing its distribution to one independent platform means Vevo will have autonomy to run a popular platform as it wishes; offering users new tools to engage audiences, and a revenue model with fewer mouths to feed should put Vevo in good stead. Building a profitable OTT model - the great debate YouTube has reportedly claimed that 80% of global consumers choose to consume media for free, and 20% are willing to pay for this experience. Digital video ad spend in the U.S. is tipped to hit $9.84 billion this year, growing to $16.69 billion by 2020, according to eMarketer. NewBay Media also claims that 73% of TV and video professionals will use advertising to monetize content, 59% will use subscriptions, 37% pay-per-view and 34% electronic sales. For example Buzzfeed recently announced the acquisition of startup Scroll, offering niche products such as state-scented candles for the homesick, as it experiments with commerce on the site. Digiday argues that in the OTT industry, “subscriptions beat ads”. Users want quality content, and high production costs mean that platforms cannot deliver this on advertising profits alone. Vevo is taking a page out of Hulu and Spotify’s playbook -- offering a hybrid model, with a freemium option. On its own - Vevo will take a larger share of ad revenues, and it can begin to lure users to it’s planned premium subscription model. But it’s lost the luxury of scale, and is now working to build its app audiences and generate a following, independent of YouTube. The future of OTT video will be community-driven Vevo is pulling out the big guns to define its place in the market; partnering with Warner Music Group to increase its catalog, offering original shows, personalized mobile apps, live production, expert curated playlists, short-form content and more. The MTV of this generation. “Basically we have much more to offer than just a repository of music videos,” Huggers explained to CNBC. The company has stated its goal: to become a source of information and discovery, lifestyle entertainment for the digital youth. Stepping out on its own, Vevo is seeking to transform itself into a social destination powered by personalized content that is centered around music and video. Truly owning it's distribution means users won’t be limited to selected genres, or lured to uploads outside of Vevo’s channels. Instead, hyper-personalization can enable greater engagement, free of pre-defined buckets. 53% of millennials expect recommendations on what to watch, and Vevo’s auto-playing videos and personalized artist recommendations cater to this. Similar to Spotify, Vevo fans can create their own playlists and follow profiles, feeding the algorithms with more data, and encouraging community interactions. Senior product manager Jose Gonzalez said these developments aim to make Vevo “personalised, immersive and engaging”. Vevo’s decision to turn social reflects a larger trend in the OTT industry. Where TV has typically limited users to passive consumption, the connected online audience embraces interaction and conversations. After the premiere of the seventh season of AMC’s ‘Walking Dead’ almost half the audience, that’s some 7.6 million viewers, tuned in to watch the after-show discussion ‘Talking Dead’. On Twitter the hashtags #TWD and #TheWalkingDead made the show the top trending topic, with fans sharing personal reactions to major plot twists. Twitter has also begun to experiment with streaming, providing live footage of NFL games and political debates, using national events to engage audiences of millions on social media at the same moment. As we're all seeing, the very near future of video is OTT, supported by increasing ad revenues and changing business models. The battle for new startups will be to differentiate in an already crowded market. Vevo has shown through its history that while a strategic partnership can help get you off the ground, autonomy is also an enabler. As the industry continues to develop, the most successful OTT video enterprises will be those that identify their niche community. Using big data, recommendations and personalization to inspire conversations. The fight of the underdog in the face of reigning giants means startups need to creative, and new digital technologies and social capabilities will help independent content providers to do this. About the Author Dan Goikhman is the CEO of Unreel Entertainment, an OTT app provider that creates branded video apps for networks and businesses. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

08 декабря, 16:30

Трансляция пресс-конференции главы ЕЦБ Марио Драги

Трансляция пресс-конференции главы ЕЦБ Марио Драги

08 декабря, 15:50

ROGER SIMON: The Stock Market vs. The Media: Who Do You Trust? Today, as the Dow approaches 20,…

ROGER SIMON: The Stock Market vs. The Media: Who Do You Trust? Today, as the Dow approaches 20,000, the Washington Post is moaning about the president-elect’s choosing too many generals for important positions, as if all military minds automatically think alike. The Post certainly wouldn’t say that about, say, Muslims. Nor would anybody who’d actually […]

08 декабря, 07:33

Американский бизнес перешел на сторону Трампа

Известные американские бизнесмены сменили настроение и теперь решили взять курс Дональда Трампа, группа влиятельных финансовых фигур намерены существенно оказать поддержку избранному президенту США.

08 декабря, 07:33

Американский бизнес перешел на сторону Трампа

Известные американские бизнесмены сменили настроение и теперь решили взять курс Дональда Трампа. Группа влиятельных финансовых фигур намерена оказать существенную поддержку избранному президенту США.

Выбор редакции
08 декабря, 00:34

Trump starts churning out Cabinet picks

The president-elect is picking up the pace of his appointments, even as he takes time out to revel in his win.

07 декабря, 23:15

Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins: An Idiot Or A Liar, You Decide...

Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com, So today on CNBC Cisco CEO, Chuck Robbins explained that if they were to repatriate their offshore cash back to the US he would use the money to reward shareholders through buybacks and dividends and then do some M&A.  He claims cash distribution to shareholders in lieu of actual economic-stimulating investments creates jobs by way of mutual funds, which make the soon to be out of work Americans from his M&A activity feel good about their income…. I mean where does one even begin picking apart this absurdity of logic??  It probably is not even worthy of a detailed response.  But I wanted to note, on record, that these are the type of moronic and asinine thought processes coming out of corporate America that are killing the American middle class and will destroy even most on top unless the bottom 80% are handed a stipend to go out and buy products produced by corporations.  If Chuck truly believes what he says, well he is an idiot.  If he has even a shred of economic acumen then he is a liar.  I’ll leave it to you to decide. But before you decide let me show you a few charts.  First chart below depicts real total wages and salaries (i.e. labor income) as a multiple of real corporate dividends paid.  You will notice the multiple peaks at 24x in 1975, averages 20x from1950 through 1990 and bottoms today at 8x. But remember cash distributions don’t just reallocate capital from labor income they also reallocate away from domestic private investment.  So let’s take a look at the multiple of domestic private business investment to corporate dividends as well. Clearly we see a pattern of forsaking economically stimulative investments for cash payouts of which 85% get reinvested into secondary financial markets that have zero economic stimulative effect i.e. never hit a corporate balance sheet or income statement. Now Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins suggests that this phenomenon of shifting capex and labor income to dividends is actually a positive thing for the economy.  So let’s have a look.  The next chart depicts a 5 year moving average of per capita real GDP growth over the same period. What we find is that average real economic growth per capita (this is an important measure of individual prosperity) has fallen by more than 50% over the same time period. Over the past 6 months I have provided a library of research proving that reallocating capital from domestic private investment and labor income in favor of cash distributions has not only resulted in massive deterioration of economic growth but has necessarily relied on private and public debt to fund the deteriorating growth that remains.  I’ve had several prominent PhD experts call me names but I’ve had none of them challenge my research and argument.  I challenge any and all economists to attack my assertion that this secular trend of reallocating capex and labor income to profit (which is the most economically inefficient use of capital) is destroying the long term US economy.  I’m sincerely looking to receive the strongest arguments as this only helps us at the Institute for Sensible Economics refine our research.

07 декабря, 21:09

Starbucks News: $10 Coffee, Its Next Five Years, Princi is a Go

As Starbucks lays out its goals for the next five years, it also announced additions to its Reserve & Roastery locations.

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 19:00

Speaker Ryan on Squawk Box: Obamacare "Is Getting Much Worse"

This morning, Speaker Ryan joined CNBC’s Squawk Box to discuss how a unified Republican government will tackle issues ranging from tax reform to repealing and replacing Obamacare. Below are excerpts from their conversation: Obamacare Is Failing“This law is getting much worse. It is what actuaries say is entering a death spiral—high, high premium increases, high deductibles, no choices. So we have to fix this problem. . . . This law is just failing very, very quickly. We’ve got to replace this law. And we will have a transition period so that we don’t pull the rug out from people.” A More Competitive Tax Code“The plan that we wrote is revenue neutral. We now take into account economic effects of tax changes—they call it dynamic scoring, I call it reality-based scoring—and we will use that so that we make sure that we maximize the economic growth potential. The last thing we want to do is not write tax reform where we’re not thinking about how to maximize growth. So our tax reform is going to be focused on maximizing growth and competitiveness of American businesses, and we will do that in a way where we will make it revenue neutral. That means you have to plug loopholes—tax expenditures—so you can lower rates. And so it’s really going to come down to as to how low we can get [the corporate tax] rate. We believe we can do it at 20 percent right now. If we can squeeze the numbers and plug more loopholes and get us to 15 percent—great. The lower the better as far as I’m concerned.” We’re Going to Hit the Ground Running“We spent all of 2016 getting ready for the possible opportunity of having a unified government in 2017. The House went through the entire exercise—every committee working, every member of the House Republican conference working. . . . We’ve been working on our tax-reform legislation for over a year. We’ve been working on our welfare-reform legislation, on our health care legislation, on our regulatory agenda, on our energy policy. So it’s not just talking points and pablum. Our committees—what I told our committees a year ago, our members is: Assume we get the White House and Congress. And then, come 2018, what do you want to have accomplished for the country to get this country back on the right track. What does that look like? Plan now. This is your plan. So for the next year—this is 2016, back at the end of 2015—do everything you need to do to get ready to do that. So this is exactly what Congress and the House have been working on for the last year—getting everything ready to basically rock and roll in 2017 and get working."

07 декабря, 18:28

Ryan: Trump should handle conflicts ‘however he wants to'

House Speaker Paul Ryan is unbothered by President-elect Donald Trump’s business conflicts.The Wisconsin Republican has no qualms about Trump’s potential conflicts of interest with Trump’s vast business empire, advising him to handle them “however he wants to.”“This is not what I’m concerned about in Congress,” Ryan said Wednesday during an interview on CNBC. “I have every bit of confidence he’s going to get himself right with moving from being the business guy that he is to the president he’s going to become.” Ryan praised Trump for “basically saying let’s just go unify this party, unify this country, get things done.”“That’s exactly what I think people want to see,” he said. “What we’re seeing is what everybody was hoping to see, which is this is gonna be a business guy who becomes president who’s just gonna focus on getting the job done and fixing this country’s big problems. I’m excited.”That business guy, however, has a multi-billion-dollar empire that could present numerous conflicts of interest as president. Trump has said he will leave his business to his adult children in a so-called “blind trust.” But his children have served as close advisers to the president-elect and his campaign, sitting in on meetings and calls with foreign leaders and holding formal roles on Trump’s transition into the White House. By no definition would Trump’s children taking over his business empire constitute a blind trust.But Ryan said his focus is on passing a conservative agenda that tackles the country’s big problems and turns it around. “That is what I’m focused on,” he said, “and not the legal details of how he divorces himself from his business, which I know he will.”For his part, Trump said Wednesday morning during a telephone interview on NBC’s “Today” that he sold all of his stock holdings in June “because I felt that I was very much going to be winning, and I think I would have a tremendous — a really conflict of interest owning all of these different companies.”Trump claimed he “let everybody know at the time” and argued that it would be inappropriate for him to own stocks when he’s making deals for the country that could help one company but adversely impact another.“So I just felt it was a conflict,” Trump said.The president-elect hasn’t held a news conference since July but announced late last month that he would hold a mid-December news conference “to discuss the fact that I will be leaving my great business in total in order to fully focus on running the country in order to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”“While I am not mandated to do this under the law, I feel it is visually important, as President, to in no way have a conflict of interest with my various businesses,” he wrote in a series of tweets. “Hence, legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations. The Presidency is a far more important task!”

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 18:18

Pandora looking at bidders beyond Sirius XM - CNBC

Dec 7 (Reuters) - Internet radio provider Pandora Media Inc is looking at potential acquirers beyond satellite radio company Sirius XM Holdings Inc, CNBC reported, citing sources.

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 16:22

Apple (AAPL) Faces a Setback as SCOTUS Favors Samsung?

Things did not go Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) way as the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of its rival, Samsung Electronics, in a design infringement lawsuit that has been going on for quite some time now.

07 декабря, 09:50

Дадли: ставка ФРС будет скоро повышена

Аргументы в пользу повышения процентной ставки стали более убедительными для ФРС. Такое заявление сделал президент Федерального резервного банка (ФРБ) Нью-Йорка Уильям Дадли.

12 октября 2015, 23:05

ФРС может опустить ставки ниже 0% при новом кризисе

В руководстве Федеральной резервной системы рассматривают возможность использования отрицательных процентных ставок, в случае если американская экономика вновь столкнется с серьезным кризисом.

03 сентября 2015, 17:12

Роберт Шиллер: «справедливая» стоимость S&P 500 составляет 1300 пунктов

«Сейчас очень опасное время», - отметил в интервью CNBC нобелевский лауреат Роберт Шиллер. – «Типичное соотношение P/E (прим. ProFinance.ru: цена акции/доход на акцию), на которое обычно смотрит большинство инвесторов, на самом деле вводит в заблуждение. В то же время соотношение CAPE (Cyclically Adjusted Price-Earnings, разработанное господином Шиллером) указывает на «спра… читать далее…