• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1664
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации80
      • Показать ещё
      Люди636
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы543
      • Показать ещё
      Формат7
      Разное673
      • Показать ещё
      Издания85
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели55
      • Показать ещё
17 января, 17:52

CoreSite's LA Data Center Campus Picked as Access Point

CoreSite Realty Corporation's (COR) Los Angeles Data Center Campus is much in demand. It has been recently selected by the SEA-US Trans-Pacific Cable System for its North American access point.

16 января, 22:32

Williamson on Rogoff's Case Against Cash, by David Henderson

St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank Vice-President and economist Stephen D. Williamson has written a critical review of Kenneth Rogoff's The Curse of Cash. I use the word "critical" in the sense we academics use it: a balanced critique that looks at pluses and minuses. I haven't read Rogoff's book yet, although I did edit an Econlib article, "In Defense of Cash," by Pierre Lemieux, who did read Rogoff's book thoroughly. While Williamson's piece is balanced, I want to focus on one area in which he too easily accepts Rogoff's thinking about crime and another area in which, if I understand him correctly, Williamson seems to make a basic error in economic reasoning. Crime Williamson writes: Why is cash a "curse?" As Rogoff explains, one of currency's advantages for the user is privacy. But people who want privacy include those who distribute illegal drugs, evade taxation, bribe government officials, and promote terrorism, among other nefarious activities. Currency - and particularly currency in large denominations - is thus an aid to criminals. Indeed, as Rogoff points out, the quantity of U.S. currency in existence is currently about $4,200 per U.S. resident. But Greene et al. (2016) find in surveys that the typical law-abiding consumer holds $207 in cash, on average. This, and the fact that about 80% of the value of U.S. currency outstanding is in $100 notes, suggest that the majority of cash in the U.S. is not used for anything we would characterize as legitimate. Rogoff makes a convincing case that eliminating large-denomination currency would significantly reduce crime, and increase tax revenues. One of the nice features of Rogoff's book is his marshalling of the available evidence to provide ballpark estimates of the effects of the policies he is recommending. The gains from reforming currency issue for the United States appear to be significant - certainly not small potatoes. Let's look at those four activities cited. Using large denomination bills to promote, or, even worse, carry out, terrorism is clearcut bad. So score one for Rogoff and Williamson. How about the other three? What you think of them will depend on how you think about these issues. Consider them in turn. Distributing Illegal Drugs One of the major costs of the drug war, which gets far too little attention, is that it raises the cost of illegal drugs to those who want them. We, including me, often write about the costs to innocent parties whose property is stolen by drug users. But we typically leave out the costs to drug users, including those who don't steal. The drug war has destroyed a huge amount of consumer surplus for drug users. In any legitimate cost/benefit analysis, those losses should count too. I supervised a thesis on this in 2002: Marvin H. McGuire and Steven M. Carroll, "The economics of the drug war : effective federal policy or missed opportunity?" How does this matter for the issue at hand? High-face-value currency, as both Rogoff and Williamson recognize, facilitates illegal drug transactions. Getting rid of that currency makes those transactions more difficult, making the cost to consumers higher. That's their point. So in their view, the consumer surplus loss doesn't count. It should. Bribing Government Officials Making it more difficult to bribe government officials could be good or could be bad. It's probably bad, as Francois Melese argues in "Corruption," in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. In this paragraph, Melese points out both sides of the issue: Some economists argue that paying bribes to the right officials can mitigate the harmful effects of excessive government regulation. If firms had a choice to wade through red tape or pay to circumvent it, paying bribes might actually improve efficiency and spur investment. Although this view is plausible, a pioneering study by Mauro found that corruption "is strongly negatively associated with the investment rate, regardless of the amount of red tape" (Mauro 1995, p. 695). In fact, allowing firms to pay bribes to circumvent regulations encourages public officials to create new opportunities for bribery. My point here is that one should not just assume that bribing government officials is bad. Evading Taxation Lemieux says it best: Furthermore, some activities that the law currently defines as crimes (in certain countries) may actually provide useful built-in constraints against abuse of power. Tax dodging, for example, limits the voracity of Leviathan and its tax exploitation. It increases the cost to the state of raising taxes and, thus, tends to maintain them at a level more likely to gain the consent of most citizens. Moreover, there's one other area where cash does facilitate crime, but that's good, not bad. Lemieux writes: The same argument applies to the underground economy more generally. It provides a built-in constraint against overregulation. As regulation increases, more people--consumers, entrepreneurs, unfashionable minorities--move to the underground economy. Thus, government cannot regulate past a certain point, and this constraint kicks in more rapidly in a free society. That cash plays a role in making these built-in constraints more effective against abuses of power is a benefit, not a cost. In a free society, one could provide a cogent argument for increasing the face value of the largest-denomination notes. The largest Swiss note, for example, is 1,000 Swiss francs (roughly the same as $1,000 at the September 22, 2016 exchange rate). Because of all these constraints, the cost of fighting crime is certainly higher in a free society. But for the vast majority of individuals, the benefits of freedom are even higher. Liberty is not a bug--it's a feature. Economics of Interest Rates Williamson writes: A typical central banking misconception is that a reduction in the nominal interest rate will increase inflation. But every macroeconomist knows about the Fisher effect, whereby a reduction in the nominal interest rate reduces inflation - in the long run. Here Williamson broke a cardinal rule, one that my co-blogger Scott Sumner loves to cite: "Never reason from a price change." An interest rate is a price of current availability of resources. If you start by reasoning from a price change, you forget to ask why the price changed. And that stricture about the direction of reasoning matters in this case. The correct statement of the Fisher effect is NOT that "a reduction in the nominal interest rate reduces inflation." The correct statement is that a reduction in expected inflation, all other things equal, reduces the interest rate. (16 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
16 января, 19:50

Mustang-Based Rocket Super Muscle Car Added to VLF Lineup

The Galpin Mustang -- the car made famous by The Grand Tour's opening sequence -- is now built by VLF Automotive, the company behind the V8-powered Fisker.

Выбор редакции
16 января, 17:17

A Brief Look into Dodge & Cox Global Stock Fund (DODWX)

Dodge & Cox Global Stock (DODWX) a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) was incepted in May 2008.

16 января, 16:00

ADRIANA COHEN ON THE DEMOCRATS’ ELECTION-DENIAL: Since Donald Trump’s unexpected victory, Democ…

ADRIANA COHEN ON THE DEMOCRATS’ ELECTION-DENIAL: Since Donald Trump’s unexpected victory, Democrats have been trying to delegitimize his historic upset. U.S. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who sent shock waves through the media echo chamber this weekend when he said in an NBC interview, “I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president. I think the […]

16 января, 14:00

The 3 Company Crises Boards Should Watch For

When an organization fails because of executive malfeasance, it generates a lot of attention. But such situations are actually relatively rare. It’s much more common, though less talked about, for organizations to fail because of ungoverned incompetence. That is, someone does the wrong thing while trying to do the right thing, and organizational systems fail to catch it and contain it. This becomes more likely as the organization takes on strategic risk — through innovation, mergers and acquisitions, or because its environment is becoming more volatile. Boards that focus on problem-finding put their organizations on safer footing. Problem-finding boards establish structures and processes that prevent many problems from arising and stifle nascent problems quickly and effectively. Problem-finding boards understand the three drivers of ungoverned incompetence — a collapse of competence, shortcomings in self-governance, and inadequate corporate governance — and why they can be so hard to detect. Collapse of Competence Competence collapses when executives take on problems beyond their capabilities. This is rarely deliberate; people generally wander out of their competence zones without noticing. Their operating environment changes in a way they don’t recognize, or they take on a project that they believe is within their capability but isn’t. For example, I have worked closely with a professional services organization where a domineering, controlling CEO led the organization spectacularly for 20 years. But as the organization grew, its operations became more complex. Rather than managing that complexity by delegating and decentralizing, the CEO became even more controlling. Eventually tension with the staff increased to the point that half the senior professionals left over a six-month period. Another CEO used prodigious management skills to successfully consolidate, grow, and dramatically increase the efficiency of a vertically integrated industrial company. To support a change in strategy from efficiency-driven to innovation-driven growth, the company acquired another company to be its innovation engine. The CEO managed the acquiree the same way that he managed the existing business, instead of adopting a style that recognized the emergent nature of innovation. After three years the company wrote off three times the acquisition cost. To restore its balance sheet, it had to sell half the business. Shortcomings in Self-Governance If someone realizes they are beyond their competence and seeks help, the failure can be mitigated or even averted. But if the person who is out of their depth neglects to seek help — a shortcoming in self-governance — they compound the collapse of competence. I have seen this manifest itself three ways. First, the manager may be completely unaware that they are out of their depth. This is likely what happened at the professional services firm: The CEO’s unconscious need for power may have motivated him to not notice he was imperiling the organization. Second, a manager may see the failure occurring but deny it. This appears to explain events at the industrial company. Finally, the manager may see the problem but believe they can “trade their way” out of it. Rogue traders lose the most money by doubling down on earlier losses. Many unconscious drivers that lead people to act against their rational interest can explain these three types of self-governance shortcomings. They include narcissism, hubris, denial, defensiveness, bounded rationality, risk biases, stress, exhaustion, and the fact that persisting without help feeds the need for power and achievement. Inadequate Corporate Governance A third problem is when essential information that highlights the possibility of failure does not flow from the CEO to the board, or from the supervisee to the boss. At the corporate level, the CEO almost invariably controls the board agenda. Of course, the CEO and the chair (or lead director) sit down amicably and select the items for each board meeting. However, the chair is at the mercy of the CEO to know what is really going on in the organization. This certainly happened at the professional services organization, where the CEO ensured that virtually all communication between staff and the board went through him, and senior professionals knew that they would be excoriated for indicating disquiet about the CEO to the board. At a managerial level, corporate cultures, impression management, and bosses dodging accountability can all lead to a climate in which supervisees learn to report only the good news. In some cases the information may be flowing but the board may lack the skill to interpret it. It may be investing in a product it doesn’t understand, which happened at Lehman Brothers during the global financial crisis. At the professional services organization one of the underlying problems was that the board didn’t really understand the business; my conversations with corporate directors suggest this is a problem across industries. The board abrogates any responsibility for really understanding the business by claiming they should defer to management. Managers, after all, have more time, more skill, and a better understanding of the business. In all these cases the board may well have identified these problems much earlier and taken remediating steps if it had been a problem-finding board. For an example of what this looks like, consider NYSE-listed Infosys, one of the main drivers of the rise of India as an IT powerhouse. There are two aspects to the problem-finding corporate governance system its board has put in place. The first is the convergent aspect. Through a slew of practices, offices, procedures, and incentives, the governance system systematically detects and remediates the problems the organization can anticipate. The board’s eyes and ears throughout the corporation — principally line management, but assisted by the internal audit, risk, quality, finance, and strategy groups — enact a system designed to surface predictable problems as quickly as possible and deal with them as locally as possible. The second is the divergent aspect. Here the organization seeks out problems that it has not predicted. This part of the work cannot rely on line management at all because of the barriers described above. Consequently, the finance group, the risk organization, and the nonexecutive directors do most of this work. The finance group scrutinizes capital requests. The risk organization systematically and continuously reviews risk in all aspects of the organization and its competitive environment, except where it may upset the dynamics between the line and staff organizations. In those situations, the nonexecutive directors, often working in consort with the risk organization, do the problem-finding. Abstracting from the Infosys case and drawing on my experience working with boards, here are some practices that facilitate problem-finding corporate governance: Have an explicit negotiated agreement about the relationship between the board and management. The arrangement must allow the board and staff to do problem-finding work while not cutting across the turf of line management. For instance, at Infosys board work inside the organization and work by staff groups was governed by a rule: “noses in, fingers out.” While the board and staff may have found problems, line management was responsible for designing and implementing the solution. Design the processes by which the board does its regular work — strategy development and approval, capital approvals, performance reviews, etc. — to embed problem-finding. This requires more than asking “tough” questions at the board meeting that managers can anticipate. Adopt a problem-finding mindset. Think about parts of the organization that may be generating problems. Make explicit your theory about how that part of the organization works. Test the theory. Welcome news of risk; encourage early warning. Understand that most problem-finding will happen outside the board room, and involve employees several levels below the executive team. Board members cannot expect to infer all the problems while sitting in the boardroom and cannot expect staff members to find them all. Problem-finding boards need some members (but not necessarily all) who spend time working closely with employees to find out how things really work. Embed as much of the convergent problem-finding activity as possible into the performance measurement system for line managers and delegate the rest to staff groups. Problems will only be found reliably if the board mindfully ensures that these systems are designed to find problems and makes sure they are delivering. Beware of biases and blind spots that result from becoming too steeped in the culture of the organization. Question the norms and assumptions that drive people’s behavior. Boards that enunciate the likely hidden assumptions underpinning the business’s culture are less likely to fall into a collusive blindness that inhibits their problem-finding. Acknowledge the limitations in problem-finding and look for ways to mitigate them. Develop internal learning and reflection systems. These could be framed in terms of developing and enhancing capabilities in risk investigation, exploration, and analysis. As strategic risk increases, so do the chances of failure because of ungoverned incompetence. Most of these failures are minor — generally, projects that are quietly written off. Occasionally a major disaster strikes, causing a corporate catastrophe. Corporate governance systems that assume failure is driven by malfeasance will often miss these failures, at least until they become unambiguous. To catch them early, boards need to put in place governance systems that are intrinsically problem-finding.

Выбор редакции
16 января, 10:30

Premier League: 10 talking points from the weekend’s action

Manchester City resemble the girl with a curl in the middle of her forehead, N’Golo Kanté’s return to Leicester shows Wilfred Ndidi what needs to be done and David Moyes regrets catching the bullet dodged by Mark HughesThis time last year Southampton paid £4m to sign Charlie Austin from Queens Park Rangers. It was a while before he made an impact, but he certainly made an impact during the early part of this season, scoring nine goals in 19 games. But Southampton’s form has tailed off since Austin suffered a shoulder injury last month. They have lacked a cutting edge and have won only three of their past nine games in all competitions, sinking into the bottom half of the league in the process. Shane Long has rarely been prolific, Jay Rodriguez is still regaining his sharpness after his injury problems and Nathan Redmond is maturing. While Claude Puel’s side dominated for long spells against Burnley, a shortage of ruthlessness left them vulnerable and Joey Barton scored a late winner for the hosts. The outcome might have been different had Austin been available, but he is likely to be out until March. They may have to buy again. Jacob Steinberg Continue reading...

16 января, 03:31

Donald Trump Says Refugee Crisis And Threats To UK Identity Drove Brexit

In a wide-ranging interview with the Times of London on Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump said he believes the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union “is going to end up being a great thing” and argued that threats to British identity were a main reason the UK voted to leave the union. “People, countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity,” Trump told the paper.  Trump also cited the migration crisis as a primary cause for Britain backing Leave in the June referendum. “I believe others will leave,” he added. “People don’t want to have other people coming in and destroying their country.” Some pro-Brexit politicians, such as Trump ally and former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, played to nationalist sentiment and fears over the refugee crisis in their campaign to leave the EU. In the lead-up to the vote, Farage drew widespread condemnation across party lines for unveiling a poster showing a long line of migrants and refugees, with the implication that the UK couldn’t control its borders. The UK actually resettled a very small number of refugees in the migrant crisis compared with other European nations. Even before voting for Brexit, the UK also had the power to opt out of EU asylum policy and refugee resettlement plans. On Friday, President Barack Obama’s envoy to the EU Anthony Gardner said that he believed Farage had misled Trump and his transition team on EU politics. Gardner said encouraging Brexit and the breakup of the EU would be “folly” and hurt American interests. The interview with the Times of London took place at Trump Tower, where Trump spoke with UK Conservative Party politician Michael Gove ― who himself campaigned for Brexit and made a failed bid to become British prime minister following the referendum. In other parts of the interview, Trump criticized German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s asylum policy, claimed he was open to negotiating with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce nuclear arms and described Russia’s intervention into Syria as “a very bad thing.” Trump also promised to pursue a trade deal with the UK once in office, according to the Times of London. In footage from the interview, however, Trump appears to dodge a question from Gove asking if Britain is “at the front of the queue” in terms of trade talks. Trump responds by saying, “I think you are doing great,” in an apparent reference to the UK. Trump initially came out in support for Britain leaving the EU in May, when polls indicated that Britons would vote to stay in the economic bloc. During his campaign, Trump said people would call him “Mr. Brexit” for his ability to defy polling that indicated he would handily lose the U.S. election.  The UK has been mired in a period of political and economic instability after the Brexit referendum, as its government attempts to formulate a plan for how to exit the EU. The British Pound has plummeted since the vote, losing almost 20 percent of its pre-Brexit value against the U.S. dollar.  -- 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.

14 января, 20:30

Zoe Saldana Thinks Hollywood 'Bullies' Won Trump The White House

Zoe Saldana found herself in hot water on Saturday after claiming Hollywood’s “bullying” tactics emboldened the electorate into voting for Donald Trump. “We got cocky and became arrogant and we also became bullies,” Saldana said in an interview with AFP of Trump ― who has been repeatedly accused of bullying reporters, political opponents, minority groups, not to mention dodging allegations of sexual assault throughout his campaign.  “We were trying to single out a man for all these things he was doing wrong,” she continued, “and that created empathy in a big group of people in America that felt bad for him and that are believing in his promises.” Saldana has gone on the record as a supporter of Trump’s Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, and she has previously been vocal about her distaste for the president-elect’s proposed policies, especially when it comes to immigration. In February, she co-signed a letter with actress America Ferrara and other Latinos in Hollywood to stand up against Trump’s “anti-immigrant fear-mongering.” Months before the election, she also endorsed a letter signed by the “Star Trek” cast that described him as “an amateur with a contemptuous ignorance of national laws and international realities.” “I’m learning from [Trump’s victory] with a lot of humility,” Saldana said. “If we have people continue to be strong and educate ourselves and stand by equal rights and treat everyone with respect, we won’t go back to those times.” Her comments come after a week of high-profile actresses addressing Trump publicly. At the 74th Annual Golden Globes on Sunday, Meryl Streep delivered an impassioned speech about how we all must help “safeguard the truth” and challenge Trump’s attack on the press, foreigners and the entertainment industry. Days later, Nicole Kidman caused some controversy by declaring that it’s time all Americans “support” the future president now that he’s been elected.  Watch Saldana respond to Streep’s speech in the video below:  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); -- 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.

14 января, 16:02

Democrats plot their D.C. departures for Trump inauguration

Many Democrats are in no mood to see the swearing in of a man they consider a unique threat to the nation.

13 января, 21:39

Examining Volkswagen and Fiat Chrysler's Emissions Cheating Scandals

On today's episode of the Zacks Friday Finish Line podcast, Content Writer Ryan McQueeney and Editor Maddy Johnson take on this week's biggest story: the resolution of Volkswagen's emission cheating scandal and the start of something similar involving Fiat Chrysler.

13 января, 17:16

WTF Kind of Press Conference Was THAT!?

Donald Trump had not held a press conference since July 27, 2016. So it was with great anticipation and expectation that the not-my-President-Elect took to the podium Wednesday in Manhattan's Trump Tower lobby to finally answer reporters' questions pertaining to his business conflicts, tax returns, the economy, Obamacare, Russian hacks and Kompromat. We can add that last one to Kleptocracy and Emoluments as big new words we now have to know thanks to Trump. Yes, there was Trump, his top advisors, the media, a mike, chairs and TV crews. But it was nothing like a traditional press conference. In fact, it was perhaps the most bizarre, chaotic, hostile presser in United States history. It was more like an end-of-term slugfest between a frustrated media and an exhausted, combative, unpopular president than the start of a new administration. If this is what a honeymoon looks like, no one should ever get married. A few highlights: -It was more like a bad concert with even worse opening acts. Before he spoke, Trump summoned his henchmen to grease the wheels and neuter his anxious audience. Incoming press secretary Sean Spicer issued antagonist denials of UrineGate (the latest alleged salacious Trump scandal) and a verbal thrashing to reporters. Vice president-elect Mike Pence stroked Trump's gargantuan ego by extolling the boss's virtues while citing the media's moral bankruptcy. -Trump articulated his positions with the grammatical deft of an attention and praise-starved 10-year-old. Everything was characterized as either big, beautiful, tremendous, great or amazing yet totally lacking substance (not a new trait for Trump). He predicted reporters would be "very proud" of what he's going to do with Obamacare. Good boy, Donnie! -Trump essentially told the media to 'fuck off.' He accused CNN of being a "fake news" network and denied one of it's reporters, Jim Acosta, the ability to ask a question. The two then got into an unprecedented front-row heated exchange, with Trump dismissing him as "rude." It was pure theater, but chilling nonetheless in terms of a free and open press (or lack thereof). -Trump essentially said, (cue: Alec Baldwin) 'Don't worry, I'm not gonna have anything to do with my various businesses--my genius sons Eric and Don Jr will run them--and we're never gonna talk about them. So we're good now, right?'. And (cue: Penske file) we learned that if ya ever wanna look like you've got an elaborate divestiture plan, just have your attorney speak with a mound of very important-looking documents stacked next to her even though no one will ever get to see what's in them. -Trump essentially said, 'There's no conflict of interest with my DC hotel. No one's gonna bribe me by staying there. But if they do, I'll just give the profits to taxpayers.' If you're waiting for a plan outlining who will monitor these transactions, figure out 'profitability,' be accountable for the process and how transparent this will all be to the public and Congress, don't hold your breath. You may die. -Trump essentially said 'you should thank me for turning down a $2-billion deal from Damac Properties.' But more importantly, he wanted to remind us he still has the unconflicted right to do billion-dollar deals. And probably will. -Trump lied the whole time. Example: he claimed that 96-million people are looking for work. It's actually 5.5-million according to factcheck.org. Or when he claimed he doesn't have any Russian debt, when by most journalistic accounts it's believed he owes upwards of $1-billion, much of it to foreign creditors including those in Russia. But we have no real insight into his debt, or anything else pertaining to his finances, because he won't release his tax returns. And about those returns... -Trump essentially said 'you're never gonna see 'em because no one cares about them except you asshole reporters. And besides, ya know, there's the, um, audit....' -Trump ducked, dodged and diverted every time a reporter managed to get a tough question out. It's back to blaming the media, most of whose asses he royally kissed in his opening remarks...but whom will surely, over time, get Acosta'd (what happens to a reporter when Trump decides to publicly denigrate him/her). -Trump, in refuting UrineGate, provided some moral clarity by sharing how he stresses to his team when traveling that...'it's ok to be sleazebags, just be careful in hotel rooms because there's cameras everywhere.' But most compelling is the 'proof' that Trump didn't have hookers pee all over his Moscow hotel room as alleged because he's a "germaphobe." But if it weren't for those damn germs! -We learned that, according to Trump, being liked by a brutal, murderous dictator like Russia's President Vladimir Putin is an "asset." -We learned that God put Trump on Earth to be it's "greatest jobs producer" ever. Apparently God told him to just focus on America and fuck Mexico. -We learned that after seven years of bashing Obamacare, Trump and Republicans have no idea what to do with it. Repeal and replace now? Repeal and replace later? Repeal and don't replace....and just screw all those angry old white folks who voted for us? Maybe they should text God and see what she thinks? -We learned that Trump's pressers will just be post-election versions of his campaign rallies, with paid staffers in the back cheering when he berates reporters. -We learned that for the next four years, in this newly defined 'post-truth' era, the definition of "fake news" will be any news that's negative, regardless if it's true. -Most important, we learned that there's only one Trump. There's no pivot Trump. No presidential Trump. Just the same old empty-suited bombastic bully oligarch who clearly doesn't give a shit what anyone, especially the media, thinks. -- 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
13 января, 11:33

"Дизельгейт" накрыл концерн Fiat Chrysler вслед за Volkswagen

Американское Агентство по защите окружающей среды (EPA) уведомило итало-американский концерн Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) о начале расследования в его отношении. Инспекторы агентства выявили преднамеренное занижение выхлопов оксида серы в дизельных моторах концерна FCA, сообщает агентство Bloomberg. Американским инспекторам удалось выяснить, что компания устанавливала на свои автомобили специальное программное обеспечение, которое помогало занизить вредные выхлопы моторов при проведении стендовых испытаний по экологическому классу. Всего выявлено около 104 тыс. автомобилей Fiat Chrysler Automobiles с шпионским программным обеспечением, в частности пикапы Dodge Ram и внедорожники Jeep Grand Cherokee 2014–2016 годов выпуска с трёхлитровым дизельным агрегатом. Результатом опубликованного иска стало 18%-ное падение акций Fiat Chrysler, после чего торги этих бумаг были остановлены.

Выбор редакции
13 января, 06:00

Компания Dodge готовит "Демона" (фото)

Dodge Challenger SRT Demon задуман и спроектирован для энтузиастов, которые знают цену времени.

13 января, 01:09

New Developing Nations Leader Has Big Plans To Crack Down On Global Tax Dodging

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 ― Eight months after the Panama Papers shed new light on the scale of tax avoidance by the global elite, Ecuador plans to make cracking down on tax havens the centerpiece of its leadership of the G-77 bloc of developing countries at the United Nations. Ecuador formally assumes leadership of the influential group on Friday, and one of its top priorities will be the creation of an international body to combat the practice of hiding wealth in countries with low taxes and secretive financial laws. Tax dodging “is one of the great scourges of the 21st century and we need to put an end to it,” Guillaume Long, Ecuador’s minister of foreign affairs and human mobility, told The Huffington Post on Thursday. In an attempt to put its proverbial money where its mouth is, Ecuador is pairing its international initiative with a domestic referendum on whether it should be illegal for any elected official or civil servant to have financial assets in tax havens. A vote on the measure will coincide with the country’s general elections on Feb. 19. Like many other developing countries, Ecuador has a strong stake in reining in tax-dodging schemes since they remain a widespread practice among its own elite class. Cash equal to some 30 percent of Ecuador’s economy escapes the country every year for overseas shell companies, secret bank accounts and other tax shelters, Long estimated. That level of avoidance is a “huge irony,” he said, in light of the cash remittances that flow in from the far-less-privileged segment of Ecuadoreans working abroad. Those transfers totaled more than $2.4 billion in 2015. “Those are basically people from the poorest sectors of society … and that bolsters the Ecuadorean economy, and you have elites, who haven’t migrated because they haven’t had any necessity, who actually take money physically out of the economy and send it away,” Long said. Under the left-wing government of President Rafael Correa, poverty and inequality in Ecuador have dropped dramatically. But much of that gain is dependent on the funding of ambitious social programs. Tax avoidance threatens to undermine that progress ― particularly when the economy slows down, as it did in 2015. Globally, the use of tax havens deprives impoverished nations of $170 billion in tax revenue annually, according to the anti-poverty group Oxfam International. An “intergovernmental United Nations body that fights for tax justice” would provide countries with a forum to challenge the policies of other countries that function as tax havens, Long suggested. He pointed to the way nations can challenge one another’s trade practices at the World Trade Organization, arguing there is no reason that a similar body should not exist to monitor fiscal policies. Such an institution could also be empowered to intervene, Long said, “when it sees there is a kind of race to the bottom between two neighboring states ― one lowering its taxes, the other lowering its taxes ... in order to be able to kind of pull money from each other.” At a July 2015 U.N. conference on financing and development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the G-77 failed in its efforts to win support for such a global tax body. But Long expressed confidence that the Panama Papers, which revealed the offshore holdings of 140 public officials around the world and resulted in the ouster of Iceland’s prime minister, have changed the politics of the issue. “This year, because of the scandal, because of the Panama Papers, there is a new historic conjuncture that we can use in order to bring this topic forward,” Long said. “The time is ripe,” he added. The prospects for a global tax body may still remain rather dim. The economies of many U.N. member-nations depend on their status as tax havens, and they would likely fight such a proposal vehemently. Eric LeCompte, executive director of the faith-based anti-poverty organization Jubilee USA and moderator of a Thursday panel on tax havens for which Long delivered the opening remarks, nonetheless lauded Ecuador’s leadership on this issue. “It is clear to me that the government of Ecuador has looked at how tax and trade issues impact vulnerable communities in their country,” LeCompte said earlier this week. Short of a global body to combat tax havens, a coordinated push to reduce tax avoidance could involve providing greater resources to developing nations to monitor exports, LeCompte argued. Commercial goods that get past customs officials represent a major source of lost tax revenue, he noted. -- 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.

13 января, 01:09

New Developing Nations Leader Has Big Plans To Crack Down On Global Tax Dodging

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 ― Eight months after the Panama Papers shed new light on the scale of tax avoidance by the global elite, Ecuador plans to make cracking down on tax havens the centerpiece of its leadership of the G-77 bloc of developing countries at the United Nations. Ecuador formally assumes leadership of the influential group on Friday, and one of its top priorities will be the creation of an international body to combat the practice of hiding wealth in countries with low taxes and secretive financial laws. Tax dodging “is one of the great scourges of the 21st century and we need to put an end to it,” Guillaume Long, Ecuador’s minister of foreign affairs and human mobility, told The Huffington Post on Thursday. In an attempt to put its proverbial money where its mouth is, Ecuador is pairing its international initiative with a domestic referendum on whether it should be illegal for any elected official or civil servant to have financial assets in tax havens. A vote on the measure will coincide with the country’s general elections on Feb. 19. Like many other developing countries, Ecuador has a strong stake in reining in tax-dodging schemes since they remain a widespread practice among its own elite class. Cash equal to some 30 percent of Ecuador’s economy escapes the country every year for overseas shell companies, secret bank accounts and other tax shelters, Long estimated. That level of avoidance is a “huge irony,” he said, in light of the cash remittances that flow in from the far-less-privileged segment of Ecuadoreans working abroad. Those transfers totaled more than $2.4 billion in 2015. “Those are basically people from the poorest sectors of society … and that bolsters the Ecuadorean economy, and you have elites, who haven’t migrated because they haven’t had any necessity, who actually take money physically out of the economy and send it away,” Long said. Under the left-wing government of President Rafael Correa, poverty and inequality in Ecuador have dropped dramatically. But much of that gain is dependent on the funding of ambitious social programs. Tax avoidance threatens to undermine that progress ― particularly when the economy slows down, as it did in 2015. Globally, the use of tax havens deprives impoverished nations of $170 billion in tax revenue annually, according to the anti-poverty group Oxfam International. An “intergovernmental United Nations body that fights for tax justice” would provide countries with a forum to challenge the policies of other countries that function as tax havens, Long suggested. He pointed to the way nations can challenge one another’s trade practices at the World Trade Organization, arguing there is no reason that a similar body should not exist to monitor fiscal policies. Such an institution could also be empowered to intervene, Long said, “when it sees there is a kind of race to the bottom between two neighboring states ― one lowering its taxes, the other lowering its taxes ... in order to be able to kind of pull money from each other.” At a July 2015 U.N. conference on financing and development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the G-77 failed in its efforts to win support for such a global tax body. But Long expressed confidence that the Panama Papers, which revealed the offshore holdings of 140 public officials around the world and resulted in the ouster of Iceland’s prime minister, have changed the politics of the issue. “This year, because of the scandal, because of the Panama Papers, there is a new historic conjuncture that we can use in order to bring this topic forward,” Long said. “The time is ripe,” he added. The prospects for a global tax body may still remain rather dim. The economies of many U.N. member-nations depend on their status as tax havens, and they would likely fight such a proposal vehemently. Eric LeCompte, executive director of the faith-based anti-poverty organization Jubilee USA and moderator of a Thursday panel on tax havens for which Long delivered the opening remarks, nonetheless lauded Ecuador’s leadership on this issue. “It is clear to me that the government of Ecuador has looked at how tax and trade issues impact vulnerable communities in their country,” LeCompte said earlier this week. Short of a global body to combat tax havens, a coordinated push to reduce tax avoidance could involve providing greater resources to developing nations to monitor exports, LeCompte argued. Commercial goods that get past customs officials represent a major source of lost tax revenue, he noted. -- 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
12 января, 23:58

США обвинили Fiat Chrysler в махинациях с выхлопами

Агентство по охране окружающей среды США выдвинуло обвинения против концерна Fiat Chrysler Automobiles в нарушении экологических норм и использовании оборудования для занижения показателей выброса загрязняющих веществ.

Выбор редакции
12 января, 23:58

США обвинили Fiat Chrysler в махинациях с выхлопами

Агентство по охране окружающей среды США выдвинуло обвинения против концерна Fiat Chrysler Automobiles в нарушении экологических норм и использовании оборудования для занижения показателей выброса загрязняющих веществ.

12 января, 23:15

Tillerson to pass Senate without Russian policy commitment, says analyst

During the confirmation hearing on Jan. 11 for the U.S. Secretary of State, members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee pressed Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, about how he will deal with Russia if confirmed. Tillerson remained noncommittal, often replying monosyllabically to provocative questions from Committee members. "We must […] be clear-eyed about our relationship with Russia," said Tillerson in his opening statement to Committee members. ``Russia today poses a danger, but it is not unpredictable in advancing its own interests." "One of Tillerson’s objectives at the hearing was to pass the committee’s vote with minimal policy promises," Olga Rebro, a New York-based analyst at the Foreign Policy Advisory Group think tank, told RBTH. ``Regarding policy towards Russia it means pleasing hawks with harsh comments, while dodging their calls for tougher sanctions in response to Russia’s alleged meddling in the U.S. elections and perceived crimes against humanity." Was Trump lured into a Russian ‘honey trap’'? Despite Tillerson's apparent firm stance during the testimony, his statements conveyed an impression that he understands the logic that drives Russia, and he remains open to the prospect of resuming talks with the Kremlin on areas of mutual interest. "I have found the Russians to be very strategic in their thinking. Very tactical. And they generally have a very clear plan before them," said Tillerson. Tillerson’s refusal to attack President Putin during the testimony and his claim to understand Russia’s interests may indicate a willingness of the Trump administration to attempt a dialogue with Russia. "On the positive side, Tillerson diverged from the hawks’ narrative of blind demonization," said Rebro. "``This is a hopeful sign of a possible constructive dialogue, which, however, should not be confused with friendly relations." Benevolent hardliner A large part of the hearings focused on questions related to Russia and President Putin. "Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal," asked Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) after he concluded a heated monologue outlining a stream of accusations against Russia and Putin. "I would not use that term," Tillerson answered. Tillerson says U.S. needs 'open and frank dialogue with Russia' Rubio, seemingly unimpressed by Tillerson’s laconic reply, pressed further reiterating the accusations and asking whether Tillerson would now adjust his view. “Those are very, very serious charges to make, and I want to have much more information,” Tillerson replied, visibly unimpressed with the persistent focus of the hearing on Russia. Tillerson, however, made it clear he would have preferred a hard-line response to some recent Russian actions, which he thinks undermined both American interests and the credibility of Washington’s warnings. “What the Russian leadership would have understood is a powerful response. Yes, you took Crimea, but this stops right here,” said Tillerson, who called Obama's response to the Ukraine crisis ``weak" and argued that he would have advocated a more substantial supply of U.S. weapons and intelligence to Kiev. Tillerson’s tougher rhetoric on this issue appeared to satisfy Committee members as the questioning moved to other topics such as climate change and Tillerson’s future relations with Exxon Mobil’s corporate leadership.

Выбор редакции
12 января, 21:51

FCA был обвинен в фальсификациях данных об автомобильных выбросах

Автоконцерн Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) был обвинен в установке на ряд своих автомобилей программного обеспечения, которое позволяет обходить контроль за выбросами. С обвинением в адрес концерна выступило Агентство по охране окружающей среды США (EPA).