• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1879
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы322
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации81
      • Показать ещё
      Разное697
      • Показать ещё
      Люди229
      • Показать ещё
      Издания120
      • Показать ещё
      Формат22
      Показатели41
      • Показать ещё
FTC
Федеральная торговая комиссия (англ. Federal Trade Commission, FTC) - независимое агентство правительства США, призванное защищать права потребителей и, в частности, следящее за соблюдением антимонопольного законодательства. ...это компания, обладающая самыми большими полномочиями в области рекламы.
Федеральная торговая комиссия (англ. Federal Trade Commission, FTC) - независимое агентство правительства США, призванное защищать права потребителей и, в частности, следящее за соблюдением антимонопольного законодательства. ...это компания, обладающая самыми большими полномочиями в области рекламы.
Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
Выбор редакции
29 мая, 15:41

Qualcomm (QCOM) to Settle License Dispute with BlackBerry

Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) will settle a licensing dispute with BlackBerry Limited (BBRY) by paying U.S. $940 million, on or before May 31, 2017.

29 мая, 15:04

Sherwin-Williams, Valspar Merger Cleared by FTC & CCB

Sherwin-Williams (SHW) has secured approvals from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Canadian Competition Bureau (CCB) for its proposed acquisition of Valspar.

27 мая, 13:48

Trump aides facing perilous stage of Russia probe

Investigators are ramping up requests for documents, and any failure to preserve records exposes Trump aides to criminal charges down the line.

Выбор редакции
27 мая, 00:06

The BROWSER Act: A Worthy Goal, But There's an Easier Fix to the Net Neutrality Privacy Mess

Although the BROWSER Act is a well-intentioned attempt to clean up the privacy mess left by Net Neutrality, rather than resurrecting a seriously flawed FCC rule, unleashing the FTC is a far better—and easier—way to accomplish the same goal.

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
26 мая, 19:43

Identity thieves used stolen data 9 minutes after it was posted online

When personal data is dumped online, it can take just nine minutes for bad guys to start using it, according to a report from the Federal Trade Commission.

26 мая, 17:05

5 Good Reasons to Walk Out of a Job Interview

You might have thought you should stay in a job interview no matter what, but that's not true. Here's when you should leave right away.

25 мая, 17:28

Dollar Tree (DLTR) Cuts View as Q1 Earnings Miss, Stock Dips

Dollar Tree (DLTR) posted first quarter fiscal 2017 results.

Выбор редакции
25 мая, 16:53

Qualcomm (QCOM) Updates Lawsuit to Counter Attack Apple

Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) recently updated one of its lawsuits providing more evidences that Apple Inc. (AAPL) is interfering with its existing arrangements with the contract manufacturing firms.

25 мая, 04:49

Looks Like Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Watchdog Is Headed For A Court Victory

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 — If the firing of FBI Director James Comey has taught the country anything, it’s that a president has broad constitutional powers to dismiss the head of just about any federal agency he’d like. One independent agency that’s bucking the trend is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, long championed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) before it was created by Congress in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to rein in abusive Wall Street practices. Since President Donald Trump took office, its director, Richard Cordray, has kept doing his job as if Trump didn’t exist. And if the bureau and its defenders get their way, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit may agree that, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, there’s little Trump can do to get rid of him — other than just wait until his five-year term expires in July 2018. The appeals court on Wednesday reconsidered a high-stakes challenge to the consumer watchdog’s constitutional structure, which vests its director with significant enforcement power and largely insulates him from the White House. Under the law, the president may fire the CFPB director only “for cause,” which means Trump can’t just make up a pretext and fire Cordray. Theodore Olson, a high-powered attorney representing PHH Corp., a company targeted by the CFPB that is leading the charge against it, told the court that the agency’s structure is “manifestly unconstitutional.” “This wolf comes as a wolf,” Olson said, quoting from a widely cited dissent by the late Justice Antonin Scalia warning against violating the separation of powers. Last year, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a divided ruling that concluded that the for-cause removal provision of Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional. Days after the election but before Trump was sworn in, the CFPB implored the appeals court to rehear the case — perhaps an acknowledgment that Cordray was now at Trump’s mercy. Maybe not for long. During a hearing Wednesday, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit, the majority Democratic appointees, leaned heavily in favor of the CFPB. There was skepticism from some members of the court that the agency’s single-director setup somehow weakens the presidency and empowers an unaccountable bureaucracy. “What’s the power of the presidency that’s uniquely diminished in this instance?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, who repeatedly pointed to a 1939 Supreme Court precedent that upheld a virtually identical for-cause provision shielding members of the Federal Trade Commission. Under that provision, commission members could only be fired by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That case and another one the Supreme Court decided in 1988 — which upheld an independent counsel statute allowing the Department of Justice to prosecute high-ranking federal officials — were cited in court as though the case against the CFPB and Cordray were open and shut. The independent counsel law “was much more threatening to the president of the United States than the bureau,” said U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel, who added that the D.C. Circuit was bound by these prior precedents and didn’t have much room to go beyond them. “I don’t see where this court gets that flexibility,” Tatel said. This wolf comes as a wolf. Theodore Olson, lawyer challenging constitutionality of the CFPB Other judges likewise appeared to reject the argument that the existence of one person with vast enforcement powers over the financial industry and strong job protections was an affront to the office of the president. (PHH Corp., the company fighting the CFPB in the case, is on the hook for more than $100 million in fines over a mortgage kickback scheme if it loses its appeal.) U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millet noted that the Social Security Administration is led by a single person who oversees 25 percent of the federal budget. That alone doesn’t make the position of the CFPB head “less accountable, less removable, less appointable,” she suggested. Fellow Barack Obama appointee Nina Pillard observed that the CFPB, like other financial regulators that must remain above partisan politics, was set up in an attempt “to avoid cronyism in favor of faithful execution of the laws.” “No two agencies are exactly alike,” said Lawrence DeMille-Wagman, a veteran government lawyer who argued on behalf of the CFPB. He noted, for example, that the chairman of the Federal Reserve, which oversees the entire economy, is not subject to politics and that members of the Fed’s board of governors are also selected based on nonpartisan considerations. Perhaps the biggest booster of nixing the CFPB’s current structure was U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative who wrote the original ruling that found the director usurps authority that belongs to the president. In a moment of candor, Kavanaugh posed a curious scenario: What if “the person that created the consumer protection agency” — a reference to Warren — ran for president on a pro-CFPB platform and won? If the D.C. Circuit were to rule that the law protects Cordray, then when his term is up, Trump would get to appoint his replacement, who would then serve until 2023 — well into President Warren’s first term. Kavanaugh called that a “bizarre situation.” “I look at that reality and say, ‘That’s crazy,’” Kavanaugh said. There’s no telling if the D.C. Circuit will rule before the end of Cordray’s term. But the case is almost certain to land before the Supreme Court. -- 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.

25 мая, 04:49

Looks Like Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Watchdog Is Headed For A Court Victory

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 — If the firing of FBI Director James Comey has taught the country anything, it’s that a president has broad constitutional powers to dismiss the head of just about any federal agency he’d like. One independent agency that’s bucking the trend is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, long championed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) before it was created by Congress in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to rein in abusive Wall Street practices. Since President Donald Trump took office, its director, Richard Cordray, has kept doing his job as if Trump didn’t exist. And if the bureau and its defenders get their way, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit may agree that, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, there’s little Trump can do to get rid of him — other than just wait until his five-year term expires in July 2018. The appeals court on Wednesday reconsidered a high-stakes challenge to the consumer watchdog’s constitutional structure, which vests its director with significant enforcement power and largely insulates him from the White House. Under the law, the president may fire the CFPB director only “for cause,” which means Trump can’t just make up a pretext and fire Cordray. Theodore Olson, a high-powered attorney representing PHH Corp., a company targeted by the CFPB that is leading the charge against it, told the court that the agency’s structure is “manifestly unconstitutional.” “This wolf comes as a wolf,” Olson said, quoting from a widely cited dissent by the late Justice Antonin Scalia warning against violating the separation of powers. Last year, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a divided ruling that concluded that the for-cause removal provision of Dodd-Frank is unconstitutional. Days after the election but before Trump was sworn in, the CFPB implored the appeals court to rehear the case — perhaps an acknowledgment that Cordray was now at Trump’s mercy. Maybe not for long. During a hearing Wednesday, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit, the majority Democratic appointees, leaned heavily in favor of the CFPB. There was skepticism from some members of the court that the agency’s single-director setup somehow weakens the presidency and empowers an unaccountable bureaucracy. “What’s the power of the presidency that’s uniquely diminished in this instance?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith, who repeatedly pointed to a 1939 Supreme Court precedent that upheld a virtually identical for-cause provision shielding members of the Federal Trade Commission. Under that provision, commission members could only be fired by the president for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That case and another one the Supreme Court decided in 1988 — which upheld an independent counsel statute allowing the Department of Justice to prosecute high-ranking federal officials — were cited in court as though the case against the CFPB and Cordray were open and shut. The independent counsel law “was much more threatening to the president of the United States than the bureau,” said U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel, who added that the D.C. Circuit was bound by these prior precedents and didn’t have much room to go beyond them. “I don’t see where this court gets that flexibility,” Tatel said. This wolf comes as a wolf. Theodore Olson, lawyer challenging constitutionality of the CFPB Other judges likewise appeared to reject the argument that the existence of one person with vast enforcement powers over the financial industry and strong job protections was an affront to the office of the president. (PHH Corp., the company fighting the CFPB in the case, is on the hook for more than $100 million in fines over a mortgage kickback scheme if it loses its appeal.) U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millet noted that the Social Security Administration is led by a single person who oversees 25 percent of the federal budget. That alone doesn’t make the position of the CFPB head “less accountable, less removable, less appointable,” she suggested. Fellow Barack Obama appointee Nina Pillard observed that the CFPB, like other financial regulators that must remain above partisan politics, was set up in an attempt “to avoid cronyism in favor of faithful execution of the laws.” “No two agencies are exactly alike,” said Lawrence DeMille-Wagman, a veteran government lawyer who argued on behalf of the CFPB. He noted, for example, that the chairman of the Federal Reserve, which oversees the entire economy, is not subject to politics and that members of the Fed’s board of governors are also selected based on nonpartisan considerations. Perhaps the biggest booster of nixing the CFPB’s current structure was U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative who wrote the original ruling that found the director usurps authority that belongs to the president. In a moment of candor, Kavanaugh posed a curious scenario: What if “the person that created the consumer protection agency” — a reference to Warren — ran for president on a pro-CFPB platform and won? If the D.C. Circuit were to rule that the law protects Cordray, then when his term is up, Trump would get to appoint his replacement, who would then serve until 2023 — well into President Warren’s first term. Kavanaugh called that a “bizarre situation.” “I look at that reality and say, ‘That’s crazy,’” Kavanaugh said. There’s no telling if the D.C. Circuit will rule before the end of Cordray’s term. But the case is almost certain to land before the Supreme Court. -- 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
Выбор редакции
22 мая, 05:03

Timeshare Fraud - the hot new securities fraud

Every now and again we at Elite E Services stumble upon business models in the course of our operation that are sometimes interesting but alarming at the same time - in this case, timeshare fraud.  After having our head held under water by combination of ugly circumstances (tough regulation making business impossible but at the same time losing millions to Forex fraudsters which ironically the regulations failed to stop); we are sensitive on fraud - especially that which does not appear to be on the surface!  And as markets evolve, so do fraud models..  With the conviction of stock lending fraud master and citizen of Boca Raton Florida Jeffrey Spanier, stock lending fraud is on the way out: SAN DIEGO – Jeffrey Spanier, a 51-year-old former owner of Amerifund Capital Finance, LLC located in Boca Raton, Florida, was convicted by a federal jury today for his role in an elaborate stock-loan fraud scheme in which executives and shareholders of publicly traded corporations collectively lost over $100 million when the stock they pledged as collateral for loans was immediately sold in order to fund the loans. Why this is a good example though - this fraud was perpetrated at the highest levels.  Victims of this fraud included the who's who of Wall St., corporate executivies, ultra high net worth individuals, and even Bono ( This may have to be a multi-part series as we uncover this new type of fraud which may be the next big 'securities fraud' as what we are looking at - appears to be unregistered securities.  Let's start with a short history of what a timeshare is and how we got where we are.   Long ago, before the dinosaurs, the Johnson family wanted to share their lake cottage with the Smith family for the summer, and asked them to kick in for the repairs of the old dock.  Or something like that.  And then it became a business - of course starting from the infamous Fort Frauderdale, Florida (during this time Boca Raton was still a swamp, inhabitied only by IBM and some Japanese..) The first timeshare in the United States was started in 1974 by Caribbean International Corporation (CIC), based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It offered what it called a 25-year vacation license rather than ownership. The company owned two other resorts the vacation license holder could alternate their vacation weeks with: one in St. Croix and one in St. Thomas; both in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Virgin Islands properties began their timeshare sales in 1973 with owners Hillie Meyers, Don Saunders, and Arthur Zimand. How we got to where we are today follows the same path of all industries; fuelled by Fed policy of cheap money, an expanding real estate market, retiring rich baby boomers, and all the other favorable demographics.  But what insiders in this industry learned quickly was that, they were really selling the dream.  It was possible to sell the nothing, the artificiality.  "Real" estate is just that - it's real.  Timeshare owners don't really 'own' anything, if you read the agreements - it's a contract to pay, an obligation - in perpetuity.  Every time share contract is different but in no case is there actual ownership of 'real estate' - you may own the 'rights' to a 'membership' but if it cannot be 'sold' then what kind of ownership is that really?  What they learned was that the profit here was all in the sizzle, not in the steak - and if they could enhance the sizzle to be 99% and serve Grade B flank steak, they'd have a winning model to become very rich, which was borderline legal.  While the timeshare industry itself is 'legal' and in some states there are 'regulations' - many of the tactics they use, contracts they offer, are illegal.  Many of the 'salespeople' they hire, have criminal records for financial fraud.  In fact, the FTC currently has hundreds of criminal investigations against timeshare companies, timeshare resale scams, timeshare fraud, and related illegal activities.  Similar to how the Forex fraud we saw had nothing to do with Forex, many of these frauds have nothing to do with timeshares.  People are so desperate to sell their obligations, when a scammer calling from Mexico says he can 'resell' your timeshare (which is practically impossible) hopeful victims wire thousands of dollars to the foreign bank account with little respute.  Doesn't sound like a lot of money for a scam, but - multiplied by the 10 Million timeshare owners out there, this can add up to millions of dollars for the fraudsters. When you 'buy' a timeshare 'contract' it's sort of like a debt, you are obligated to pay and if you die, your children will inherit the payments.  Sounds a lot like a bond!  Yes, these are unregistered securities.  The 'exchange' as they call it, RCI, is an unregistered exchange.  There are issues with the SEC, the CFTC, the states, and possibly even anti-trust issues.  Some of these issues are starting to be talked about in the financial media: Summary Analysts upgrading HGV are not considering the 'dark side' of this industry. Potential liabilities can spring up anytime that can change this tune. Angry customers complain, which can soon become lawsuits, with deleterious consequences. About half of the big timeshare companies are public companies, so here's where the biggest issues lie.  Because public companies are required to follow rules such as disclosure rules that don't apply to private companies.  So this may be where we see the first complaints. Really what it comes down to, is a broken model.  Not all timeshares are frauds - but in an inflationary environment, is such a model - fraud removed - profitable anymore?  It's like the Series 7 stockbroker, who used to charge a percent of the trade - now anyone can place their own trade for $9.99 or less whilst sitting in their bathrobe petting their cat.  The timeshare model is a broken bricks and mortar model from the past, it's dead like the shopping mall is dead, just like Amazon is killing retail stores, new upstarts that remain to be seen (still do not exist) will cannabalize this rotten model.  In the meantime, there's a lot to be decided in court. Even according to industry 'official' statistics, about 17% of timeshare owners are not happy.  Although Diamond is now private and bigger companies have 'cleaned up' their act, reports of false imprisonment, fraud by trickery, misleading sales statements, and outright refusals to comply with customers requests, and just a few of the things still going on.. just read sites like this Consumer Reports (RCI):  We see no reason to sign up for RCI except to give the company money. We are new members who tried to use RCI for the first time. We wanted to visit El Dorado Suites, Riviera Maya, using our exchange. Through RCI, we have to pay a $399 fee for a mandatory 7-day visit. RCI requires we also pay a $2500 "Mandatory all inclusive" fee for the El Dorado. So that's the cost of our RCI membership, plus a $399 fee, plus a $2500 all-inclusive fee. Curious, we logged into El Dorado's home page and found we could sign up for the exact same vacation, not using RCI, for a total cost of $2200, also all-inclusive. So the all-inclusive fee alone is more than the actual cost of staying at the El Dorado Suites, without having ever met an RCI salesperson.   ...   I have been with RCI approx 12yrs. My previous issues have been the fact that they charge for unused points... Live and learn. My complaint is that I had to cancel a reservation. It's unfortunate but situations do arise and plans have to get changed. I cancelled 5-days prior to my check-in date. RCI WILL NEITHER REFUND NOR CREDIT my charge of $99.00! They say they have a 24-hour 'grace period'. I feel this is a major RIP-OFF to consumers and extremely bad business practice. I have contacted them by email, customer service and 'blabbering' supervisor. I was told "they have to keep the lights on" in order to provide their service. Well, RCI, my lights need to be on as well!! BUYER BEWARE. You get the idea.  One can spend a weekend reading these, it does make more interesting reading than outright financial fraud, but eventually it will make you want to vomit.  You can't call this a business model - you have to call it 'fraud' or 'scam' because it's like that.  If normal companies operated like this, they'd be shut down.  Imagine walking into Wal Mart and instead of their 'no questions asked' return policy they argued with you and told you there was a 'grace period' or some such nonsense, there would be riots, boycotts - Wal Mart would be no more.  90% of business operates like that.  The only exception is software sales because practically, once you 'download' the software you can copy it and there's no way to prove that you didn't.  Other than that - and some other rare exceptions, you can't lock people in a room for 8 hours without their permission.  Readers - this is a time-bomb waiting to explode!  How can we profit from it?  Short the stocks; (HGV) (WYN) (VAC) et al    If you own a timeshare and want out, there are only a few lawfirms who are actually law firms who can do this for you, like this one Fortis Law Group PLC.  There are also hundreds of scam companies claiming to be 'timeshare resale experts' who even have 'licenses' to do this - but beware - this is a scam too!  This industry is filled with fraud from one end of the business cycle to the other.  It can only be explained by George Carlin, with this clip: We know what we have to do.  Let's get working! For a detailed breakdown of how the financial system works (in reality - not how it is supposed to work) - checkout Splitting Pennies Understanding Forex. Visit our sponsor Please Order It.com

Выбор редакции
21 мая, 21:37

"If Only" - The Untold Origins Of The Federal Reserve

Authored by Chris Campbell via LFB.org, “Progressive” is often a word we hear bandied about to describe very destructive things. It’s “progressive,” for example, to believe taking responsibility for your individual thoughts, words and actions is a fool’s errand. When taken to its extreme, as it often is, many self-described progressives believe you are responsible for the actions, past and present, of your “group” — and such group, whether you like it or not, is decided for you without your input. And based on what group you are in, you are more responsible for some things and less responsible for others. So, says the uber-progressive, your individual actions don’t matter. The core of your being is morally relative. You are defined not by your peers, principles and actions — but by the things you can’t possibly choose. You are judged, rather, by those things outside of your control and those judgments are based on the whims of trendsetters, glitterati and pseudo-experts. Filmmaker Neel Kolhatkar did a brilliant video about this strange paradigm called Modern Educayshun. Check it out if you haven’t seen it. It’s also “progressive” to believe only elite academics or politicians — those people, as it happens, with the least skin in the game — are capable of saving the environment, the poor, the abused and the downtrodden from themselves. If only they had more money. If only they could go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. If only the masses would just get on their knees like good little docile sheep and wisely accept their theories as unvarnished truth. If only they would get “educated.” (Another word that’s been corrupted beyond belief.) If only. Then, we could make real progress. Which is why, naturally, the progressive movement is responsible for not just the centralized power structures we behold today — but also for the biggest “vampire squid” (hat tip to Matt Taibbi) of them all… the Federal Reserve. To explain, we pull a chapter from Murray Rothbard’s enlightening book, The Origins of the Federal Reserve. Read on. The Progressive Movement Murray Rothbard, The Origins of the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, was part and parcel of the wave of Progressive legislation, on local, state, and federal levels of government, that began about 1900. Progressivism was a bipartisan movement which, in the course of the fi rst two decades of the twentieth century, transformed the American economy and society from one of roughly laissez-faire to one of centralized statism. Until the 1960s, historians had established the myth that Progressivism was a virtual uprising of workers and farmers who, guided by a new generation of altruistic experts and intellectuals, surmounted fierce big business opposition in order to curb, regulate, and control what had been a system of accelerating monopoly in the late nineteenth century. A generation of research and scholarship, however, has now exploded that myth for all parts of the American polity, and it has become all too clear that the truth is the reverse of this well-worn fable. In contrast, what actually happened was that business became increasingly competitive during the late nineteenth century, and that various big-business interests, led by the powerful financial house of J.P. Morgan and Company, had tried desperately to establish successful cartels on the free market. The first wave of such cartels was in the first large-scale business, railroads, and in every case, the attempt to increase profits, by cutting sales with a quota system and thereby to raise prices or rates, collapsed quickly from internal competition within the cartel and from external competition by new competitors eager to undercut the cartel. During the 1890s, in the new field of large-scale industrial corporations, big-business interests tried to establish high prices and reduced production via mergers, and again, in every case, the mergers collapsed from the winds of new competition. In both sets of cartel attempts, J.P. Morgan and Company had taken the lead, and in both sets of cases, the market, hampered though it was by high protective tariff walls, managed to nullify these attempts at voluntary cartelization. It then became clear to these big-business interests that the only way to establish a cartelized economy, an economy that would ensure their continued economic dominance and high profits, would be to use the powers of government to establish and maintain cartels by coercion. In other words, to transform the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized and coordinated statism. But how could the American people, steeped in a long tradition of fierce opposition to government imposed monopoly, go along with this program? How could the public’s consent to the New Order be engineered? Fortunately for the cartelists, a solution to this vexing problem lay at hand. Monopoly could be put over in the name of opposition to monopoly! In that way, using the rhetoric beloved by Americans, the form of the political economy could be maintained, while the content could be totally reversed. Monopoly had always been defined, in the popular parlance and among economists, as “grants of exclusive privilege” by the government. It was now simply redefined as “big business” or business competitive practices, such as price-cutting, so that regulatory commissions, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission to state insurance commissions, were lobbied for and staffed by big-business men from the regulated industry, all done in the name of curbing “big business monopoly” on the free market. In that way, the regulatory commissions could subsidize, restrict, and cartelize in the name of “opposing monopoly,” as well as promoting the general welfare and national security. Once again, it was railroad monopoly that paved the way. For this intellectual shell game, the cartelists needed the support of the nation’s intellectuals, the class of professional opinion molders in society. The Morgans needed a smoke screen of ideology, setting forth the rationale and the apologetics for the New Order. Again, fortunately for them, the intellectuals were ready and eager for the new alliance. The enormous growth of intellectuals, academics, social scientists, technocrats, engineers, social workers, physicians, and occupational “guilds” of all types in the late nineteenth century led most of these groups to organize for a far greater share of the pie than they could possibly achieve on the free market. These intellectuals needed the State to license, restrict, and cartelize their occupations, so as to raise the incomes for the fortunate people already in these fields. In return for their serving as apologists for the new statism, the State was prepared to offer not only cartelized occupations, but also ever increasing and cushier jobs in the bureaucracy to plan and propagandize for the newly statized society. And the intellectuals were ready for it, having learned in graduate schools in Germany the glories of statism and organicist socialism, of a harmonious “middle way” between dog-eat-dog laissez-faire on the one hand and proletarian Marxism on the other. Instead, big government, staffed by intellectuals and technocrats, steered by big business and aided by unions organizing a subservient labor force, would impose a cooperative commonwealth for the alleged benefit of all.

Выбор редакции
17 мая, 03:36

Elizabeth Warren Has A Real Plan To Drain The Swamp In Washington

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 ― The discussion at the Center for American Progress’ “Ideas Conference” on Tuesday stuck mostly to the conventional Democratic script. But not Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Other lawmakers and policy experts gathered at Washington’s Four Seasons Hotel focused on defending the Barack Obama-era status quo against President Donald Trump’s onslaught, rather than on proposing ambitious new ideas. Warren’s speech stood out, both for its unabashed populism and for its bold proposals for rooting out the influence of money in politics and breaking up the business monopolies. In her scathing remarks, Warren portrayed a Washington compromised by the largesse of big corporations and the ultra-rich long before Trump came to power. “Over the past few decades, money has fundamentally re-ordered Washington. Money slithers through Washington like a snake,” she said. The former bankruptcy law professor and originator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau decried the “armies of lobbyists” that blanket the capital like a “plague of locusts” to shape legislation and the corporations that “bury public servants in an avalanche of nonsense” in their efforts to undermine regulations.  She made an equally impassioned case against the current president, arguing that Trump had brought Beltway sleaze to new heights ― and violated key campaign promises in the process. “The president did not invent these problems but, boy, has he made them worse,” Warren said. “The CEO of Exxon Mobil is now the secretary of state. Goldman Sachs has enough people in the White House to open up a new branch office,” she quipped, drawing laughs from the crowd. “Do you get the feeling that if Bernie Madoff weren’t in prison, that he’d be in charge of the SEC right now?” It is time to do what Teddy Roosevelt did: pick up the antitrust stick again. The stick has collected some dust, but the laws are still on the books. Sen. Elizabeth Warren The policy component of Warren’s remarks addressed two main issues: eradicating the corrupting influence of money in politics and breaking up the modern-day monopolies that are padding their profits while distorting the economy. Like many other Democrats, Warren called for overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that has allowed unlimited corporate cash to flow into the electoral system, as well as amending the Constitution to prevent such a decision from ever being made again. Warren went further though, implying she sees state- and city-level experiments with public campaign financing as a critical part of the answer to cleaning up the corruption invited by massive private donations. She also called for ending the revolving door between industry and government jobs and for reforming the regulatory process to limit corporate influence. Some of her proposals were clearly Trump-specific, including legislation that would compel the president and vice president to place their assets in a blind trust. Presidents and vice presidents have, for decades, voluntarily sold off any active business holdings, if they had them, and ceded control over their assets to an independent trust to avoid conflicts of interest. (Although Trump has handed over day-to-day management of his business empire to two sons, he has refused to sell his business interests or place his assets in a blind trust.) But it was Warren’s detailed indictment of corporate consolidation and proposed crackdown on modern-day trusts that made her remarks truly novel for a senator speaking at an event sponsored by the think tank most closely associated with Democratic Party leadership.   “In every corner of our economy, competition is increasingly choked off,” she said. “Airlines, banking, health care, pharma, agriculture, telecom, tech — in industry after industry, a handful of giant corporations control more and more and compete less and less.” When companies control so much market share that they no longer worry about competition, consumers are hit with higher prices, innovators cannot make it to market and workers’ wages suffer, according to Warren. Long known for demanding that the big banks be broken up, Warren invoked the legacy of the trust-busting president, Theodore Roosevelt, in extending her call to other industries. The Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general all have the legal power to force mega-corporations to split up where there is a reasonable case that they are obstructing real competition, she said. “It is time to do what Teddy Roosevelt did: pick up the antitrust stick again. The stick has collected some dust, but the laws are still on the books,” Warren said. There is virtually no chance of Warren’s proposals becoming law while Republicans control the White House and Congress. Under Democratic rule, many of her ideas would undoubtedly be a tough sell as well based on recent experience. Critics accuse Obama of doing little to curb monopoly growth during his tenure, for example.  But Warren is keenly attuned to progressive grassroots forces, who are demanding dramatic solutions to the challenges of concentrated wealth and rising inequality. Rather than focus too closely on Trump’s personal flaws and his campaign’s possible collusion with Russia, these liberal activists believe that exposing him as a corporate shill and offering a positive vision for economic growth are the only ways to defeat the GOP at the ballot box. When Democrats regain power again, these activists will have sweeping policy plans ready to be enacted and grassroots energy backing them.   Their proposed new path for the party is supported by some poll evidence. Forty-two percent of Americans who voted for both Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016 believe that the policies of current congressional Democrats favor the wealthy, according to an April survey conducted by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA. Just 21 percent of that group see Trump’s policies in an equally dim light ― so far. In devoting her remarks to the often overlooked but hugely consequential field of antitrust policy, in particular, Warren is helping to ease ideas germinating in think tanks into the political mainstream. For years now, lax enforcement of antitrust laws has allowed smaller numbers of companies to dominate various industries. The total value of corporate mergers and acquisitions was greater in 2015 than any previous year on record. Some two-thirds of the 900 U.S. industries tracked by The Economist are now concentrated in the hands of fewer companies than they were in 1997. This wave of consolidation has revived interest in antitrust regulations in liberal wonk circles, urged on by former business journalist Barry C. Lynn, director of the New America Foundation’s Open Markets program. Whether or not she achieves a fraction of her most ambitious proposals, Warren could at least expand the bounds of acceptable political discourse so that more moderate ideas seem reasonable by comparison. On Tuesday, she encouraged her listeners to count their blessings: The public institutions needed to make the government accountable to the people still exist, even if they face growing threats. “Concentrated money and concentrated power, they influence nearly every decision made in this town,” Warren said. “But capture is not complete ― at least not yet.” -- 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.

17 мая, 03:36

Elizabeth Warren Has A Real Plan To Drain The Swamp In Washington

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 ― The discussion at the Center for American Progress’ “Ideas Conference” on Tuesday stuck mostly to the conventional Democratic script. But not Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Other lawmakers and policy experts gathered at Washington’s Four Seasons Hotel focused on defending the Barack Obama-era status quo against President Donald Trump’s onslaught, rather than on proposing ambitious new ideas. Warren’s speech stood out, both for its unabashed populism and for its bold proposals for rooting out the influence of money in politics and breaking up the business monopolies. In her scathing remarks, Warren portrayed a Washington compromised by the largesse of big corporations and the ultra-rich long before Trump came to power. “Over the past few decades, money has fundamentally re-ordered Washington. Money slithers through Washington like a snake,” she said. The former bankruptcy law professor and originator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau decried the “armies of lobbyists” that blanket the capital like a “plague of locusts” to shape legislation and the corporations that “bury public servants in an avalanche of nonsense” in their efforts to undermine regulations.  She made an equally impassioned case against the current president, arguing that Trump had brought Beltway sleaze to new heights ― and violated key campaign promises in the process. “The president did not invent these problems but, boy, has he made them worse,” Warren said. “The CEO of Exxon Mobil is now the secretary of state. Goldman Sachs has enough people in the White House to open up a new branch office,” she quipped, drawing laughs from the crowd. “Do you get the feeling that if Bernie Madoff weren’t in prison, that he’d be in charge of the SEC right now?” It is time to do what Teddy Roosevelt did: pick up the antitrust stick again. The stick has collected some dust, but the laws are still on the books. Sen. Elizabeth Warren The policy component of Warren’s remarks addressed two main issues: eradicating the corrupting influence of money in politics and breaking up the modern-day monopolies that are padding their profits while distorting the economy. Like many other Democrats, Warren called for overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that has allowed unlimited corporate cash to flow into the electoral system, as well as amending the Constitution to prevent such a decision from ever being made again. Warren went further though, implying she sees state- and city-level experiments with public campaign financing as a critical part of the answer to cleaning up the corruption invited by massive private donations. She also called for ending the revolving door between industry and government jobs and for reforming the regulatory process to limit corporate influence. Some of her proposals were clearly Trump-specific, including legislation that would compel the president and vice president to place their assets in a blind trust. Presidents and vice presidents have, for decades, voluntarily sold off any active business holdings, if they had them, and ceded control over their assets to an independent trust to avoid conflicts of interest. (Although Trump has handed over day-to-day management of his business empire to two sons, he has refused to sell his business interests or place his assets in a blind trust.) But it was Warren’s detailed indictment of corporate consolidation and proposed crackdown on modern-day trusts that made her remarks truly novel for a senator speaking at an event sponsored by the think tank most closely associated with Democratic Party leadership.   “In every corner of our economy, competition is increasingly choked off,” she said. “Airlines, banking, health care, pharma, agriculture, telecom, tech — in industry after industry, a handful of giant corporations control more and more and compete less and less.” When companies control so much market share that they no longer worry about competition, consumers are hit with higher prices, innovators cannot make it to market and workers’ wages suffer, according to Warren. Long known for demanding that the big banks be broken up, Warren invoked the legacy of the trust-busting president, Theodore Roosevelt, in extending her call to other industries. The Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general all have the legal power to force mega-corporations to split up where there is a reasonable case that they are obstructing real competition, she said. “It is time to do what Teddy Roosevelt did: pick up the antitrust stick again. The stick has collected some dust, but the laws are still on the books,” Warren said. There is virtually no chance of Warren’s proposals becoming law while Republicans control the White House and Congress. Under Democratic rule, many of her ideas would undoubtedly be a tough sell as well based on recent experience. Critics accuse Obama of doing little to curb monopoly growth during his tenure, for example.  But Warren is keenly attuned to progressive grassroots forces, who are demanding dramatic solutions to the challenges of concentrated wealth and rising inequality. Rather than focus too closely on Trump’s personal flaws and his campaign’s possible collusion with Russia, these liberal activists believe that exposing him as a corporate shill and offering a positive vision for economic growth are the only ways to defeat the GOP at the ballot box. When Democrats regain power again, these activists will have sweeping policy plans ready to be enacted and grassroots energy backing them.   Their proposed new path for the party is supported by some poll evidence. Forty-two percent of Americans who voted for both Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016 believe that the policies of current congressional Democrats favor the wealthy, according to an April survey conducted by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA. Just 21 percent of that group see Trump’s policies in an equally dim light ― so far. In devoting her remarks to the often overlooked but hugely consequential field of antitrust policy, in particular, Warren is helping to ease ideas germinating in think tanks into the political mainstream. For years now, lax enforcement of antitrust laws has allowed smaller numbers of companies to dominate various industries. The total value of corporate mergers and acquisitions was greater in 2015 than any previous year on record. Some two-thirds of the 900 U.S. industries tracked by The Economist are now concentrated in the hands of fewer companies than they were in 1997. This wave of consolidation has revived interest in antitrust regulations in liberal wonk circles, urged on by former business journalist Barry C. Lynn, director of the New America Foundation’s Open Markets program. Whether or not she achieves a fraction of her most ambitious proposals, Warren could at least expand the bounds of acceptable political discourse so that more moderate ideas seem reasonable by comparison. On Tuesday, she encouraged her listeners to count their blessings: The public institutions needed to make the government accountable to the people still exist, even if they face growing threats. “Concentrated money and concentrated power, they influence nearly every decision made in this town,” Warren said. “But capture is not complete ― at least not yet.” -- 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.

15 мая, 22:11

Вести.net: Google ссорится с Uber, а Intel и Samsung вступают в борьбу с Qualcomm

Разводы по американски — крупнейший поисковик ссорится с сервисом такси и заигрывает с другим, а самая дорогая компания планеты сражается в суде против многолетнего партнера бок о бок с заклятым конкурентом. Все детали непростых отношений внутри мирового IT-бизнеса.

14 мая, 14:18

The Widening Blast Radius of the Fox News Scandal

The metastasizing Ailes affair is spilling over into the politics of New York, Virginia and the White House.

14 мая, 13:47

Samsung и Intel поддержали иск в отношении Qualcomm

Samsung Electronics Co. и Intel Corp. подали жалобы в поддержку иска Федеральной торговой комиссии США (FTC) к производителю чипов Qualcomm Inc. Об этом сообщает The Wall Street Journal. По данным газеты, в иске утверждается, что компания использовала свое доминирующее положение и с помощью чипов в мобильных телефонах вынуждала клиентов принимать несправедливые условия.Как сообщал «Ъ», в своем исковом заявлении FTC обвинила производителя в применении политики «нет лицензии, нет чипов», из-за которой производителям мобильных устройств приходится платить Qualcomm завышенные роялти в случае использования чипов других производителей; отказ от выдачи конкурентам лицензии на базовые для индустрии микрочипы; заключение нелегального соглашения с Apple о скидках на патентные роялти в обмен на роль эксклюзивного поставщика микрочипов.К Qualcomm также подала иск сама Apple, обвинив ее в завышении цен и отказе вернуть обещанный в качестве…

04 января 2015, 07:12

США заблокировали сделку «Роснефти» с Morgan Stanley

23.12.2014 Власти США и Канады заблокировали продажу «Роснефти» нефтетрейдингового подразделения Morgan Stanley. За год сторонам так и не удалось получить одобрения регуляторов. Западные санкции также снизили привлекательность этой сделки, сумма которой оценивалась в $400 млн. Комитет по иностранным инвестициям США отказался согласовывать сделку с Morgan Stanley, поэтому «Роснефть» не смогла ее завершить, заявил РБК вице-президент компании по связям с общественностью и СМИ Михаил Леонтьев. «Отказ в выдаче регламентирующих соглашений мы получили не только от американских, но и от канадских регуляторов. Это их право: оспаривать незаключенную сделку мы не будем», – пояснил он. «Роснефть» договорилась о покупке нефтетрейдингового бизнеса Morgan Stanley 20 декабря 2013 года. В случае завершения сделки российской компании перешли бы международная сеть нефтехранилищ, запасы нефти и нефтепродуктов, прямые контракты с потребителями, контракты на условиях предоплаты, логистические контракты, а также акции и доли в профильных дочерних компаниях в области инфраструктуры, международного маркетинга и исследований. На работу в «Роснефть» также должны были перейти более 100 нефтетрейдеров из офисов Morgan Stanley в Великобритании, США и Сингапуре, а также около 180 менеджеров из вспомогательных подразделений. В июне сделку одобрила Федеральная торговая комиссия США, а в июле «Роснефть» и Morgan Stanley обратились в комитет по иностранным инвестициям. В сообщении «Роснефти» отмечается, что «стороны затратили на подготовку сделки существенные усилия и сожалеют о невозможности ее закрыть». Но потерь от срыва сделки «Роснефть» не понесла, утверждает Леонтьев. «Не факт, что в текущих условиях эта сделка была бы так же интересна, как раньше», – добавил он. А Morgan Stanley рассмотрит теперь ряд вариантов в отношении нефтетрейдингового подразделения с учетом интересов акционеров, клиентов и служащих компании, говорится в сообщении банка, которое приводит ТАСС. Сумма сделки не раскрывалась. Но, по данным The Wall Street Journal, она могла составить «несколько сотен миллионов долларов». Аналитики Platts оценивали ее примерно в $400 млн. Из-за несостоявшейся сделки «Роснефть» почти ничего не потеряла, компания могла потратиться лишь на консультантов, но это незначительные средства, говорит старший аналитик «Уралсиб Кэпитал» Алексей Кокин. О том, что сделка может сорваться, стало известно еще осенью. «Роснефть» до последнего это не признавала, но американцы не исключали такую возможность. «В нынешних условиях нет и не может быть никаких гарантий того, что сделка будет закрыта, особенно учитывая прописанное в договоре требование о том, что все необходимые разрешения должны быть получены до конца года», – говорил представитель Morgan Stanley в октябре. Источники Financial Times тогда сообщали, что сделка фактически не имеет перспектив. Это стало ясно после того, как санкции отрезали «Роснефти» доступ к долгосрочным валютным кредитам в сентябре, говорит Кокин. Нефтетрейдинговый бизнес подразумевает доступ компании к кредитам в несколько десятков миллиардов долларов, иначе бизнес не будет работать, указывает он. Таким образом, для срыва сделки были и объективные причины, заключает эксперт. Это не первый случай, когда планам «Роснефти» помешали санкции. В конце сентября Exxon Mobil приостановила сотрудничество с российским партнером по девяти из десяти СП в России, а затем свернула работы и на совместном проекте в Карском море. В ноябре норвежская North Atlantic также была вынуждена отложить сделку с «Роснефтью» до 2015 года.​ http://www.rbcdaily.ru/industry/562949993439576  19.06.2014 Глава Роснефти Игорь Сечин, процитировав в интервью телеканалу CNBC французского государственного деятеля Шарля Мориса Талейрана, назвал введенные в отношении него санкции со стороны США бессмысленными. «Я думаю, что эту прискорбную ситуацию можно описать словами французского политика Шарля Мориса де Талейрана, который, насколько я помню, сказал примерно следующее – «все лишнее не имеет значения», – передает ИТАР-ТАСС. Относительно возможного ужесточения санкций в отношении России Сечин заявил, что Роснефть продолжает работать, чтобы показать эффективность совместной взаимовыгодной деятельности с американскими корпорациями. «Однако, если решения о санкциях будут приняты, мы продолжим реализацию наших проектов самостоятельно, оставив их открытыми для наших американских партнеров, которые смогут вернуться, когда это станет возможным», – подчеркнул президент Роснефти. По словам Сечина, он не может понять «никаких обоснований» для введения санкционного режима. «Я не понимаю, какую цель они преследуют. Я не вовлечен в принятие политических решений... Так что введение санкций я считаю бессмысленным», – заключил глава Роснефти, добавив, что не думает, что его активная взаимовыгодная работа с американскими компаниями может выступать основанием для санкций. «Серьезные люди не должны принимать серьезные решения под давлением», – резюмировал президент Роснефти. Напомним, в конце апреля глава Роснефти уже говорил, что воспринял решение США ввести персональные санкции против него как высокую оценку эффективности работы подконтрольной ему компании. Перед этим США объявили о новой волне карательных мер против Москвы. В санкционный список кроме главы Роснефти Игоря Сечина вошли полпред президента России в Крыму Олег Белавенцев, глава Ростеха Сергей Чемезов, вице-премьер Дмитрий Козак, председатель международного комитета Госдумы Алексей Пушков, директор ФСО Евгений Муров, первый замглавы кремлевской администрации Вячеслав Володин. Тогда же представитель американского минфина сообщил, что граждане США продолжат работать в совете директоров Роснефти, несмотря на санкции, введенные в отношении главы нефтяной компании. http://vz.ru/news/2014/6/19/691836.html  16.06.2014 Чем опасен Игорь Сечин Человек, максимально близкий Владимиру Путину, самый тяжелый из политических тяжеловесов, теневой премьер-министр — каких только названий не выдумывается для президента «Роснефти» Игоря Сечина! Когда он только переместился на нынешнюю должность из зампредов правительства, казалось, что это тяжелое аппаратное поражение; но давно очевидно, что никакое не поражение, а серьезное возвышение. ... (Кстати замечу, что и кремлевскому покровителю весьма выгодна эта странная конструкция: можно в ответ на всякие нападки справедливо указывать, что в правительстве сидят сплошь экономические либералы, и не беспокоиться о содержании их деятельности, когда важнейшей частью экономики занимается такой ультрагосударственник, как президент Сечин.) ... Тайком направить войска в Крым, конечно, президенту Сечину не по чину будет — но на своем родном поле, в энергетической сфере, он явно может действовать без оглядки на, назовем это так, условности. А как мы знаем из истории, даже самым великим людям иногда решительно отказывает чувство меры. Опровержение Решением Останкинского районного суда г. Москвы от 26 августа 2014 года признаны не соответствующими действительности и порочащими честь, достоинство и деловую репутацию Сечина Игоря Ивановича , а потому подлежащими опровержению распространенные 16 июня 2014 года редакцией электронного периодического издания «Ведомости» («Vedomosti») по адресу http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/ article/697301/igor-sechin следующие сведения: «Потому что на нынешней своей позиции способности и возможности влиять на принятие основных государственных решений президент Сечин нисколько не утратил: вроде бы “Роснефть” и подконтрольна правительству, поскольку приходится ему “внучкой”,- а вроде и не очень-то. Поразительна была, например, история с дивидендами нефтяной госкомпании, которые правительству Дмитрия Медведева хотелось использовать как-то по-своему, да не вышло, пришлось очень долго обсуждать судьбу этих денег; а уж история прошлой недели с налоговым маневром, согласованным было Минфином и Минэнерго, но отправленным в корзину одним росчерком пера (т. е. письмом) президента Сечина, — прямо символ!» «… на президентской позиции Игоря Сечина … с возможностью … по сути, не отвечать ни за какие свои действия ни перед кем, кроме кремлевского покровителя.» «…хороша ли такая бесконтрольность: нельзя приравнять российское государство, от имени которого совершает топ-менеджерские поступки президент Сечин, ни к нему…»