• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании2032
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации49
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы421
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Выбор редакции
21 марта, 20:35

Does anybody eat cereal for breakfast anymore?

Read full story for latest details.

21 марта, 17:24

И всё-таки - кто реально контролирует мир? (часть 3) (e.tvorogov)

Во второй части мной было показано, что британская династия Виндзоров через свой именной фонд в Vanguard владеет акциями ряда американских производителей. Было установлено, что трое из этих производителей (а скорее всего, их больше) — Honeywell, Ford и Kellogg — имеют принадлежащие им благотворительные фонды, через которые осуществляется финансирование Совета по международным отношениям, частной организацией, имеющей сильное влияние на внешнюю политику США. Данная часть будет снова про Vanguard, и в ней будут рассмотрены конкретные персоналии этой компании, чтобы приоткрыть линии её влияния на американскую экономику и политику. Почему американскую — потому что мне доступны данные по Америке. Подчеркну, что в своём исследовании я пользуюсь только открытыми доверенными источниками информации и не полагаюсь на чьи-либо инсайды. Где необходимо, я сопровождаю факты ссылками, чтобы любой мог быстро их проверить. Начнём с публичного первого лица Vanguard. 51 комментарий

Выбор редакции
21 марта, 15:50

How Back to the Roots Is Disrupting Your Cereal Aisle

Today, Back to the Roots, pioneered by Millennial founders Nikhil Arora and Alejandro Velez are spearheading the "undoing" of food by bringing whole-grain, biodynamic, single-sourced cereals into the New York City public school system, replacing options once offered by food giant, Kellogg’s.

20 марта, 11:00

A Supreme Court Nominee Alert to the Dangers of Big Business

Far from reflexively favoring big corporations over small competitors, Judge Neil Gorsuch has a nuanced view of antitrust law.

15 марта, 10:43

Kellogg (K) Down 2.9% Since Earnings Report: Can It Rebound?

Kellogg (K) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues.

10 марта, 19:13

Reading: Sidney Blumenthal (2017): Wrestling with His Angel, 1849-1856: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 2

When Yale made the long-overdue decision to dename the Residential College Formerly Named After the Odious John C. Calhoun, a bunch of alumni--who had never before remarked on how odious John C. Calhoun had been--came out of the woodwork to protest that we will be impoverished if we do not...

08 марта, 03:51

Без заголовка

**Should-Read:** When Yale made the long overdue decision to dename the Residential College Formerly Named After the Odious John C. Calhoun, a bunch of alumni--who had never before remarked on how odious John C. Calhoun had been--came out of the woodwork to protest that we will be impoverished if we...

08 марта, 03:23

President Donald J. Trump Announces Key Administration Posts

Today, President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts: Courtney Simmons Elwood – General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency Noel J. Francisco – Solicitor General, Department of Justice Jeffrey A. Rosen – Deputy Secretary, Department of Transportation John J. Sullivan – General Counsel, Department of Defense Ajit V. Pai – Member of the Federal Communications Commission In addition, President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to appoint the following individual to a key Administration post: Tony E. Sayegh, Jr. – Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of the Treasury "These dedicated men and women will help me and the rest of the Administration as we continue our work to make America great again. I am grateful for their willingness to serve and honored that they will be joining my team," President Trump said. These individuals come to the Administration with years of impressive service in the public and private sectors: Courtney Simmons Elwood, Nominee for General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency Courtney Simmons Elwood is a partner with the firm Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, PLLC.  She joined this firm (then Kellogg, Huber, Hansen) in 1996, after clerking for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge J. Michael Luttig on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Between 2001 to 2007, Ms. Elwood served as Associate Counsel to the President, Deputy Counsel to the Vice President, and Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Attorney General.  Ms. Elwood is a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s Advisory Committee on Procedures and a member of the Yale Law School Association Executive Committee.  She is a 1994 graduate of Yale Law School, where she was Essays Editor of the Yale Law Journal, and a 1990 summa cum laude graduate of Washington and Lee University. “Ms. Elwood understands the CIA’s mission and critical role of the rule of law in achieving that mission,” CIA Director Mike Pompeo said. “The warriors at CIA look forward to her joining in our mission to be the premier espionage agency in the world.” Noel J. Francisco, Nominee for Solicitor General, Department of Justice Noel J. Francisco has served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General for the United States since January 23, 2017. Prior to joining the Justice Department, he was a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Jones Day, where he was the chair of the Firm’s Government Regulation Practice. While at Jones Day, he appeared several times before the Supreme Court, including in McDonnell v. United States, which involved the meaning of “official act” under federal bribery statutes; Zubik v. Burwell, which involved the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to regulations addressing insurance coverage for contraception; and NLRB v. Noel Canning, which involved the Constitution’s recess appointment power. He has also argued numerous cases in lower federal and State courts on a wide range of constitutional, civil, and criminal matters. From 2001 to 2003, Mr. Francisco served as Associate Counsel to the President, and from 2003 to 2005 he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Francisco was raised in Oswego, NY. He received his B.A. with honors in 1991 from the University of Chicago. He received his J.D. with high honors in 1996 from the University of Chicago Law School. After law school, Mr. Francisco served as a law clerk for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and then for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Francisco lives in Washington, D.C. with his wife, Cynthia, and their two daughters, Caroline and Maggie. Ajit V. Pai, Nominee for Member of the Federal Communications Commission Ajit V. Pai was designated acting Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission by President Donald J. Trump in January 2017. He had previously served as Commissioner at the FCC, appointed by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the Senate in May 2012. Before this, Mr. Pai was a Partner at Jenner & Block, LLP from 2011 until 2012, and Deputy General Counsel, Associate General Counsel, and Special Advisor to the General Counsel at the FCC from 2007 until 2011. Chairman Pai graduated with honors from Harvard University in 1994 and from the University of Chicago Law School in 1997, where he was an editor of the University of Chicago Law Review and won the Thomas R. Mulroy Prize. In 2010, Pai was one of 55 individuals nationwide chosen for the 2011 Marshall Memorial Fellowship, a leadership development initiative of the German Marshall Fund of the United States. The son of immigrants from India, Chairman Pai grew up in Parsons, Kansas. He now lives in Arlington, Virginia, with his wife, Janine; son, Alexander; and daughter, Annabelle. Jeffrey A. Rosen, Nominee for Deputy Secretary for Department of Transportation Jeffrey A. Rosen is a Senior Partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP with whom he has been associated for nearly 30 years with the exception of two distinguished appointments.  From 2006 through 2009, Mr. Rosen was appointed as General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor for the Office of Management and Budget and from 2003 through 2006, he served as General Counsel at the Department of Transportation. At Kirkland & Ellis, Mr. Rosen’s practice has principally involved complex business litigation and regulatory matters involving contracts, antitrust, securities, RICO, business torts, enforcement actions and product liability, including class actions. He has been engaged in litigation before federal and state courts in more than 20 states, including jury trials, bench evidentiary hearings, arbitrations and appellate arguments. Mr. Rosen returns to the Department of Transportation with extensive experience, having previously served as the Department’s Chief Legal Officer where he oversaw the activities of more than 400 lawyers. In that role, for which he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, Mr. Rosen had responsibility for the Department’s regulatory program, enforcement and litigation activities, legal issues relating to international activities involving transportation, coordination and clearance of legislative matters, and advised the Secretary of Transportation on a wide range of topics.  Mr. Rosen received a B.A. with highest distinction in 1979 from Northwestern University and a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1982.  Mr. Rosen has also served as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He is a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Tony E. Sayegh, Jr., Appointee for Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of the Treasury Tony E. Sayegh, Jr. is a Republican strategist, political analyst, and a Fox News Contributor.  He served as Executive Vice President of Jamestown Associates, a nationally recognized political consulting, communications strategy, and media advertising firm. His creative campaigns have received prominent industry recognition, winning both the 2014 Reed Award for “Most Original TV Advertisement” and the 2015 Reed Award for “Best Comparative Mail Piece.”  Mr. Sayegh was first elected to public office in 2003, serving two terms as the Deputy Mayor & Trustee in Tuckahoe, New York. Mr. Sayegh attended The George Washington University in Washington, D.C., where he received both a B.A in Political Science and Master of Public Administration. As an undergraduate, Mr. Sayegh was elected as the Executive Vice President of the Student Association and was awarded the Presidential Administrative Fellowship to pursue graduate studies at the University. He later served on the University Board of Trustees.  John J. Sullivan, Nominee for General Counsel for Department of Defense Mr. Sullivan was most recently a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington, D.C. office and co-chair of the firm’s National Security practice. He has held senior positions at the Justice, Defense, and Commerce Departments, advising the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Counsel to the President on the most sensitive legal and policy issues. During his tenure at Mayer Brown, Mr. Sullivan focused his practice on the growing intersection of global trade and investment and national security. Prior to joining Mayer Brown, Mr. Sullivan served at the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, where he was Counselor to Assistant Attorney General J. Michael Luttig. He advised senior officials on legal issues arising out of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and provided legal advice to the FBI, CIA, Treasury Department, and White House Counsel’s Office. Earlier in his career, he served as a law clerk for Associate Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court of the United States, and for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Sullivan received his bachelor’s degree in history and political science from Brown University and his law degree from Columbia University School of Law, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, Teaching Fellow, and Book Reviews Editor of the Columbia Law Review.

07 марта, 22:49

Snap Shares Tumble As Short Sellers Move In

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); Snap Inc’s shares tumbled 11 percent on Tuesday and traders raced to position themselves to cash in on further declines after analysts gave the company a lukewarm reception following its red-hot market debut. Snap’s $3.4 billion public listing on Thursday was the hottest technology offering in three years, but its lofty valuation and slowing user growth have raised eyebrows on Wall Street and attracted traders who expect its shares to fall. Institutional traders were paying annualized interest rates between 20 percent and 40 percent to be among the first to short-sell the stock, according to S3 Partners, a financial analytics firm. The owner of messaging app Snapchat is not profitable and has warned it may never be. Much of last week’s frenetic trading in Snap has yet to settle, making it difficult for brokers to estimate how many shares are available to lend to short sellers. But early data suggests brokers are facing a “chaotic” lending environment, with early short interest approaching $200 million, said S3 Partners Managing Director of Research Ihor Dusaniwsky. “This is the first couple of days of shorting data to show up, so I’m sure this is going to get bigger quickly,” Dusaniwsky said. Short-sellers borrow and then sell stocks they think will fall in value, hoping to profit by buying the stock back more cheaply later on and then returning it to its owner. The interest rates brokers charged for Snap shares on Tuesday suggest demand is extremely high and that those borrowing the stock expect its price to fall steeply. By comparison, brokers lend out shares of Facebook Inc at an annualized rate of less than 1 percent, reflecting an ample supply available for lending and low demand from short sellers, according to data from Astec Analytics. In its market debut Snap surged 44 percent from its $17 initial public offering price to close at $24.48. Since then it has fallen 22 percent. At mid-day on Tuesday Snap was down 10.8 percent at $21.20. Snap has been heavily traded since its market debut, rolling over the number of shares sold in the IPO more than twice. Options trading in Snap is expected to start on Friday, once regulatory requirements are met. At about $27 billion, Snap’s market capitalization remains a little larger than Kellogg Co and slightly smaller than HP Inc. So far, no analysts have initiated the stock with a “buy” rating. Of six analysts who have launched coverage of Snap, four recommend selling and two have neutral ratings, according to Thomson Reuters data. Globally, shares of most of the 25 largest tech IPOs have languished in their first year on the public market, with 16 notching a hefty decline from their debut day closing price, according to a Reuters analysis of market performance. (Additional reporting by Narottam Medhora in Bengaluru; Editing by Meredith Mazzilli) -- 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.

06 марта, 19:27

Top Research Reports for March 6, 2017

Top Research Reports for March 6, 2017

Выбор редакции
02 марта, 16:00

MLS Kicks Off 2017 Season With New Sponsorship From Kellogg's

Major League Soccer begins its 22nd season with several major additions, including two new teams and a new snack food sponsorship.

02 марта, 00:37

Гиганты пищевой промышленности США скупают стартапы

Пищевые гиганты, такие как General Mills и Kellogg, создают венчурные фонды для финансирования стартапов, выпускающих здоровое питание. Они рассчитывают перенять у молодых компаний дух предпринимательства и инноваций. Потребители все чаще предпочитают натуральные, свежие, более полезные для здоровья продукты. Не сразу осознавшие изменения потребительских предпочтений крупные компании сейчас оказались в тупике. Недавно Kraft Heinz, безуспешно борющаяся с падением продаж в США и Европе, заявила о готовности выкупить Unilever за $143 млрд, однако британский концерн отказался от сделки. Неутешительные данные о продажах опубликовали Nestle, General Mills, J.M. Smucker и Campbell Soup. Компания Nestle, крупнейший в мире производитель фасованных продуктов питания, отозвала целевые показатели продаж на ближайшие три года, заявив, что ей нужно время, чтобы адаптироваться к фундаментальным изменениям на рынке.

02 марта, 00:37

Гиганты ищут здоровую пищу

Пищевые гиганты, такие как General Mills и Kellogg, создают венчурные фонды для финансирования стартапов, выпускающих здоровое питание. Они рассчитывают перенять у молодых компаний дух предпринимательства и инноваций. Потребители все чаще предпочитают натуральные, свежие, более полезные для здоровья продукты. Не сразу осознавшие изменения потребительских предпочтений крупные компании сейчас оказались в тупике. Недавно Kraft Heinz, безуспешно борющаяся с падением продаж в США и Европе, заявила о готовности выкупить Unilever за $143 млрд, однако британский концерн отказался от сделки. Неутешительные данные о продажах опубликовали Nestle, General Mills, J.M. Smucker и Campbell Soup. Компания Nestle, крупнейший в мире производитель фасованных продуктов питания, отозвала целевые показатели продаж на ближайшие три года, заявив, что ей нужно время, чтобы адаптироваться к фундаментальным изменениям на рынке.

01 марта, 22:59

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 3/1/2017

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 11:40 A.M. EST MR. SPICER:  Hi, guys.  I'm going to try to keep this relatively short.  We got a few things going on today, and I know that the pool has got to get out to do a spray at some point soon with the lunch.   So, obviously, last night was a big night for the President and for everyone here at the White House.  The President delivered a powerful statement to Congress, to Americans, and the world last night.  It was an optimistic, forward-looking message of unity, strength, straight from his heart.  The President was proud to stand before the American people last night and present his roadmap for a renewal of the American spirit.  He honestly and -- he honestly acknowledged the undeniable challenges that we face, but continually reminded us there's no challenge facing this country that we can't meet if we join together. The American spirit has already proven itself against seemingly insurmountable odds, and we'll do it again under the leadership of this President. Republicans and Democrats may be divided on policies, but we're also united in our mission to achieve peace and prosperity for every American citizen.  The President has obviously been humbled by the great reception that the -- the reception that his address received.  Today, the President is holding a series of meetings with White House staff, congressional leaders, and others to drive the goals that he laid out last night. He'll host shortly a leadership lunch with House and Senate Republican leadership.  The attendees will include the Vice President, Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Senator Cornyn, Leader McCarthy, Congressman Scalise, Senator Gardiner and Senator Perdue. Last night's address clearly generated a lot of momentum, and the President is anxious to continue working on an ambitious legislative agenda.  During his speech last night, the President mentioned policies in key areas, from urban renewal to trade reform, where too many leading agencies and departments in charge of implementing are still waiting on their confirmed leaders.   The President was pleased, obviously, to see that Ryan Zinke was confirmed as the Secretary of the Interior by the Senate just a short time ago.  So the confirmation process is now coming to an end for him, and start to get the work going.    As the President mentioned in last night's remarks -- and, by the way, one quick note, we'll have an update on his swearing-in hopefully soon.  As the President mentioned in last night's remarks, he's calling on Congress to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a patient-focused system that expands options, lowers costs, and improves healthcare outcomes for all Americans.  He's ready to restart the honest engine -- to restart the engine of the American economy, which means tax reform that brings down rates for the middle class and simplifies the tax code, a robust infrastructure program and a budget that puts the interests of American people first.   The President and congressional leaders will work together today to continue to chart a path forward on those issues and more.  Also, today, Judge Neil Gorsuch will be back up on the Hill meeting with seven senators, including Senators Booker, Sanders, Barrasso and Kaine.  And lastly, this evening, the President will have dinner with Secretary Tillerson. Looking ahead, I know Sarah was kind enough to come brief you yesterday about the President's trip to Hampton Roads tomorrow.  I'll have a few more details for you on that.  The President is looking forward to meeting with the members of the Navy and some of the sailors down there, the shipbuilders, including the lead shipbuilder of the USS Gerald Ford and the ship's commander, before giving remarks on deck to a group of shipbuilders and sailors. On Friday, the President will be in Orlando, Florida for a series of important events highlighting his educational agenda.  He'll be visiting St. Andrews Catholic School, where I think you can expect him to drop in on a few lucky classrooms, as well as meeting with parents, teachers, and administrators.  Education, as was noted last night from the President, is a top priority.  He has said many times before that education has the ability to level the playing field for the next generation.  Obviously, last night he noted that he believes this is the civil rights issue of this generation.  He is determined to provide choice for every parent, and opportunities for every child, regardless of their zip code.  I expect he will be speaking with the parents and teachers and administrators at St. Andrews on his upcoming plans for reaching that goal. And finally, I want to note that the President is monitoring the situation in the Midwest, where a string of tornadoes is devastating several states with more severe weather predicted for the coming states -- for the coming days.  Three lives have already been tragically cut short.  The families of those victims and also those who have had their homes and property destroyed are in the President's thoughts and prayers.  The millions of people in the path of severe weather will be at the top of his mind over the next few days.  He implores everyone to follow the directions of emergency services and stay inside, and obviously will continue to be in contact with state and local officials to provide the necessary federal support that is required. With that, I'm glad to take some questions. Q    On the lunch today, was it always -- MR. SPICER:  John Roberts.  (Laughter.)   Q    -- was it always just going to be Republican leadership?  Were the Democrats ever invited?  Will he meet with the Democrats? MR. SPICER:  Yeah, I'm sure he will.  And you've seen he's met with a bipartisan group of Senate leaders last week.  He met with a bipartisan group of attorney general yesterday.  He met with the bipartisan group of governors.  I mean, just to be factual here, at some point, the people who set the agenda and the timetable to enact his agenda are Republican, and so there's a difference between meeting with both sides of the aisle, and I think he has pretty well shown a desire to reach across the aisle in the last month.  But this is about actually charting out the agenda and the timeline, and that’s why it’s both groups.  But yeah, I think you'll continue to see not just -- in the next week, not just leadership but rank-and-file members of the House and the Senate with that aim. Q    Sean, the Dow Jones crossed 21,000 for the first time today. MR. SPICER:  It did. Q    Does the White House believe that that’s a reaction to the President’s speech last night? MR. SPICER:  (Laughter.)  Look, I’m not an economist.  I don’t want to -- I know the Dow goes up and down, as well as the other indexes, and I don’t want to get in the habit of commenting every time the Dow hits.  But I think that you’ve seen a sustained economic boon since the President was elected.  He commented on it last night.   I think you’re seeing not just the Dow react, but manufacturers, business leaders, folks from small and large companies talk about it.  And I think that there is a renewed sense of wanting to business, and of economic growth and optimism.  You’ve seen it in not just in the indexes on a day-to-day basis as they go up and down, but also in the confidence numbers that show that there is a continued growth in the confidence in our economy and our market and our policies.   Look, I don’t want to tie a direct link.  I think that that’s -- you know, we could go back and forth every day about where the market stands at any given time in a day.  But I would have to believe that when you talk to a lot of economists, they -- and frankly, not just the economists who look at it academically and try to parse it, but when you talk to these company CEOs and leaders that he’s talking to, there is a renewed sense of confidence in their country, in the agenda, in the desire to hire and grow and expand in the United States, and I can only see that as a positive sign, not just for the market, but for our entire economy. Q    How long -- to follow up on that -- how long does the President think he can wait in order to provide specifics on tax reform and Obamacare and the others before we start to lose that sense of momentum and confidence that you’re talking about in the markets? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think it’s not just those pieces.  Obviously, it’s bigger than just that.  But I think that, with respect to Obamacare, he's talked about the next few weeks having something out there, and then same with tax reform.  And I think both of those things that we'll be working with the Hill.  Secretary Mnuchin mentioned the other day that hopefully having a tax plan done by (inaudible). But both of those, specifically, are massive undertakings.  And the idea that they are going to be done in two seconds is a little bit of a fallacy, and I think that we’ve given folks updates and guidelines as far as when we see this thing moving.  And I think that that’s a pretty good guide of where we go. Jim Stinson. Q    Sean, Governor Beshear said on Morning Joe today -- I’m paraphrasing -- that people are going to die if GOP healthcare plans more forward.  What does the administration say to Democrats suggesting Obamacare repeal will cost American lives? MR. SPICER:  Well, I would suggest to the former governor that, when you look at where Obamacare stands right now -- I think I’ve mentioned this before, Jim -- but more and more people are facing higher and higher premiums.  People are choosing to opt out of the exchange and pay the penalty.  It is collapsing on its own. And I don’t -- I think that that’s a bit extreme.  The reality is that more people are having problems right now.  They’re losing their doctor.  They’re losing the plan that they liked.  I’d like him to defend -- I mean, I read to you guys two days ago Nancy Pelosi’s own definition of success for Obamacare.  They had three prongs for that, and they failed on all three of them. So Governor Beshear -- you know, the President last night extended an olive branch to Democrats and Republicans to work with him on a plan that actually achieves the goals that were laid out.  That’s what he should -- if he wants to be focused, it’s not just former governors, but I think current governors were here to talk about what they want.  And so I know Governor Bevin, the current governor of Kentucky, has noted the concerns that Obamacare has in Kentucky now.  And I think those are the challenges and problems that the President is seeking to fix on this. The reality is, is that we have to have a healthcare system that Americans can afford, that give them choice, that have doctors that can deal with the problems they have.  And that's what we're working with Congress on right now is to get that kind of a plan in place. John Gizzi. Q    Thank you, Sean.  One brief question. MR. SPICER:  Wow.  (Laughter.) Q    Senator Schumer, the Minority Leader, has said that the President is stalling on one of the pivotal points of his agenda -- infrastructure -- where he could work with Democrats.  What's the administration's response to Senator Schumer? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think first and foremost, I'm glad to see that he has finally found one area that he's willing to work with the President on.  I know that multiple times this morning he was offered an opportunity on various shows to talk about things that he thought they could work with on the -- with the President.  And I think it took -- in particular, I saw the exchange on NBC and it was somewhat disappointing that when you look at all the things that the President said that I think offered an olive branch to both parties and seemingly should unify the country on issues and on goals, that it's nice to finally hear that we found one.  Because I think there were a lot of areas in that speech last night that transcended party lines and ideology, and that united us all as Americans. With respect to infrastructure, I think the President noted last night that we're going to continue to see a plan evolve that's really structured in a private partner financing mechanism that will continue to move forward.  But whether it's our roads or bridges, our airports, air traffic control, there is an infrastructure piece of our nation that is so vital to the way we do life.  And not just that, but -- not just the building itself and the construction of it, but those roads are what -- are the byway and the pathway to so much of our economic commerce today.  And doing them not only is good for the jobs that they will create on the projects, but allowing us to have -- allowing products to get to market and consumers to get to business, et cetera, is actually a magnifying event for that. Q    Sean, I'm just looking for some clarification on your comments from the last week about the administration's stance on recreational marijuana.  During the campaign, the President had said that this is a states' rights issue.  Is this still where he believes this issue should flow, or does he believe it's a federal --  MR. SPICER:  Yeah, I think, Trey, there is a specific carve-out in the appropriations for medical marijuana.  And I think the President understands that that can be a vital part of treatment, especially for terminally ill patients and people facing certain kinds of medical things.  But there is a -- I think I was very -- I'm sorry if I wasn't, but I think I was clear that there is a big difference between the medical and the non-medical. Margaret. Q    Sean, two things on the speech.  The President talked about robust engagement when he was talking about foreign policy.  But at the same time, the White House is talking about cutting foreign aid by a large amount.  How do you track those two things? MR. SPICER:  Well, because you can have engagement -- I mean, I don't know that --  Q    Like, who is going to be doing the diplomacy if you're cutting the State Department funding? MR. SPICER:  I mean, who is going to be doing it?  There's people that do --   Q    Who is the lead on foreign policy?  Is it the White House or the State Department?     MR. SPICER:  Secretary of State. Q    It is the Secretary of State? MR. SPICER:  Of course, it is.  I mean, look, the President obviously guides our foreign policy in terms of who implements it, whether it's -- if you talk about healthcare, it's going to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  If it's on trade, it's going to be the USTR.  I mean, so it's pretty clear that the Secretary of State implements the President's foreign policy agenda. Q    Right, but more robust versus cutting.  They sound contradictory --  MR. SPICER:  But, again, I think this is a very Washington trap.  Just because dollars do not decide engagement -- I think one of the things that's fascinating is that as the President has talked to all of these foreign leaders -- I don't know in a single case -- and, again, I can't say I've been on every call -- but I can't think of -- maybe one or two or something, because again, I don't want to get in a trap of trying to -- but I cannot say in most cases, at least, that I've heard direct aid being a discussion that has come up. In fact, what I hear more often is:  "Gosh, we haven’t heard from the United States in a long time.  We haven’t had you engage in issues of concern with us.  We haven’t talked about trade.  We haven’t talked about other issues of bilateral concern."  I think that's what a robust, healthy, bilateral relationship with a country is about. I think it is a very Washington-centered argument to literally tie dollars to any program or any type of engagement -- to say something is robust by the dollar figure is something that is a very Washington answer.  But I think that you can look at dollars that have gotten to a lot of countries.  And when we ask them, what's your relationship been with the United States?  They’ll say, we haven’t had much engagement at all with the United States in a while. Anita. Q    Sorry, I had a second question --  MR. SPICER:  John tried to start something; it just didn't continue.  (Laughter.)  Q    In the speech last night, while the President talked about support for vets and support for military, he didn't talk about the 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, the 5,000 in Iraq, the hundreds of operators on the ground in Syria.  Was there a reason that he didn't lay out his vision for foreign policy in those active war zones? MR. SPICER:  Well, again, I think you could probably go through and say, he also didn't talk about this or that.  He talked about his -- Q    The world is watching, and those are clear -- MR. SPICER:  I understand that.  But you can go through a lot of hotspots that we have in a country.  I think when it comes to the military itself, he was very clear about his commitment to the military, his desire to fund the military, give them the infrastructure that it needs.  It’s why he’s going to go to Hampton Roads tomorrow to talk about the investment that needs to get made.  He talked about veterans and caring for the folks.   So I understand your question.  But I think at some point you can literally go through all of the other areas that may not have come up on domestic and foreign policy, other nations that didn't get a mention, or a hotspot that didn't get up.  But I think in terms of his commitment to the country, his commitment to defeating ISIS, he did bring that up.  He talked about the plan that he wants to have, the engagement that he’s having with the Joint Chiefs in the military, the funding that he wants to lend them.   So I get that you can parse out something and say, "but he didn't bring up this exact thing."  There’s a lot of things that may or may not have come up last night, and that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't have the commitment to it. Q    He wasn’t deemphasizing foreign policy? MR. SPICER:  No, I think he talked about ISIS.  He talked about the military.  He talked about it.  So I don't have -- Anita. Q    It will not surprise you that I have two questions.  The first one is quick.   MR. SPICER:  I think for Lent everyone needs to give up two questions.  (Laughter.)  Or maybe I could at least give up answering two questions.  (Laughter.)  Q    I’ll make the first one quick, so how about that?  Can you update us on where we are on the executive order regarding vetting? MR. SPICER:  Yeah, as I said, we would have an announcement at some point scheduling-wise.  When we have one, we’ll announce it.  I think the President, as I mentioned a couple days ago, the issue for us has been a continued desire to share with the departments and agencies the ability to implement this, and we continue to do that.  When we have a schedule to announce -- Q    When do you think --  MR. SPICER:  I’ve not -- I’ve learned not to put days on things, because until we announce it, it’s much like we've talked about all the executive orders, with all the personnel announcements.  When the President is ready to make a decision, he lets us know and we let you know.  So we're not there yet. Q    The second question -- can you tell us a little bit about the back story with Carryn Owens being there yesterday?  She wasn’t on the list you all sent out.  When did the President talk to her?  When did that happen?  When was she invited?  Why wasn’t she on the official list?  And did they have a chance to visit beforehand? MR. SPICER:  Okay, I'll take these in order.  She was invited on January 30th.  In the condolence call to her, the President invited her and her three children to the White House.  And during that call, said, "You know, by the way, I'm going to be giving this speech in February.  If you would feel comfortable, I would love to have you as a guest."  He asked if she'd like to bring the kids at that time.  It was obviously a very raw and emotional time for her, and she said that's -- she appreciated the invitation, she would love to take him up on it, would get back to us.  The President asked the military aide in the room at the time to follow up with her.  She accepted the invitation.  So she and her three children came to the White House yesterday, met with the President prior to the speech, and they had a time to visit before and then after, obviously.   Why she wasn’t on the guidance:  We had a conversation with her prior, and just said, you know, I know this is an emotional time for you.  Respectfully to you guys, we knew that if we had released her name, that there would be a lot of media attention to her and her family.  And we spoke to her before we put out the guest guidance and just said, would you rather us wait and hold?  So we made a decision at the time that this was a very raw and emotional time for her, and we didn’t -- we worked with her to decide what would be in her best interest and her family's best interest at this time.   Q    Were the children there? MR. SPICER:  No, they were not there. Q    But her parents were there, correct? MR. SPICER:  Yes. Q    But the children were in town -- MR. SPICER:  The children were in town.  They visited the White House.  They had an opportunity to visit the Navy Mess, have lunch, go up and see -- and so the President got to see them.  And they got a tour of the White House. Q    Was there some special interaction with Ivanka, because she was sitting next to her?  Or it just happened to be where she sat? MR. SPICER:  They met obviously over -- and obviously after -- at the end of the evening, the President brought them into the room where he was holding, and everybody, including the First Lady, had a chance to talk to her and her family, and mother and father.  But, as I said, this was something that was extended -- the invitation was extended to her on the 30th of January when the President made that first call to her.   And again, just respectfully in terms of the follow-up, I know there's been a lot of interest in her, in Carryn.  And we have -- our goal was to make sure that we respected her wishes and her privacy.  And again, even with referencing her in the speech, that was her decision.  We asked her -- the President would like to raise this.  And she said, I'd like that.  And so that was coordinated with her in terms of how public she wanted to be and how acknowledged she wanted her and Ryan to be as well.   Q    I just thought I'd bring this up so you could respond to it.  You must have seen the criticism of her being there and the President mentioning her.  And people are saying it's a photo-op.  So since you're talking about it, do you want to respond to that, that it's a way to -- MR. SPICER:  I think that that's -- I mean, again, he invited her on January 30th and extended an invitation.  I don’t -- it was she who accepted the invitation.  I think she has a right to honor the legacy and sacrifice of her husband.  And I think -- I've been in this town 25 years, probably watched State of the Unions for 30 -- which doesn’t say a lot -- (laughter) -- for my viewing habits -- but I've never seen a sustained applause like that.  And I think that you can say what you want about a lot of the policies, but I hope to God that everybody in America could literally say that that's the country that we live in, that you honor and support, not just Ryan's sacrifice, but her -- what she's going to go through and what those children are going to go through.  It was amazing -- I got a chance to talk to the kids yesterday and see them so -- you know, they're kids, they were happy, they were running around.  I don’t know that they fully appreciate the sacrifice that their father has made.  But I just -- I'm not going to -- if that's the criticism that people that, they have a right to in this country.  But I would also suggest that we have the right to honor the people who have served this nation and the sacrifice that the families make of those who serve. Q    Thanks, Sean.  There were some quotes floating around last night from anonymous administration officials saying -- MR. SPICER:  What?  (Laughter.)   Q    What a surprise, right?  (Laughter.)  That part of the reason for the postponement of the announcement of the new travel ban was the positive reception of the speech, and that the administration wants the new executive order to "have its own moment."  Was the speech perception part of the reason -- MR. SPICER:  I will just refer you back to what I said to Anita's first question.  We hadn’t made an announcement.  And I think that -- again, this gets back to personnel announcements, executive order announcements, other things.  Until they're on the schedule, that doesn’t make them official.  And that's the point of making the announcement, is that we say this is where we're going and this is what we're doing.  We try to provide you guys guidance.  Obviously, there's a reason that we don’t -- because sometimes things aren’t ready, sometimes we want to make -- the President hasn’t made up his final mind about executing something, or he wants to add something in.  It's the same thing with the speech yesterday.  I mean, we worked up until game time because the President wanted to continue to work on it.  But when we have announcements to make, we'll make them.  Until we do, then it's not final.   Mara. Q    Thank you.  I have two really short questions.  The first one on the travel ban.  The first request was for 90 days so that you could develop the new vetting regime.  Thirty days have passed.  I assume that means you're 30 days into this process.  Does that mean that the next travel ban will ask for just the remaining time of the 90 days? MR. SPICER:  Respectfully, I'm not -- this goes back to the last couple.  I'm not going to start getting into discussions of an executive order that hasn’t been announced yet.  So to start talking about the specifics of something that I'm not even going to talk about the schedule of -- I'll give you credit for the try. Q    Okay, that's fair.  My next question is on taxes.  He talked about massive tax cuts for the middle class.  Your Treasury Secretary at one point said there would be no absolute cut for the wealthy.  What does that mean? MR. SPICER:  It means that I think the focus is on the middle class.  I think there's two things that are going to be highlighted in the tax reform.  One is to make our companies and corporations and businesses more competitive so that they stay in this country and hire more people.  I mean, that's --  Q    Right, I'm talking individuals. MR. SPICER:  I know, I know.  But what I'm saying is that there's two big components are going to drive tax reform -- that being one to help companies hire more people.  And then two is the focus on the individual side of the ledger is going to be on middle-income tax relief.  And so I think that's what Secretary Mnuchin was referring to. Q    But are you saying that a wealthy person will not get a larger -- in terms of percentage -- tax cut than a middle-class person?  I mean, is that how you're measuring it? MR. SPICER:  Again, all I'm going to do is stick at the high level now and say that the principle that's guiding this is middle-class tax relief.  So I'm not going to get into deciding all this yet. Q    Thanks a lot, Sean.  A lot has been made about the President's tone, his demeanor last night in his address to Congress in the sense that some people are describing it as very presidential; we haven't seen this side of President Trump in the early days of his presidency.  Was this a one-off?  Is this something we can expect from the President more often?  For instance, tomorrow he is traveling down to the Newport News, Virginia area.  Will we see the President Trump that we saw last night in his address to Congress, or more like the campaign-style rally that we saw down in Florida, which took place a few weeks ago? MR. SPICER:  I think the Vice President said it best this morning.  I mean, this is the President Trump, the candidate Trump, the President-elect Trump that I've known.  And I think sometimes -- so I respectfully disagree in the sense that I think that the folks around him who have known him, who have gotten to know him, this is something that you see on a regular basis.  And I think we're going to continue to see this.   I think more and more -- one of the programs this morning noted that people who have been around him for a long time, this is who he is.  I think he's talked about this a lot, and I know sometimes you pull random clips, but this is who he is.  And I don't necessarily subscribe to are we going to see more or less of this.  He cares about this country, he's got a big heart, he wants America to succeed, he wants America to be safe, he wants more Americans to get back to work.  And I think you're going to hear him talk about that over and over again. Blake. Q    Sean, the trade document that's out there, which suggests that the administration may take a position that would potentially ignore or look past WTO rulings.  Is there any truth to this?   MR. SPICER:  No. Q    What is the position? MR. SPICER:  Again, I would just argue, look, we're a member of the WTO, we don't have a USTR in place yet.  So to suggest that we're going to take any kind of trade policies -- I think, obviously, we've got some concerns with the percentage of dispute resolutions that are brought to the WTO versus other nations.  But I would just -- that's sort of a fact in terms of the percentage of cases that get brought to dispute resolution at the USTR -- or, excuse me, at the WTO against the United States.  But we don't have a U.S. Trade Representative, so I would say that that's not --  Q    Like a working -- MR. SPICER:  No, no, no.  I mean, it's not even a working. That's not -- full stop -- that is not our policy and that's not where we're going. Yes. Q    Sean, this is a follow-up on the -- from the heart.  Was the President's softening of his immigration stand one from the heart or one from the political handbook?  Let's put it that way.  And did you get ashes this morning? MR. SPICER:  Well, as soon as -- I mean, not that I’m a big fan of sharing, but I will be going to get my ashes later in a little bit.  So -- Q    (Inaudible.)  MR. SPICER:  I appreciate that.  I will (inaudible) in mass, and I’ll let my mom know that you appreciate that, and my parish priest.  (Laughter.)  Q    -- might be able to see you --  MR. SPICER:  I try to keep a little bit of the church and state out of this. Q    Do you have a confession? MR. SPICER:  Huh? Q    Do you a have a confession while you're up there?  (Laughter.)  MR. SPICER:  There’s three parts to Lent:  alms giving, penance, and prayer.  And I will make sure that I spend all 40 -- Q    Can you answer the first part of the question? MR. SPICER:  No, I’m good with -- I’m sorry I got lost in my faith.  (Laughter.)  Q    The President’s softening -- MR. SPICER:  Yeah, thank you.  Look, I don’t know that I would agree.  Look, the President’s comments yesterday that were that, if we can get a bill, he would like to get that done.  I think he -- in the conversation that he was having with network anchors, he talked about the fact -- and, frankly, one of the anchors said, if anyone can get a deal, it would be you.  Obviously, he was pleased with that because it’s true.  And I think he recognizes that a solution, a comprehensive solution has eluded our nation for a long time, and it’s a big problem.  And if he can get it, consistent with his principles, he will.  And I think he made that clear, and the full context of those comments are just that, and in the speech he commented on as well. And I think there’s a difference between sacrificing your principles to get a deal, and working with others, consistent with your principles to get a deal.  And I think his principles remain consistent, and he understands that the benefit of actually enacting a comprehensive solution to a big problem that we face in the country, I think that’s kind of where his head is at. Zeke. Q    Thank you, Sean. MR. SPICER:  I’m sorry.  Go ahead, Zeke. Q    Okay.  Two for you.  First, following up on Monday, the ISIS review -- the status of the review process -- who was involved and what is being (inaudible)?  The President -- who else is being looped into the process? MR. SPICER:  I’m sorry, I owed you that, and I will get back to you.  The principals committee did meet.  General Mattis shared his outline and ideas and comments, and he got a lot of feedback from the principals committee.  And remember, that’s -- and I’d need to get Michael to get back with you on that.  I owe you that, and my apologies.  I’ll add it to my confession.  (Laughter.)  Q    And then the second is, just following the President's line of speech last night about “the time for trivial fights is behind us” -- does the President believe that he has also sometimes engaged in some of these trivial fights?  And going forward, should we be expecting less of these fights from him with all sorts of people? MR. SPICER:  I’m going to let -- the President’s vision and words last night should stand for themselves.  I think he was very clear in terms of what he expects from the country.   Jessica. Q    The President talked about merit-based immigration last night.  Can you talk a little bit more about what that means, and whether that indicates a desire to change legal immigration from a focus on family reunification to some sort of making sure they have a job in the United States?  And was he also trying to imply that we don’t have a merit-based immigration system? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think he was -- look, I would just refer you back to what he said.  I mean, you’ve got countries like Canada and Australia, in particular, that have a true merit-based system, and I think he was making it clear that we currently don’t necessarily -- the results of our immigration system don’t yield, necessarily, one that reflects a merit-based one. But I will say that there was, I think, a very substantial case that he made in terms of merit-based -- what he wants and how he wants to get there. Jeremy. Q    Can I have a second?  I was going to have a second question. MR. SPICER:  I’m sorry. Q    The President also had a comment about how many factories have left the United States since China joined the WTO.  Last night his number was 60,000.  A week ago, on February 23rd, he used the figure of 70,000.  Just wondering what the genesis of the figure is, and what the White House believes to be the number of factories.  And also whether it is truly attributable to China joining the WTO or other factors, as well. MR. SPICER:  I’m going to -- we’ll get somebody to follow up with you on the cite for that, as well. I went to Jeremy. Q    Is the President considering the Pentagon and his Defense Secretary more authority to greenlight raids like the kind that we saw in Yemen?  And is that, in part, driven by the political blowback that that raid had initially? And secondly, could you talk about -- the initial executive order on the travel ban called for a 30-day review period to see if they would -- you would add additional countries to the list of banned -- MR. SPICER:  I’ll take the second one first.  I can refer you back to Mara Liasson’s question.  (Laughter.)   On the first part, I think that he has been very clear from the get-go.  He talked about some of the tactics used a while ago, and he said, I’m going to rely on General Mattis and his expertise.  And I think when it comes to national security, he’s got an amazing team by all standards -- whether it’s Secretary Mattis, Secretary Kelly, General McMaster.  There’s a whole host of these -- with General Kellogg.  And I think he’s always talked about he’s going to rely on his advisors to give him advice. I think at the end of the day there are certain decisions that have to be signed off by the President.  And I would respectfully dispute the characterization of that, and I think we've pushed back and discussed this several times.  There is -- this raid and action and mission was one that I think we have detailed very, very closely -- or carefully -- about the timeline for this, and when it was signed off on, and by whom.  And it was initiated, signed off on by the previous administration in writing, with a signature to greenlight it.  And it was further reviewed and concurred under this administration that the same basis for greenlighting it back then stood.   So, respectfully, the actual timeline and documentation does not support the accusation or the question that you're trying to ask. Q    And just as far as this was -- is nothing going to change as far as who greenlights certain raids? MR. SPICER:  Well, again, I think legally -- Jeremy, I don't want to get into specifics because I think there is certain action that requires presidential sign-off.  And there’s certain action in terms of echelon -- the way the military works, you have different echelons that can be signed off on certain things.  And I think there are certain things that have to be signed off by the President of the United States. Q    (Inaudible) protocol. MR. SPICER:  So the protocol is not changing in terms of what has to be signed off, but I think that the President has made clear -- all that being said, he relies heavily on their input, their decision-making, their opinions, and their analysis and conclusions.  That's different.  And I think one of the issues that you saw -- or some of the criticism that you saw last administration was that you had a lot of the combatant commanders in particular who would say, we came to a conclusion, we made the case, and we weren't allowed to move forward. That's where I think the nuance that you're asking actually lies, which is --  Q    Right, so is he making a change to address that criticism? MR. SPICER:  No, no, no.  I think his point -- it's a philosophy more than a sort of a change in policy, which is he believes that these are the experts in this field -- as he does with all of his Cabinet.  I mean, I think if you ask -- in terms of foreign policy interaction, he would say, okay, I chose Secretary Tillerson because I believe he's the right guy for this job; if Betsy DeVos has an educational matter that's going to come up.  He chose these highly qualified individuals because he believes in their expertise and understanding of the issues. I think his point and his philosophy is, generally, if they come to him with a case and lay it out, then he is -- that is going to weigh heavily on his decision-making, whereas I think in the last administration, one of the major critiques was that they would come to them and then there was a preponderance -- the preponderance of time.  It would be, no, we're not going to move forward with this.  So I just want to be --  Phil. Q    Sean, a lot of lawmakers were heartened by the speech last night and drew a contrast from the inaugural address 40 days prior, and said that the tone was very different, the substance was different, the olive branches and outreach.  Does the White House agree with that characterization?  Was it on purpose?  And if it was on purpose, what, over the course of those 40 days, inspired the course correction? MR. SPICER:  It was not on purpose.  There is no -- I mean, one was an inaugural.  One was a joint address.  They're two different speeches, and I think that they serve two different purposes in terms of what you're trying to lay out.  I think the joint address serves as sort of a place hold for the State of the Union for first term -- or first year, first term. Q    The way he communicated. MR. SPICER:  I understand -- you're right.  And I think he wanted to lay out -- it's a much different and longer speech.  He had different sort of messaging objectives at each.  But I also dispute the notion on the inaugural.  Like, I mean, I think that when you actually look at the critique, people will look at four or five different lines.  But for the most part, for much -- the most part -- the high majority of that speech, he talked about the American people, the American worker, and the challenges that they face and where he thinks the country has kind of gotten off-track prioritizing them and his desire to put, what he called, the forgotten people back number one in line.   And then so one was sort of -- that was laying out his sort of vision for the presidency.  This time I think it was much more of a laying out the policies of how he's going to achieve that.  And that's the purpose of a joint address.  So I just -- it's two different speeches, but I just don't agree with the characterization of the inaugural in the first place. Q    Was there some conclusion, though, in the White House or by the President himself that that rhetorical approach early on in the presidency, that the tweets, that the speeches -- like he did at CPAC the other day, the fighting with the media -- that that was not helping and he needed to do something different? MR. SPICER:  No.  No, no, there wasn't.  I just -- again, I think he -- and this particular speech was a very personal -- again, like, each speech, each speech has a different audience, a different objective.  And I think for this speech, he was very personal, he was very, very much him.  It was his work, it was his voice, it was his words, it was his edits, it was his suggestions.   And then he had a team surrounded by him, including the Vice President, the chief of staff, Steve Miller, Steve Bannon, Jared, Ivanka was part of it.  There was a -- Kellyanne, Hope -- who he would bounce ideas and objectives off of.  But this was a Trump speech from his heart, as he said, that evolved over the course of the last 10 days or so.  And in the last 48 to 72 hours, really accelerated, got very crisp.  And it was up until about 12:15 -- excuse me, that's when I got home.  (Laughter.)  About 6:15 yesterday when we really started to get that real final point on it, because it was something that was very, very personal to him.  But I wouldn't conflate the two and try to compare one speech with another.  He looked at them as very different objectives in terms of how the speech.  I need to run. Q    But, Sean, was this a reset?  Was it a reset speech? MR. SPICER:  No, it wasn't a reset speech.  I need to get on.  I've got some things I have to take care of.  But thank you.  We will, as I mentioned, expect a gaggle on the way down to Hampton Roads tomorrow, and we will see you later. Thank you all. END  12:25 P.M. EST

27 февраля, 21:51


РЭШ объявила о сотрудничестве с МШУ Сколково и "Сколтехом", что, на мой взгляд, очень хорошо. Было бы бессмысленно переезжать в Сколково, если бы не перспективы этого сотрудничества. (Вторая причина - это необходимость, в будущем, собственного кампуса - тот факт, что в России нет современных университетских кампусов, в которых комфортно жили бы студенты без разделения на "москвичей" и "немосквичей", библиотеки были бы открыты до трёх часов ночи, было бы огромное пространство для индивидуальных и совместных занятий - это, реально, отставание на десятилетия. К сожалению, образовательный прорыв последних двадцати лет в России двигался, в основном, "городскими университетами" - той же Вышкой - и, соответственно, в части кампусов разрыв практически не сократился. Но про это я отдельно напишу.)Сотрудничество РЭШ с МШУ Сколково должно быть очень полезно МШУ. У коллег, например, нет собственного блока "теоретических экономистов", а это - важнейший элемент современной школы управления. К сожалению, в России многие не знают о том, кто и как работает в ведущих бизнес-школах в мире, предпочитая смотреть на примеры INSEAD и других европейских школ, которые, при всём уважении, продукт "догоняющего развития" в области бизнес-образования. А посмотреть на американские школы. Все, конечно, знают, что Chicago Booth, Stern, Wharton - мировые лидеры в академических финансах. Понятно, что Kellogg, Stanford GSB, HBS - научные лидеры в области менеджмента и маркетинга. В бизнес-школах работает множество лидеров экономической профессии - от Марион Бертран в Сhicago Booth до Дэвида Крепса в Stanford GSB. Но гораздо меньше людей знают, что ведущие специалисты в экономической теории работают в бизнес-школах.Посмотрите коллекцию - посмотрите, в каких научных областях они работают: Адам Бранденбургер в NYU Stern, Набил Аль-Наджар и Альваро Сандрони - в Kellogg, Роберт Уилсон (один из отцов теории аукционов), Юлий Санников (JBC'16), Джон Робертс, Энди Скрипач, Дэвид Бэрон в Stanford GSB, Джерри Грин (из Масколлела-Уинстона-Грина) в HBS, Эмир Каменица в Chicago Booth - это всё чистые теоретики, специалисты в самой абстрактной, математизированной части экономической науки.Мои друзья-коллеги Егор Егоров в Kellogg, Пьер Яред в GSB Columbia, Миша Островский в Stanford GSB выглядят, по сравнению, с перечисленными выше, "прикладниками", но, конечно, они тоже являются специалистами по экономической теории высшего класса. И ведущие бизнес-школы в мире считают необходимым иметь таких профессоров.А МШУ Сколково может не иметь - потому что рядом, в соседнем здании, есть РЭШ. И многие специалисты там - от самого теоретического Озгура Эврена (в точности, кстати, та же область, что и Аль-Наджара с Сандрони) до "финансистов" Анны Обижаевой и Ольги Кузьминой - это в точности  то, что нужно, в качестве лекторов, для школы управления, которая хочет быть заметной на карте Европы. Конечно, преподавать в бизнес-школе труднее (хотя мне понравилось преподавать MBA в Kellogg) и, конечно, не так просто объяснять студентам, что часть того, что они платят - они платят за то, чтобы им рассказывали (простые вещи) активные действующие учёные. Трудно, но, после того как сделано столько шагов вперёд, можно сделать и ещё. Тем более, что сейчас есть целая группа выпускников РЭШ - помимо Егора Егорова в Kellogg, и Андрей Маленко в MIT Sloan, и Павел Зрюмов в Wharton, и Алексей Чистый в UIC, и Александр Баринов в UC-Riverside, и Олег Рычков в Temple - с большим опытом именно бизнес-преподавания.Сотрудничество РЭШ со Сколтехом - тоже очень естественный путь развития. Современное экономическое образование - во всяком случае, на магистерском уровне (чем славилась РЭШ до создания бакалавриата) - это, по существу, инженерное образование. Я уже сетовал, и не раз, на то, что как-то так получилось, что на протяжении многих лет читатели делали выводы о том, чем занимаются экономисты на основе моих рассказов о собственных исследований. А мои исследования - это не "центральная часть" современной (да и любого времени) экономической науки - не денежный рынок, не рынок труда, не налоги, не пенсии. Хороший выпускник магистратуры РЭШ должен уметь работать в Центробанке или минфине - то есть разбираться в DSGE-моделях и понимать, откуда там что берётся; он должен уметь работать в инвестбанке или банке, то есть пользоваться аппаратом финансового анализа и минимальным стратегическим анализом. "Стык" экономики и естественных наук не так просто в высокой науке, но довольно понятен ближе к практике. Наконец, исторически магистры РЭШ были сильнее средних физтехов и мехматян (конечно, в основном из-за соотношения размеров) - это было хорошо видно по результатам вступительных экзаменов; значит, сейчас будет легко находить общий язык. Короче, я в этом сотрудничестве вижу хорошие перспективы.

Выбор редакции
22 февраля, 12:00

Why #DeleteUber and Other Boycotts Matter

Even when a relatively small number of people participate

21 февраля, 19:26

For Trump, Generals Are Everywhere

Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com   If you’re going to surround yourself with generals in the Oval Office, as Donald Trump has done, that means one thing in these years: you’re going to appoint men whose careers were made (or unmade) by what was once known as the Global War on Terror.  They will be deeply associated with Washington’s 15 years of disastrous wars and conflicts in the Greater Middle East, which have left that region a set of failed or near-failed states and a hotbed of terror outfits, including various branches of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.  Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis, for instance, led troops in the initial post-invasion period in Afghanistan in 2001; in the taking of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, in 2003; in the fierce fighting for the city of Fallujah in 2004; and then, from 2010 to 2013, he was in charge of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), with responsibility for the Greater Middle East. In that post, he cooked up a scheme to take out either an Iranian oil refinery or power plant in the “dead of night,” an act of war meant to pay that country back for supplying mortars to Iraqi insurgents killing American troops. That plan, nixed by the Obama White House, seems to have played a role in his removal from the CENTCOM post five months early. General John Kelly, head of the Department of Homeland Security, also commanded troops and fought in Iraq.  (His son was killed in Afghanistan in 2010.)  Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn held key intelligence positions in both Afghanistan and Iraq, while his temporary replacement (and now National Security Council chief of staff), General Joseph “Keith” Kellogg, retired and working with private contractor Oracle at the time of the invasion of Iraq, was sent to Baghdad as chief operating officer of the Coalition Provisional Authority that the Bush administration set up to run its ill-fated occupation of that country.  He lasted only five months as that body began its “reconstruction” of Iraq, after disbanding Saddam’s army and so putting its officers and troops on the unemployment line, which meant at the disposal of the developing insurgency.  Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, the new national security adviser, just tapped for the job by Trump, isn’t even retired and held command posts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. On the evidence of these last years, such experiences seem to have tied these men to the war against terror in a deep and visceral way, making any major reconsideration of what they had lived through inconceivable.  In the new Trump era, clues to this ongoing reality can already be found in two recent events: the first Trump-ordered action in the Greater Middle East, a thoroughly botched Special Operations raid in Yemen, which did not achieve its objective but got large numbers of civilians and one Navy SEAL killed and which, given the last 15 years of U.S. military action in the region, looked painfully familiar; and the request of the present U.S. Afghan commander, General John Nicholson Jr., for “several thousand” more American military advisers, one that it’s hard to imagine he would have made before the Senate Armed Services Committee without the agreement of Defense Secretary Mattis.  It’s also a request that was clearly meant as no more than an opening bid in a potentially far larger surge of American forces into Afghanistan.  (Where have you heard that before?) Under the circumstances, it’s good to know that, even if not at the highest ranks of the U.S. military, there are officers who have been able to take in what they experienced up close and personal in Iraq and Afghanistan and make some new ― not desperately old ― sense of it.  U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen, a former history instructor at West Point and the author of Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge, who writes his inaugural TomDispatch post today (“How We Got Here”), is obviously one of them and I doubt he’s alone in the American armed forces after all these years. -- 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.

21 февраля, 16:26

How Do Google, Amazon, And Facebook Justify Advertising With Breitbart?

In the last month, leading technology companies have opposed President Trump’s ban on refugees and the citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. Not only have numerous tech companies spoken out against Trump’s xenophobic and anti-Muslim rewriting of immigration policy, but Facebook, Google, and Amazon joined federal lawsuits challenging the restrictions. Yet despite opposing Trump’s Muslim ban, Facebook, Google, and Amazon continue to buy advertising from Breitbart, a sexist, racist, homophobic, and anti-Muslim website that enthusiastically promotes fake news and the white nationalist, so-called “alt right.” The far-right provocateur and pedophilia condoner Milo Yiannopoulos serves as a Senior Editor at Breitbart. And perhaps no other media outlet is more closely tied to the Trump administration than Breitbart. Last August, Trump tapped Breitbart editor and white nationalist Steven Bannon to become his campaign chief. Now Trump’s Chief Strategist, Bannon played a leading role in implementing the Muslim ban, according to officials at the Department of Homeland Security. In late January, Trump added two more Breitbart staffers to his administration. In addition to its own advertisements, Google places ads for more than a thousand companies on Breitbart through its AdSense service. This is in spite of the fact that AdSense’s policies prohibit ads from being “placed on pages that contain harassing or bullying content, or on content that incites hatred or promotes violence against individuals or groups.” Curious as to how Facebook, Google, and Amazon justify their continued collaboration with Breitbart, I reached out to each of the three companies for a statement. This is what I did (and didn’t) learn. To start, I asked Facebook’s press office for a comment on the company’s ads that have appeared alongside the following Breitbart headlines: 1) “Sorry Girls! But the Smartest People in The World Are All Men”; 2) “Milo: ‘Why Are We Surprised Muslims are Blowing Things Up? That’s What They Do”; and 3) “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew.” As Facebook’s representative Tom Channick explained, “We purchase ads through third party networks to reach as many people as possible. People visit different sites and we want to connect with all of them, independent of political affiliation or beliefs. We are not changing our advertising buys at this time.” In short, Facebook chose to hide behind political neutrality and ignore the misogynistic, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic message of the above ads. I also presented Google with screenshots of ads that AdSense placed next to the “Sorry Girls” and “Milo” headlines plus an additional misogynistic headline: “There’s No Hiring Bias Against Women in Tech, They Just Suck at Interviews.” I asked how Google could explain placing ads for itself and over a thousand other companies next to such headlines. Google’s response was even more evasive than Facebook’s statement. According to representative Suzanne Blackburn, although Google “review[s] sites on a regular basis for policy compliance...we are not going to comment on specific sites.” Blackburn mentioned that Google encourages “users to let us know when they come across ads or sites that they believe are in violation of our policies.” But Blackburn refused to acknowledge that Google’s ads appear alongside hate speech prohibited by its own policies. If Google would recognize this violation of its policies and stop collaborating with Breitbart, it could instantly eliminate the bulk of the site’s advertising revenue. Facebook and Google’s responses are objectionable on multiple levels. First, Google refuses to acknowledge its central role in placing ads for more than a thousand companies on Breitbart. Worse than that, both Google and Facebook seem to consider Breitbart’s hate speech like any other “political affiliation or beliefs” ― not unrepentant hate speech that degrades entire religions and genders. Both companies, in effect, are normalizing and condoning hate speech as acceptable political expression. At least Facebook and Google responded to my inquiries. Amazon simply refused to reply to my email to their press office. Amazon also failed to contact me after one of their managers promised a representative would follow up on a separate customer service complaint I made about the company’s ads on Breitbart. The online work of Sleeping Giants has convinced more than a thousand companies to reject Breitbart. What are these tech giants ― some of the richest companies in the United States ― so scared of? Is it the conservative backlash that Kellogg’s suffered for pulling its ads from Breitbart, or the xenophobic outrage Anheuser-Busch faced for daring to portray an immigrant positively in a Super Bowl advertisement? Is it the loss of a single advertising venue for Facebook and Amazon, or, in the case of Google, the loss of one website as an AdSense client? Regardless of their reasons, Facebook, Amazon, and Google are helping to fund Breitbart’s hate speech. Their support of Breitbart contradicts both their official policies and their opposition to Trump and Bannon’s Muslim ban. Citizens and customers who want these companies to stop dealing with Breitbart will have to embrace tactics voters are using to influence members of Congress. Tens of thousands of people working with the Twitter account Sleeping Giants have organized a sustained campaign to demand that corporations remove their advertising from Breitbart. Since November, over 1,100 companies―including major firms such as BMW, Chase, Kellogg’s, T-Mobile, and Visa―have chosen to pull their ads from Breitbart. After all, why would any company want their products or services associated with discriminatory hate speech? The online work of Sleeping Giants has convinced more than a thousand companies to reject Breitbart. But it’s clear that citizens will need to apply additional forms of direct pressure to persuade Breitbart’s more loyal advertisers to change course. Petitions are worthwhile, but Amazon is already ignoring the signatures of more than 500,000 people asking it to stop advertising with Breitbart. Call-in campaigns to these companies’ customer service lines could be effective, as could protests outside these companies’ offices. Even Amazon employees have started to demand that their employer cut ties with Breitbart. Hopefully employees at Google and Facebook will follow suit. An organized boycott of Amazon may eventually be necessary to get the online retailer to abandon Breitbart. Whatever the best strategy may be, citizens will have to continue putting direct pressure on tech companies to get them to honor their principles and policies and remove their ads from the hate website Breitbart. -- 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.

21 февраля, 01:18

Remarks by President Trump Announcing the Designation of Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster to National Security Advisor

Mar-a-Lago Club Palm Beach, Florida 2:52 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT:  So I just wanted to announce -- we've been working all weekend very diligently, very hard -- that General H.R. McMaster will become the National Security Advisor.  He's a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience.  I watched and read a lot over the last two days.  He is highly respected by everybody in the military.  And we're very honored to have him.  He also has also known for a long time General Keith Kellogg, who I also have gotten to know and he's a terrific man, and they're going to be working together.  And Keith is going to be Chief of Staff, and I think that combination is something very, very special. I met with many other people.  Tremendous respect for the people I met with.  I know John Bolton we're going to be asking to work with us in a somewhat different capacity.  John is a terrific guy.  We had some really good meetings with him.  He knows a lot.  He has a good number of ideas that I must tell you I agree very much with.  So we'll be talking to John Bolton in a different capacity.  And we’ll be talking to some of the other generals that I've met that I have really, really paid a lot of respect for. So I think with that, I'd like to ask H.R. to say a couple of words.  I'd like to ask Keith to say a couple of words.  And then I'll see you back in Washington.  We're leaving right now for Washington and the White House.   General. LT. GENERAL MCMASTER:  Mr. President, thank you very much.  I'd just like to say what a privilege it is to be able to continue serving our nation.  I'm grateful to you for that opportunity, and I look forward to joining the National Security team and doing everything I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people.  Thank you very much, sir. THE PRESIDENT:  You're going to do a great job. LT. GENERAL MCMASTER:  Thank you, sir. THE PRESIDENT:  General. LT. GENERAL KELLOGG:  Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to serve.  I'm very honored by it and privileged by it.  And I'm very honored and privileged to serve alongside H.R. McMaster, who I've known for years as well.  He's a great statesman, he's a great soldier.  Thank you, sir. THE PRESIDENT:  And so are you.  Thank you very much.  What a privilege.  This is a great team.  We're very, very honored.  Our country is lucky to have two people like this.  And, frankly, after having met so many of the people in the military, we're lucky to have all of them.   So thank you all very much.  I'll see you back in Washington.  We're leaving now.  Thank you. Q    Did Vice President Pence play a role in helping you? THE PRESIDENT:  He did.  He did. END 2:55 P.M. EST

02 сентября 2014, 04:21

10 компаний контролирующих мировую пищевую индустрию

  В сельском хозяйстве и пищевой промышленности занято более одного миллиарда человек в мире или треть всей рабочей силы. И хоть данный сектор играет ключевую роль в жизни человечества, как это ни парадоксально, его контролируют крайне небольшое число транснациональных компаний. Согласно докладу компании Oxfam International, 10 компаний, специализирующихся на производстве продуктов питания и напитков, могут формировать продуктовую корзину большей части населения планеты, влиять на их условия труда, а также окружающую среду.  Associated British Foods Выручка: $21,1 млрд Расходы на рекламу: неизвестно Прибыль: $837 млн Сотрудники: 112,6 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Лондон, Великобритания  Associated British Foods – это британская компания-производитель продуктов питания, которой удалось выстроить глобальную сеть с помощью приобретений. В результате постоянного прироста за счет покупки новых компаний, Associated British Foods производит практически все виды продовольствия, начиная от сахара, заканчивая кукурузным маслом и чаем. ABF один из основных поставщиков важных пищевых ингредиентов, в том числе эмульгаторов, ферментов и лактозы.   Coca-Cola Сo. Выручка: $46,9 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $3,0 млрд Прибыль: $8,6 млрд Сотрудники: 130,6 тыс. Штаб-квартира: тланта, Джорджия, США  Coca-Cola является одним из самых дорогих брендов в мире. Совокупный объем продаж в 2013 финансовом году в стоимостном выражении превысил отметку $47 млрд. Coca-Cola Сo. крупнейший мировой производитель и поставщик концентратов, сиропов и безалкогольных напитков. Крупнейшим акционером этой компании является фонд Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (8,61%), контролируемый легендарным инвестором Уорреном Баффетом.   Groupe Danone Выручка: $29,3 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,2 млрд Прибыль: $2,0 млрд Сотрудники: 104,6 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Париж, Франция  Французская компания Groupe Danone имеет обладает колоссальным присутствием в во всем мире. Его крупнейшим рынком, по объемам продаж, является Россия, далее следуют Франция, США, Китай и Индонезия. Компания является крупнейшим в мире продавцом свежих молочных продуктов, больше половины от всего объема продаж данной продукции в мире в 2013 году пришлось на Groupe Danone.   General Mills Выручка: $17,9 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,1 млрд Прибыль: $1,8 млрд Сотрудники: 43 тыс./LI] Штаб-квартира: Голден-Вэлли, Миннесота, США  Компания General Mills владеет рядом одних из наиболее известных американских брендов, таких как Pillsbury, Colombo Yogurt, Betty Crocker, «Зеленный великан». Производственные мощности компании размещены в 15 странах, однако, продукция реализуется более чем в 100. Полоска продукции компании невероятно широкая : хлопья для завтрака, йогурт, замороженное тесто, консервированные супы, пицца, мороженое, соевые продукты, овощи, мука и др.   Kellogg Выручка: $14,8 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,1 млрд Прибыль: $1,8 млрд Сотрудники: 30,2 тысячи Штаб-квартира: Батл-Крик, Мичиган, США  Американская компания Kellogg зарабатывает меньше всех среди пищевых гигантов, по итогам 2013 года объем выручки составил лишь $15 млрд. Kellogg является одним из крупнейших в мире хлебообработчиков и производителей печенья. Компания специализируется на производстве сухих завтраков и продуктов питания быстрого приготовления.   Mars Выручка: $33,0 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $2,2 млрд Прибыль: нет данных Сотрудники: 75 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Маклин, Виргиния, США  Из всех компаний, представленных в данном списке, Mars –единственная, которая находится в частной собственности. Mars владеет такими "шоколадными" брендами, как M&Ms, Milky Way, Snickers и Twix. Компания владеет продовольственными брендами, такими как Uncle Ben's, а также производителем жевательных резинок и конфет Wrigley.   Mondelez Выручка: $35,3 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $1,9 млрд Прибыль: $3,9 млрд Сотрудники: 107 тысяч Штаб-квартира: Дирфилд, Иллинойс, США  Компания Mondelez появилась в результате разделения пищевого гиганта Kraft Foods. Во время разделения мировые бренды (Oreo, TUC, Cadbury, Milka, Alpen Gold, Jacobs) достались Mondelez, вто время как американские - Kraft Foods Group. По итогам прошлого года, выручка компании составила $35 млрд выручки при капитализации более чем $72 млрд.   Nestle Выручка: $103,5 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $3,0 млрд Прибыль: $11,2 млрд Сотрудники: 333 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Веве, Швейцария  Nestle по всем показателям является крупнейшей пищевой компанией в мире. Выручка компании за прошлый год составила 92 млрд швейцарских франков. Компания производит растворимый кофе, минеральную воду, шоколад, мороженое, бульоны, молочные продукты, детское питание, корм для домашних животных, фармацевтическую продукцию и косметику. Более 2000 товарных знаков на 461 фабрике в 83 странах мира.   PepsiCo Выручка: $66,4 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $2,5 млрд Прибыль: $6,7 млрд Сотрудники: 274 тыс. Штаб-квартира: Пёрчейз, Нью-Йорк, США  Помимо известных "содовых" брендов, PepsiCo владеет рядом продуктовых торговых марок, таких как Tostitos, Doritos, Quaker. Более того, компания является крупнейшим рекламодателем в мире, расходы компании в этой области в 2012 году превысили $2,5 млрд.   История вопроса Выручка: $68,5 млрд Расходы на рекламу: $7,4 млрд Прибыль: $6,7 млрд Сотрудники: 174,3 тысячи Штаб-квартира: Лондон, Великобритания и Роттердам, Голландия  Unilever трудно назвать пищевой компанией, так как большую часть ее прдуктовой линейки представляют средства личной гигиены и бытовая химия. Однако, на еду и напитки проходится более трети выручки. По итогом прошлого года выручка компании составила 50 млрд евро. Компания владеет такими брендами, как Lipton, Brooke Bond, Calve, Rama, Creme Bonjour и другие.