Monday, June 22, 2020
WITCH - INTRODUCTION [FULL ALBUM].FROM ZAMBIA
Setlist
Setlist
01 Introduction 00:00
02 Home Town (Instrumental) 03:44
03 You Better Know 08:11
04 Feeling High 11:43
05 Like A Chicken 15:20
06 See You Mama 18:30
07 That's What I Want 23:05
08 Try Me (Instrumental) 26:06
09 No Time 30:31
Label: Zambia Music Parlour – ZMPL 7
Format: Vinyl, LP, Album
Country: Zambia
Released: 1974
Band Members
1 Emanyeo Jagari Chanda (lead vocals, cowbells, marracas)
2 John “Music” Muma (rhythm guitar, backup vocals)
3 Gideon “Giddy King” ''Mwamulenga'' Mulenga (bass)
4 Boyd “Star MacBoyd”Sinkala (drums)
5 Chris “Kims” Mbewe (lead guitar, lead vocals, acoustic guitar)
6. Paul “Jones” Mumba
DEPARTMENT OF WISHFUL THINKING
Opinion: History suggests Trump is heading for a fall in November
Never very popular, Trump is now shackled with a terrible economy and a persistent pandemic
When the year began, I thought President Donald Trump was in pretty good shape to win a second term. This obviously isn’t the case now. I don’t have to tell you what the pandemic, the economic collapse that followed, Trump’s own behavior—which seems to be getting worse—and more have done to weaken him electorally.
Trump defied history four years ago, and he could certainly do so again in November. But history is not on his side in several critical ways.
Stock market hopes
Nor does the stock market offer any comparative advantage to Trump. In the full years before Carter and Bush’s re-election bids, the S&P 500 SPX, 0.21% rose 18.4% in 1979 and 32.5% in 1980—but again, Carter lost. It rose 30.5% in 1991 and 7.6% in 1992 — but again, Bush lost.
Trump’s stock market? The index jumped 31.5% last year, but as of yesterday is off -3.3% year-to-date.
In addition to unemployment and stocks, history is also against Trump in another big way: he’s the fifth president to lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College. So what happened to the other four popular vote losers when they sought re-election?
John Quincy Adams was crushed by Andrew Jackson (1828); Rutherford B. Hayes declined to run again (1880), and Benjamin Harrison lost to Grover Cleveland (1892).
That leaves just one popular vote loser who managed to win a second term: George W. Bush in 2004. And he barely did so. Had just 59,229 votes in Ohio gone the other way, John Kerry would have won the Buckeye state and with it, the presidency. Sidebar: for you Electoral College haters, consider that Kerry would have become president despite losing the popular vote by more than 3 million votes.
Opinion: History suggests Trump is heading for a fall in November
Never very popular, Trump is now shackled with a terrible economy and a persistent pandemic
Published: June 20, 2020 By Paul Brandus
When the year began, I thought President Donald Trump was in pretty good shape to win a second term. This obviously isn’t the case now. I don’t have to tell you what the pandemic, the economic collapse that followed, Trump’s own behavior—which seems to be getting worse—and more have done to weaken him electorally.
Trump defied history four years ago, and he could certainly do so again in November. But history is not on his side in several critical ways.
An unpopular president
You’ll recall that Trump was elected president with 46% of the popular vote. According to two aggregators of polls — Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight — he has never advanced more than a point or two beyond this, peaking back in February and March in the 45% to 47% range.
His current approval ratings — 40.8% (FiveThirtyEight) and 42.5% (RCP) — are a decline of about five approval points in each. Given how bad things are right now — a possible second wave of the pandemic and the worst unemployment rate in 90 years — Trump should count his lucky stars that it’s not worse. It’s a reflection of just how much his base continues to stick to him like glue.
This is the best thing — perhaps the only thing — that the president has going for him right now.
What does history tell us when a presidential incumbent has numbers this low?
Trump’s Gallup approval is 39%. Going back to 1950 — nearly three-quarters of a century — only two presidents were weaker at this point in their re-election years: George H.W. Bush in 1992 (37%) and Jimmy Carter in 1980 (38%). Both of them lost their re-election bids.
And both Carter and Bush lost with economies that were far better than what Trump is dealing with now. Unemployment in May 1980 was 7.5%; in May 1992 it was 6.1%. Trump’s jobless rate now is nearly those two rates combined: 13.3%, and even the Department of Labor says were it not for data that was “misclassified,” the real jobless rate today would be three full points higher: 16.3%.
At 39%, Trump is barely within shouting distance of where Barack Obama stood this time in 2012: 46%. But Obama wasn’t dealing with a pandemic (in fact he had successfully faced a possible pandemic down), the stock market was surging and unemployment was plunging. He went on to win 51% of the popular vote and 332 electoral votes. Bill Clinton (1996), Ronald Reagan (1984), Richard Nixon (1972) and Dwight Eisenhower (1956) did better, in most cases spectacularly better.
You’ll recall that Trump was elected president with 46% of the popular vote. According to two aggregators of polls — Real Clear Politics and FiveThirtyEight — he has never advanced more than a point or two beyond this, peaking back in February and March in the 45% to 47% range.
His current approval ratings — 40.8% (FiveThirtyEight) and 42.5% (RCP) — are a decline of about five approval points in each. Given how bad things are right now — a possible second wave of the pandemic and the worst unemployment rate in 90 years — Trump should count his lucky stars that it’s not worse. It’s a reflection of just how much his base continues to stick to him like glue.
This is the best thing — perhaps the only thing — that the president has going for him right now.
What does history tell us when a presidential incumbent has numbers this low?
Trump’s Gallup approval is 39%. Going back to 1950 — nearly three-quarters of a century — only two presidents were weaker at this point in their re-election years: George H.W. Bush in 1992 (37%) and Jimmy Carter in 1980 (38%). Both of them lost their re-election bids.
And both Carter and Bush lost with economies that were far better than what Trump is dealing with now. Unemployment in May 1980 was 7.5%; in May 1992 it was 6.1%. Trump’s jobless rate now is nearly those two rates combined: 13.3%, and even the Department of Labor says were it not for data that was “misclassified,” the real jobless rate today would be three full points higher: 16.3%.
At 39%, Trump is barely within shouting distance of where Barack Obama stood this time in 2012: 46%. But Obama wasn’t dealing with a pandemic (in fact he had successfully faced a possible pandemic down), the stock market was surging and unemployment was plunging. He went on to win 51% of the popular vote and 332 electoral votes. Bill Clinton (1996), Ronald Reagan (1984), Richard Nixon (1972) and Dwight Eisenhower (1956) did better, in most cases spectacularly better.
Stock market hopes
Nor does the stock market offer any comparative advantage to Trump. In the full years before Carter and Bush’s re-election bids, the S&P 500 SPX, 0.21% rose 18.4% in 1979 and 32.5% in 1980—but again, Carter lost. It rose 30.5% in 1991 and 7.6% in 1992 — but again, Bush lost.
Trump’s stock market? The index jumped 31.5% last year, but as of yesterday is off -3.3% year-to-date.
In addition to unemployment and stocks, history is also against Trump in another big way: he’s the fifth president to lose the popular vote but win the Electoral College. So what happened to the other four popular vote losers when they sought re-election?
John Quincy Adams was crushed by Andrew Jackson (1828); Rutherford B. Hayes declined to run again (1880), and Benjamin Harrison lost to Grover Cleveland (1892).
That leaves just one popular vote loser who managed to win a second term: George W. Bush in 2004. And he barely did so. Had just 59,229 votes in Ohio gone the other way, John Kerry would have won the Buckeye state and with it, the presidency. Sidebar: for you Electoral College haters, consider that Kerry would have become president despite losing the popular vote by more than 3 million votes.
Double whammy
To recap: Trump faces a double historical whammy: He’s a weak incumbent and a popular-vote loser to boot. Other presidents have been shown the door with economies that were better than what we have today. There are fears of a second wave of the coronavirus; the president can barely acknowledge that this remains a problem, a problem that continues to kill thousands of Americans each week.
I said that six months ago, Trump was in pretty good shape to win another term. Now, history suggests he’s headed for a quick exit.
More from Paul Brandus
The media landscape is far more friendly to Trump than he likes to admit
To recap: Trump faces a double historical whammy: He’s a weak incumbent and a popular-vote loser to boot. Other presidents have been shown the door with economies that were better than what we have today. There are fears of a second wave of the coronavirus; the president can barely acknowledge that this remains a problem, a problem that continues to kill thousands of Americans each week.
I said that six months ago, Trump was in pretty good shape to win another term. Now, history suggests he’s headed for a quick exit.
More from Paul Brandus
The media landscape is far more friendly to Trump than he likes to admit
Exclusive: After BP takes a hit, investors widen climate change campaign
Matthew Green and Simon Jessop Reuters June 21, 2020
Landell-Mills, head of stewardship at Sarasin & Partners, poses for a photograph at their office in London
By Matthew Green and Simon Jessop
LONDON (Reuters) - Investors managing £1.8 trillion ($2.2 trillion) in assets are widening a campaign pressing oil majors to better reflect climate risks in their accounting, and will soon target other businesses with heavy fossil fuel exposure, the group said on Monday.
The investors believe their campaign is working, noting the "hugely important" news of BP joining other oil majors in lowering the value of its assets amid a global transition to cleaner energy, said Natasha Landell-Mills, head of stewardship at asset manager Sarasin & Partners.
"The question all company directors and their shareholders now need urgently answered is, 'Where else might company positions be overstated?'" the group of more than 20 leading funds said in a joint statement seen by Reuters.
BP declined to comment on the campaign.
The investor group can't be certain whether its efforts played into BP's decision to reduce the value of its assets by up to $17.5 billion, announced on June 15.
But they have already begun lobbying building materials company CRH and plan to write to Anglo-Australian miner Rio Tinto , which supplies the steel industry. Along with cement, steel is a major source of greenhouse gases.
"We will be rolling out similar engagements with other fossil fuel-dependent companies," Landell-Mills, who is coordinating the campaign, told Reuters in an interview.
The investors were also planning to include European and U.S. banks financing fossil fuel projects, Landell-Mills added.
Rio Tinto did not immediately respond to a request for comment. CRH declined to comment.
Early last year, the investors began lobbying the Big Four accounting firms - EY, Deloitte, PwC and KPMG - to do more to ensure climate-related risks are adequately reflected in company financial statements they audit. The campaign is one of a number of efforts by investors to push companies on environmental policies, amid concerns many businesses are both contributing to the planet's warming while also failing to take full stock of the risks they face.
Major fund managers including BlackRock have issued increasingly strident public statements about climate change, while other investors have threatened to pull money out of Brazil unless Amazon deforestation is curbed.
The campaign led by Sarasin & Partners emphasizes the legal duty companies have to ensure their financial statements fully reflect how government moves to ratchet up climate action and the falling costs of renewable energy are likely to affect future profitability.
"It's a very serious thing from their perspective," said Landell-Mills. "This is a matter of ensuring there is no misrepresentation going on."
Accounting for potential future losses can weaken a company's balance sheet, making it harder to finance new investment in carbon-intensive activities such as oil exploration, the investors argue.
The coalition includes Sarasin & Partners, M&G Investments, Jupiter Asset Management, NN Investment Partners and pension funds such as the Brunel Pension Partnership and Denmark's PKA.
Landell-Mills, head of stewardship at Sarasin & Partners, poses for a photograph at their office in London
By Matthew Green and Simon Jessop
LONDON (Reuters) - Investors managing £1.8 trillion ($2.2 trillion) in assets are widening a campaign pressing oil majors to better reflect climate risks in their accounting, and will soon target other businesses with heavy fossil fuel exposure, the group said on Monday.
The investors believe their campaign is working, noting the "hugely important" news of BP
"The question all company directors and their shareholders now need urgently answered is, 'Where else might company positions be overstated?'" the group of more than 20 leading funds said in a joint statement seen by Reuters.
BP declined to comment on the campaign.
The investor group can't be certain whether its efforts played into BP's decision to reduce the value of its assets by up to $17.5 billion, announced on June 15.
But they have already begun lobbying building materials company CRH
"We will be rolling out similar engagements with other fossil fuel-dependent companies," Landell-Mills, who is coordinating the campaign, told Reuters in an interview.
The investors were also planning to include European and U.S. banks financing fossil fuel projects, Landell-Mills added.
Rio Tinto did not immediately respond to a request for comment. CRH declined to comment.
Early last year, the investors began lobbying the Big Four accounting firms - EY, Deloitte, PwC and KPMG - to do more to ensure climate-related risks are adequately reflected in company financial statements they audit. The campaign is one of a number of efforts by investors to push companies on environmental policies, amid concerns many businesses are both contributing to the planet's warming while also failing to take full stock of the risks they face.
Major fund managers including BlackRock
The campaign led by Sarasin & Partners emphasizes the legal duty companies have to ensure their financial statements fully reflect how government moves to ratchet up climate action and the falling costs of renewable energy are likely to affect future profitability.
"It's a very serious thing from their perspective," said Landell-Mills. "This is a matter of ensuring there is no misrepresentation going on."
Accounting for potential future losses can weaken a company's balance sheet, making it harder to finance new investment in carbon-intensive activities such as oil exploration, the investors argue.
The coalition includes Sarasin & Partners, M&G Investments, Jupiter Asset Management, NN Investment Partners and pension funds such as the Brunel Pension Partnership and Denmark's PKA.
"POTENTIALLY OVERSTATING"
Although it was difficult to independently assess the impact of the campaign, Landell-Mills pointed to a series of moves that align with the investors' demands in letters https://sarasinandpartners.com/stewardship-post/paris-aligned-accounting-is-vital-to-deliver-climate-promises sent to BP, Anglo-Dutch major Shell
Before BP's writedown, the group's letter to the British oil major said: "We have concerns that, at present, BP's accounts may be overlooking material climate considerations, and consequently potentially overstating both performance and capital." The same language was used with Shell and Total.
Total did not immediately respond to a request for a comment. Shell said it had "comprehensively responded" to similar demands by the investor group, and included climate risks in its accounts.
"Since that time, Shell has also published an ambition to be a net zero energy company by 2050, or sooner," Shell said in an email to Reuters on Sunday.
Last week, BP cut its benchmark Brent oil price forecasts to an average of $55 a barrel until 2050, from $70, saying it expects a collapse in oil demand during the coronavirus pandemic to accelerate a low-carbon transition.
BP also said it would have to review some plans for early stage oil and gas exploration projects.
Meanwhile, Shell also lowered its long-term Brent crude expectations to $60 a barrel, from the 2018 price of $70, in its 2019 annual report published in March. Total also reduced its price assumptions at about the same time.
While majors often adjust price assumptions, the investors noted that Shell's auditor's report contained substantially more references to climate risks than the previous year.
"It's tip of the iceberg," Landell-Mills said. "And investors will have to understand that they (oil majors) are not going to be able to pay dividends like they did before."
(Reporting by Matthew Green Simon Jessop; Additional reporting by Zandi Shabalala in London; Editing by Katy Daigle and Lincoln Feast.)
As Bank of Canada quells sub-zero rates talk, next move may be a hike in 2022
POST CORONAVIRUS SPECULATION
(Reporting by Fergal Smith; Editing by Denny Thomas and Tom Brown)
A sign is pictured outside the Bank of Canada building in Ottawa
Fergal Smith June 21, 2020, 8:15 a.m. MDT
By Fergal Smith
TORONTO (Reuters) - Investors, looking past the COVID-19 pandemic, are betting that the Bank of Canada could be among the first major central banks to hike interest rates, signaling new governor Tiff Macklem's success so far convincing the market not to expect negative rates.
Money market data shows investors have moved away from pricing in additional easing by the Bank of Canada and instead see a steady profile for rates this year and next, with about a 50% chance of a rate hike in 2022.
The Federal Reserve, which has been pressured by U.S. President Donald Trump to cut rates below zero, is not expected by money markets to hike until at least 2023.
"The Bank of Canada has done a better job than some other central banks of quashing speculation around further rate cuts," said Andrew Kelvin, chief Canada strategist at TD Securities.
"If you think that the economy did hit bottom in April, a rate hike in two years ... is a plausible outcome I think," Kelvin said.
After the Bank of Canada slashed interest rates in March to a record low of 0.25%, speculation mounted that it would join central banks in Japan and Europe in setting rates below zero.Just last month, the Canadian dollar slumped as some investors mistook a comment by Macklem, on the day he was named the governor, as putting negative rates on the table.
Sub-zero rates lower borrowing costs and could help exporters if the Canadian dollar were to decline, but they also hurt lending margins for banks and penalize savers.
Some economists argue the experience of Europe and Japan shows that negative rates are not effective at boosting economic growth. Alternatives for the Bank of Canada if it needs to add stimulus include adding to the size of its bond-buying program.
Both Macklem and his predecessor Stephen Poloz have said they see 0.25% as the floor for rates. That could have headed off some potential headaches.
If negative rates "were to get priced in and the BoC didn't meet the market expectation, then the BoC would be disappointing markets," said Greg Anderson, global head of FX strategy at BMO Capital Markets. It "would likely trigger an equity decline and CAD rally at a really bad moment."
Money markets could also be signaling confidence that adequate fiscal and monetary policy stimulus has been put in place to help Canada's economy recover, said TD's Kelvin, adding that the BoC will not want to encourage excessive borrowing from already heavily-indebted Canadians.
"I
Fergal Smith June 21, 2020, 8:15 a.m. MDT
By Fergal Smith
TORONTO (Reuters) - Investors, looking past the COVID-19 pandemic, are betting that the Bank of Canada could be among the first major central banks to hike interest rates, signaling new governor Tiff Macklem's success so far convincing the market not to expect negative rates.
Money market data shows investors have moved away from pricing in additional easing by the Bank of Canada and instead see a steady profile for rates this year and next, with about a 50% chance of a rate hike in 2022.
The Federal Reserve, which has been pressured by U.S. President Donald Trump to cut rates below zero, is not expected by money markets to hike until at least 2023.
"The Bank of Canada has done a better job than some other central banks of quashing speculation around further rate cuts," said Andrew Kelvin, chief Canada strategist at TD Securities.
"If you think that the economy did hit bottom in April, a rate hike in two years ... is a plausible outcome I think," Kelvin said.
After the Bank of Canada slashed interest rates in March to a record low of 0.25%, speculation mounted that it would join central banks in Japan and Europe in setting rates below zero.Just last month, the Canadian dollar slumped as some investors mistook a comment by Macklem, on the day he was named the governor, as putting negative rates on the table.
Sub-zero rates lower borrowing costs and could help exporters if the Canadian dollar were to decline, but they also hurt lending margins for banks and penalize savers.
Some economists argue the experience of Europe and Japan shows that negative rates are not effective at boosting economic growth. Alternatives for the Bank of Canada if it needs to add stimulus include adding to the size of its bond-buying program.
Both Macklem and his predecessor Stephen Poloz have said they see 0.25% as the floor for rates. That could have headed off some potential headaches.
If negative rates "were to get priced in and the BoC didn't meet the market expectation, then the BoC would be disappointing markets," said Greg Anderson, global head of FX strategy at BMO Capital Markets. It "would likely trigger an equity decline and CAD rally at a really bad moment."
Money markets could also be signaling confidence that adequate fiscal and monetary policy stimulus has been put in place to help Canada's economy recover, said TD's Kelvin, adding that the BoC will not want to encourage excessive borrowing from already heavily-indebted Canadians.
"I
(Reporting by Fergal Smith; Editing by Denny Thomas and Tom Brown)
Letters to the Editor: Immigrant children living in fear is a disgrace. So is Congress' failure to help
Los Angeles Times Opinion•June 21, 2020
Los Angeles Times Opinion•June 21, 2020
DACA recipients and their supporters rally outside the Supreme Court on Thursday in Washington. (Getty Images)
To the editor: Our ill-conceived and poorly executed immigration laws epitomize our political divisiveness. That successive presidential administrations have failed to bring the parties together on this issue highlights the government's inability to solve major problems. ("With its DACA decision, the Supreme Court makes it clear Congress must fix this," editorial, June 18)
Because of our failure to enact a viable policy and legally admit necessary workers, we have millions of people who came illegally and provided necessary labor but were denied wage and benefit protections. During the pandemic they have been on the front lines in hospitals and the food industry.
They and the young children they brought here do not deserve to live in constant fear and underprivilege. We need to provide a path for legalization and citizenship.
On the other hand, our borders have been too porous for decades. We need to better define our laws and provide an adequate system of speedy adjudication.
I legally immigrated as a child with my parents. We waited five years to get our visas. For people living with the yoke of illegality, the opportunities that my parents and I enjoyed are far more dream than reality. We can solve this if we only try.
Michael Telerant, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court has spoken. California can continue to "not help" federal immigration officers. That, however, does not mean the federal government has to stop enforcing immigration law. It will just be harder and therefore more costly.
By making enforcement more costly, other states will help bear the increased cost of apprehension and deportation. That is not fair.
The federal government should seek to recover this increased cost from California and other states. Since a separate tax is not feasible, the most fair way is to reduce federal money going to local law enforcement.
California and other sanctuary governments should put forth a statement on what type of immigration policy they would support. Do they favor open borders? Unless they do, some enforcement is necessary.
Rich Malone, Rancho Cucamonga
..
To the editor: The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board has become very forthright in calling out President Trump's illogic and inhumanity. It should do the same for Congress.
The Times says that Congress' failure to enact immigration reform "is a testament to its dysfunction." On the contrary, Republicans in Congress have been quite successful in achieving many of their goals, including enacting huge tax breaks for the wealthy and filling the judiciary with staunch conservatives.
They are also very effective at obstruction, and the failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform is a prime example.
It should be made more plain that it's the Democrats in Congress who are fighting to save the U.S. Postal Service and fending off cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats are no saints, but there is a distinct difference between the two parties, and they should not be painted with the same brush.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
To the editor: Our ill-conceived and poorly executed immigration laws epitomize our political divisiveness. That successive presidential administrations have failed to bring the parties together on this issue highlights the government's inability to solve major problems. ("With its DACA decision, the Supreme Court makes it clear Congress must fix this," editorial, June 18)
Because of our failure to enact a viable policy and legally admit necessary workers, we have millions of people who came illegally and provided necessary labor but were denied wage and benefit protections. During the pandemic they have been on the front lines in hospitals and the food industry.
They and the young children they brought here do not deserve to live in constant fear and underprivilege. We need to provide a path for legalization and citizenship.
On the other hand, our borders have been too porous for decades. We need to better define our laws and provide an adequate system of speedy adjudication.
I legally immigrated as a child with my parents. We waited five years to get our visas. For people living with the yoke of illegality, the opportunities that my parents and I enjoyed are far more dream than reality. We can solve this if we only try.
Michael Telerant, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: The Supreme Court has spoken. California can continue to "not help" federal immigration officers. That, however, does not mean the federal government has to stop enforcing immigration law. It will just be harder and therefore more costly.
By making enforcement more costly, other states will help bear the increased cost of apprehension and deportation. That is not fair.
The federal government should seek to recover this increased cost from California and other states. Since a separate tax is not feasible, the most fair way is to reduce federal money going to local law enforcement.
California and other sanctuary governments should put forth a statement on what type of immigration policy they would support. Do they favor open borders? Unless they do, some enforcement is necessary.
Rich Malone, Rancho Cucamonga
..
To the editor: The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board has become very forthright in calling out President Trump's illogic and inhumanity. It should do the same for Congress.
The Times says that Congress' failure to enact immigration reform "is a testament to its dysfunction." On the contrary, Republicans in Congress have been quite successful in achieving many of their goals, including enacting huge tax breaks for the wealthy and filling the judiciary with staunch conservatives.
They are also very effective at obstruction, and the failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform is a prime example.
It should be made more plain that it's the Democrats in Congress who are fighting to save the U.S. Postal Service and fending off cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats are no saints, but there is a distinct difference between the two parties, and they should not be painted with the same brush.
Grace Bertalot, Anaheim
Tunisians protesting over jobs clash with police after arrest of activist
AFP•June 21, 2020
Demonstrators set tyres ablaze in Tataouine and pelted security forces with stones (AFP Photo/FATHI NASRI)
Tataouine (Tunisia) (AFP) - Protesters demanding jobs in Tunisia's energy sector blocked roads with blazing tyres on Sunday after the arrest of an activist, as security forces responded with tear gas.
For weeks, demonstrators have erected a protest camp in the southern Tataouine region demanding authorities make good on a 2017 promise to provide jobs in the gas and oil sectors to thousands of unemployed.
They have blocked roads around the El-Kamour pumping station to prevent tanker trucks from entering the facility but so far the protest had been largely peaceful.
On Sunday, however, it turned violent after the arrest of an activist "wanted" by the authorities, the governor of Tataouine, Adel Werghi, told a local radio.
The activist, arrested the night before, was identified as Tarek Haddad, the spokesman for the protesters.
An AFP correspondent said demonstrators set tyres ablaze in Tataouine and pelted security forces with stones demanding his release.
Security forces responded with tear gas and the situation remained tense in the afternoon, with intermittent clashes taking place.
The governor said it was "illegal" for protesters, who have been demonstrating for more than a month, to block roads with tents "which they have set up in the middle of streets".
In 2017, protesters had blockaded the El-Kamour pumping station for three months demanding jobs.
The sit-in ended after the employment minister signed a deal with representatives of the protesters, brokered by the powerful Tunisian trade union confederation UGTT, pledging to invest 80 million Tunisian dinars a year (almost $28 million) in Tataouine.
The UGTT said the promise was never kept.
The Key to Stability in Syria: Renewing Relations with Kurds
Could this bring stability to the region?
by Diliman Abdulkader
The Assad regime's presence has led to chaos in Syria. Assad not only brought civil war but allowed Iran to use Syrian territory to bolster its influence. If that wasn’t enough, Russian and Turkish interference expanded, too. Syria—and the entire Middle East—cannot afford to be drawn further towards instability. Peace and stability in the Middle East benefit the United States and our regional allies like Israel. The key to this is re-engagement with the Kurds in Syria.
U.S. engagement with Kurds in Syria is not an endless war strategy. Before the U.S. withdrawal in Syria in October 2019, there were 2,000 U.S. forces based alongside the Kurdish-majority Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The Americans had a clear mission; to train, equip, and advise the SDF. The additional role was to patrol the Syrian-Turkish border. This strategy was successful. Daesh (sometimes referred to as ISIS) was losing its strength. 30 percent Syrian territory was out of Assad, Russia, and Iran's hand, 90 percent of Syria’s oil was under our control. And major agricultural fields and access to the Euphrates River was under our watch.
While today there are 600 US troops in Syria, the effects of the withdrawal are now clear. Bases built by Americans are now overtaken by Russian mercenaries. Turkish backed al Qaeda affiliates threaten the water supplies of civilians. Russian and Syrian forces control major highways that were under American control. Additionally, the humanitarian crisis has worsened. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reports of demographic change against the vulnerable Yazidi minorities by Turkish backed factions. In the district of Tal Tamr, NPR reports that Syrian Kurds seek safety from Turkish attacks.
But the United States does not need to re-invest in more troops to balance the power.
Ambassador William Roebuck, the top U.S. diplomat in northern Syria, is mediating talks to unite major Kurdish factions. The goal is to establish a joint civil administration. This would allow Kurds to participate in international peace talks on the ongoing civil war.
Today, our Kurdish allies continue to fight the Daesh terrorists who refuse to lay down arms. Kurds fend off Turkish incursions while attempting to regain lost territories. Kurds protect oil fields in the Euphrates Valley alongside American forces. These are important fights and we cannot give up on our Kurdish alliance.
For stability to return to Syria, the US must, at a minimum, ensure Turkey withdraws its forces. Allowing Turkey to stay only means regimes like Iran also have permission to remain. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recently released its annual report and called on Washington to “exert significant pressure on Turkey to provide a timeline for its withdrawal from Syria.
As long as Turkey and its militias remain in Syria, the country will continue to be unstable.
We will also need to hold Daesh terrorists accountable for their crimes against humanity. The United Tates ought to assist the SDF in forming an international tribunal. There is no shortage of evidence that accountability for war crimes leads to peace. The world must prosecute the 10,000 Daesh detainees. This includes 2,000 foreign fighters, 800 of whom are Europeans. The lack of international accountability led to riots in prisons. Daesh detainees briefly controlled the largest prison in Hassakah. The Pentagon inspector general warned of a “high-impact risk of a mass breakout” by Daesh prisoners.
If the Kurds do not receive support, Daesh will once again threaten Europe and the United States. For our national security and stability in the Middle East, the United States must fully engage with Kurds in Syria.
Diliman Abdulkader is the co-founder and spokesman for American Friends of Kurdistan, a Washington-based advocacy and education organization working to strengthen American-Kurdish relations.
Trump wants jobs coming back to the U.S. from China — but companies and consumers might disagree
Ed Yardeni: Reshoring factories is costly and ways to pay for it are unpopular
Published: June 22, 2020 By Ed Yardeni and Jackie Doherty
President Donald Trump and White House trade advisor Peter Navarro would like to see U.S. companies’ manufacturing operations come back home. Navarro noted recently that the administration is working on a phase-four stimulus package of at least $2 trillion that would focus on strengthening American manufacturing and include incentives for U.S. companies to reshore operations. The goal reportedly is to push legislation through Congress before its August recess.
There are many benefits of reshoring to the U.S. economy. As Navarro noted: “Manufacturing jobs not only provide good wages but also create more jobs, both up- and downstream through multiplier effects.” In addition, reshoring also ensures access to necessary drugs and other items related to national security
That said, those writing the legislation should take into account the many reasons why reshoring is difficult. It’s expensive, it requires access to capital, and it may result in former Chinese partners becoming competitors. Most importantly, reshoring may force U.S. companies to raise prices, something American consumers are likely to resist. Let’s look at the obstacles that need to be overcome before U.S. manufacturers return home.
1. Reshoring isn’t easy: Manufacturing has grown increasingly complex; suppliers now specialize in specific products to remain on the cutting edge of technology and to produce at volume at the lowest cost possible. Companies may have suppliers that rely on suppliers, which in turn rely on their suppliers, and so on. This multi-tiered chain is difficult to fully understand, let alone replicate.
Medtronic MDT, -1.58% CEO Geoff Martha explained the complexity in a recent article published in The Irish Times: “Take our ventilators which we make in Galway, for example. The ventilator has around 1,600 parts that come from suppliers in 14 different countries. The minute the U.S. does that [reshores], the question is what does the EU do, what does Ireland do, and it can create a lot of challenges for the global economy.” Medtronic, which moved to Ireland after acquiring Covidien in a tax-driven deal in 2015, will make contingency plans in case its forced to manufacture more in the U.S. market.
2. Reshoring may increase costs: Outsourcing allows companies to run their factories with high efficiency. Plants can run constantly and any surge capacity can be contracted out. The companies that provide surge capacity can pool numerous clients to maximize their operation and lower costs. Take away this model and companies will have to build larger, more costly, less-efficient factories to handle surge capacity manufacturing.
Both the U.S. government and U.S. manufacturers may also need to spend more on research and development related to manufacturing. Chinese total R&D spending “which at the turn of the millennium was only about $10 billion, had by 2018 hit nearly $300 billion (2.2% of GDP), second only to the U.S. itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported. The article noted that “If “decoupling” proceeds, then much more federal funding for basic research — and for U.S. science and math education—may be needed to plug the gap.” China also subsidizes the construction and equipping of new production facilities.
Who would pay for these increased costs? Consider three options: 1) The U.S. government provides subsidies to U.S. manufacturers; 2) U.S. companies assume the costs and their margins get squeezed, 3) companies try to pass along the costs to consumers, risking the loss of customers who typically prefer the least expensive product — regardless of where it’s produced. There also is an optimistic fourth option: U.S. manufacturers deploy new technologies to lower their manufacturing costs and remain competitive with importers.
3. Looking beyond the U.S. and China: Companies looking to diversify away from China may not move their manufacturing operations to the U.S. A survey by Site Selectors Guild, an association of professional site selection consultants, predicted an uptick in onshoring to the U.S., but also to Canada and Mexico — particularly in the pharma and life sciences industries, according to an article in Pharmaceutical Technology. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe and in Asia outside of China are also seen as low-cost production sites.
4. Chinese roadblocks: China might make leaving difficult and expensive for foreign manufacturers. Most employees have one- to two-year employment contracts that must be fully paid if a company leaves, said Rosemary Coates, executive director of the Reshoring Institute, in an article published in the Global Supply Chain Law blog.
In addition, China may not allow a company to take any of the machinery, tools, and molds in its manufacturing plants to another country even if the company has contractual ownership rights of the equipment, Coates explained.
Perhaps most importantly, companies exiting China are creating potential competitors. “You have taught your Chinese suppliers how to make your products, and they are not likely to stop just because you are no longer doing business there,” Coates said. This is why she encourages companies not to produce their latest products in China.
5. Timing is everything: Before pushing hard for companies to leave China, the U.S. should consider how long the transition will take. Building new U.S. facilities could take five- to eight years, John Murphy, senior vice president for international policy at the Chamber of Commerce, noted in a recent Reuters article.
What did Mom say about cutting off your nose?
Ed Yardeni is president of Yardeni Research Inc., a provider of global investment strategy and asset-allocation analyses and recommendations. Jackie Doherty is the senior contributing editor at Yardeni Research.
Institutional investors may sign-up for a free trial to Yardeni’s research service. Yardeni is the author of “Predicting the Markets: A Professional Autobiography." He is completing his next book, "Fed Watching For Fun and Profit." Follow him on LinkedIn, Twitter and his blog.
More: A lesson from the pandemic: It’s time to reindustrialize the United States
Also read: It’ll be ‘Happy MAMA Day’ when we Make America Manufacture Again
President Donald Trump and White House trade advisor Peter Navarro would like to see U.S. companies’ manufacturing operations come back home. Navarro noted recently that the administration is working on a phase-four stimulus package of at least $2 trillion that would focus on strengthening American manufacturing and include incentives for U.S. companies to reshore operations. The goal reportedly is to push legislation through Congress before its August recess.
There are many benefits of reshoring to the U.S. economy. As Navarro noted: “Manufacturing jobs not only provide good wages but also create more jobs, both up- and downstream through multiplier effects.” In addition, reshoring also ensures access to necessary drugs and other items related to national security
That said, those writing the legislation should take into account the many reasons why reshoring is difficult. It’s expensive, it requires access to capital, and it may result in former Chinese partners becoming competitors. Most importantly, reshoring may force U.S. companies to raise prices, something American consumers are likely to resist. Let’s look at the obstacles that need to be overcome before U.S. manufacturers return home.
1. Reshoring isn’t easy: Manufacturing has grown increasingly complex; suppliers now specialize in specific products to remain on the cutting edge of technology and to produce at volume at the lowest cost possible. Companies may have suppliers that rely on suppliers, which in turn rely on their suppliers, and so on. This multi-tiered chain is difficult to fully understand, let alone replicate.
Medtronic MDT, -1.58% CEO Geoff Martha explained the complexity in a recent article published in The Irish Times: “Take our ventilators which we make in Galway, for example. The ventilator has around 1,600 parts that come from suppliers in 14 different countries. The minute the U.S. does that [reshores], the question is what does the EU do, what does Ireland do, and it can create a lot of challenges for the global economy.” Medtronic, which moved to Ireland after acquiring Covidien in a tax-driven deal in 2015, will make contingency plans in case its forced to manufacture more in the U.S. market.
2. Reshoring may increase costs: Outsourcing allows companies to run their factories with high efficiency. Plants can run constantly and any surge capacity can be contracted out. The companies that provide surge capacity can pool numerous clients to maximize their operation and lower costs. Take away this model and companies will have to build larger, more costly, less-efficient factories to handle surge capacity manufacturing.
Both the U.S. government and U.S. manufacturers may also need to spend more on research and development related to manufacturing. Chinese total R&D spending “which at the turn of the millennium was only about $10 billion, had by 2018 hit nearly $300 billion (2.2% of GDP), second only to the U.S. itself,” The Wall Street Journal reported. The article noted that “If “decoupling” proceeds, then much more federal funding for basic research — and for U.S. science and math education—may be needed to plug the gap.” China also subsidizes the construction and equipping of new production facilities.
Who would pay for these increased costs? Consider three options: 1) The U.S. government provides subsidies to U.S. manufacturers; 2) U.S. companies assume the costs and their margins get squeezed, 3) companies try to pass along the costs to consumers, risking the loss of customers who typically prefer the least expensive product — regardless of where it’s produced. There also is an optimistic fourth option: U.S. manufacturers deploy new technologies to lower their manufacturing costs and remain competitive with importers.
3. Looking beyond the U.S. and China: Companies looking to diversify away from China may not move their manufacturing operations to the U.S. A survey by Site Selectors Guild, an association of professional site selection consultants, predicted an uptick in onshoring to the U.S., but also to Canada and Mexico — particularly in the pharma and life sciences industries, according to an article in Pharmaceutical Technology. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe and in Asia outside of China are also seen as low-cost production sites.
“Canada is set to attract several projects as it enjoys a low-profile versus the U.S., because of the exchange rate, and because of the nationalized healthcare system, which lowers the corporate burden to provide healthcare for employees,” John Boyd, founder of location consultancy Boyd Company, told Pharmaceutical Technology. “Our clients in the U.S. typically pay upwards of 40% of their payroll for fringe benefits, whereas the rate in Canada is half that, largely due to its single-payer healthcare system.” The article concludes that to minimize the impact of a disruptive event, companies should consider “spreading facilities across a number of regions.”
4. Chinese roadblocks: China might make leaving difficult and expensive for foreign manufacturers. Most employees have one- to two-year employment contracts that must be fully paid if a company leaves, said Rosemary Coates, executive director of the Reshoring Institute, in an article published in the Global Supply Chain Law blog.
In addition, China may not allow a company to take any of the machinery, tools, and molds in its manufacturing plants to another country even if the company has contractual ownership rights of the equipment, Coates explained.
Perhaps most importantly, companies exiting China are creating potential competitors. “You have taught your Chinese suppliers how to make your products, and they are not likely to stop just because you are no longer doing business there,” Coates said. This is why she encourages companies not to produce their latest products in China.
5. Timing is everything: Before pushing hard for companies to leave China, the U.S. should consider how long the transition will take. Building new U.S. facilities could take five- to eight years, John Murphy, senior vice president for international policy at the Chamber of Commerce, noted in a recent Reuters article.
What did Mom say about cutting off your nose?
Ed Yardeni is president of Yardeni Research Inc., a provider of global investment strategy and asset-allocation analyses and recommendations. Jackie Doherty is the senior contributing editor at Yardeni Research.
Institutional investors may sign-up for a free trial to Yardeni’s research service. Yardeni is the author of “Predicting the Markets: A Professional Autobiography." He is completing his next book, "Fed Watching For Fun and Profit." Follow him on LinkedIn, Twitter and his blog.
More: A lesson from the pandemic: It’s time to reindustrialize the United States
Also read: It’ll be ‘Happy MAMA Day’ when we Make America Manufacture Again
Geographies of Racial Capitalism with Ruth Wilson Gilmore An Antipode Foundation film directed by Kenton Card Executive Producers: Kenton Card and Tony Castle Director: Kenton Card In association with BFD Productions (https://www.bfdnyc.com/) Supervising Producer: Benjamin Garst Cinematographer: Alice Plati Editor: Benjamin Garst Assistant Editors: Cyrus Stowe and Alice Plati Creative Consultant: Carrie Drapac Music provided by Audio Network This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 – http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)