Is This Why Jeff Bezos Is The Richest Man In The World?

Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is the world’s richest man and is also only the second man ever to amass a 12-figure fortune (that’s $100,000,000,000 for those keeping score at home).

And today, an expose from the Sun provided the latest glimpse into Amazon’s long history of allegations of employee abuse as the company seeks to wring out every second of efficiency from its warehouse employees (and employees at its corporate headquarters, too, if an expose by the New York Times published a few years back is to be believed).

Coming nearly six years after the Seattle Times dropped its blockbuster report about the borderline inhumane treatment that workers at some of Amazon’s fulfillment centers in the US received at the hands of the e-commerce giant, the Sun, a UK tabloid, is reporting that workers at the company’s UK fulfillment centers are facing similarly adverse treatment.

Amazon

In fact, the staff at one fulfillment center in Manchester are reportedly so afraid of getting in trouble for spending too much time away from the job that some have resorted to peeing in bottles because toilets are several hundred yards away.

The warehouse measures 700,000 sq ft and some of the 1,200 workers face a ten minute, quarter-of-a-mile walk to two toilets on the ground floor of the four-storey building.

Undercover investigator James Bloodworth said: “For those of us who worked on the top floor, the closest toilets were down four flights of stairs.”

Mr Bloodworth, who worked ten-hour shifts as a picker selecting goods for despatch, walked ten miles a day in the job to research for a book on low-wage Britain.

He claimed workers were continually monitored for time wasting by supervisors.

It meant workers operated a “toilet bottle” system.

Mr Bloodworth said: “People just peed in bottles because they lived in fear of being ­disciplined over ‘idle time’ and ­losing their jobs just because they needed the loo.”

The warehouse in Rugeley, Staffs, is like a prison with airport-style security ­scanners where workers are constantly monitored and patted down when they exit the facility to stop them from stealing.

Amazon

Wearing hoodies and sunglasses are banned along with using mobile phones – something the company calls a security measure.

Unsurprisingly, an Amazon spokesperson denied the claims.

“Amazon ensures all of its associates have easy access to toilet facilities which are just a short walk from where they are working.”

“Amazon provides a safe and positive workplace for thousands of people across the UK with competitive pay and benefits from day one.”

“We have a focus on ensuring we provide a great environment for all our employees and last month Amazon was named by LinkedIn as the 7th most sought after place to work in the UK and ranked first place in the US.”

As Business Insider Australia reminds us, Amazon is known to track how fast its warehouse workers can pick and package items from its shelves, imposing strictly timed breaks and targets. It frequently issues warnings to those who don’t meet its goals, or who take extended breaks. So imagining that some employees are afraid to take breaks to use the toilet isn’t too far outside the realm of possibility.

Amazon

A survey cited by BI showed almost three-quarters of UK fulfillment-center staff members were afraid of using the toilet because of time concerns. A report released Monday with the survey’s findings said 241 Amazon warehouse employees in England were interviewed.

The news dropped shortly before reports surfaced that Amazon would be abandoning a plan to sell and distribute pharmaceuticals.

Anyway, workers at Amazon fulfillment centers need not worry about their mistreatment for much longer: By 2030, it looks like robots will be doing most of those jobs, anyway.

So maybe they should just appreciate the fact that they’re still gainfully employed while it lasts.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2JSZqjJ Tyler Durden

Ron Paul Reacts To “Trump’s Disastrous Syria Attack”

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Over the weekend, President Trump celebrated firing more than 100 missiles into Syria by Tweeting, “Mission Accomplished!” They say if you cannot learn from history you are condemned to repeat it. So I guess we are repeating it.

We all remember that “Mission Accomplished” was the banner behind then-President Bush as he gloated aboard a US navy ship that the war in Iraq had been won. After his “victory,” however, some 4,000 US military personnel were killed, perhaps a million Iraqis were killed, and the country’s infrastructure and social fabric were so badly destroyed that they probably can never be repaired.

Actually, there is much about the US attack on Syria that reminds us of Iraq.

With Iraq, the US moved in to start bombing before international inspectors had completed their mission to verify whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Had they been allowed to complete their mission and verify that he did not, imagine the suffering, death, and destruction that could have been avoided. In Syria, the US decided to start bombing before the international inspectors were even allowed to start checking claims that Assad gassed his own people in Douma. Why? What was the rush? Was Washington afraid they might not find Assad guilty?

Who really benefits from US attacks on the Syrian government? There were reports that ISIS began making moves immediately after the air strikes. Do we really want to be al-Qaeda and ISIS’s airforce? Is that going to keep us safer? I remember when al-Qaeda was actually considered our enemy, not an ally in overthrowing the last secular government in the Middle East.

Will Syria’s Christians be better off after the recent US attack? Just over a week ago Christians celebrated Easter in Aleppo for the first time in years. What changed? The Syrian army kicked out al-Qaeda, which had been occupying the eastern part of the city. So no, Christians will be much worse off if our “moderate terrorists” take control of Syria.

If Syria really had sarin and other chemical weapons factories, does it make sense for the US to bomb the buildings and risk killing thousands by widely disbursing the poisons? Does it make sense to risk killing Syrian civilians with chemical weapons in retaliation for allegations that the Syrian government killed civilians with chemical weapons? No, it seems more like the phony “mobile WMD labs” we were told that Saddam Hussein had constructed.

If the US knew Syria was manufacturing chemical weapons in the buildings they bombed, why not notify the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)? The OPCW had certified the very building the US bombed as chemical weapons free not that long ago. Why not just call them up and ask them to check it out? After all, they were just arriving in the country as the US started bombing.

There are many more questions about President Trump’s terrible decision to again make war on Syria. For example, where is Congress? It was disgraceful to see Speaker Paul Ryan telling the President he needs no Congressional authorization to attack Syria. All Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and the Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. Does that oath mean nothing these days?

President Trump will come to regret the day he let the neocons take over his foreign policy. Their track record is abysmal. His attack on Syria was clearly illegal and should his party lose the House in November he may find his new fair-weather friends in the Democratic Party quickly turning foul.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2vjGPdD Tyler Durden

Tesla Temporarily Shutting Down Model 3 Production: Buzzfeed

Just days after Elon Musk gave a softball interview to “CBS This Morning” explaining Tesla’s efforts to boost Model 3 production to Musk’s target of 2,000 a week (down from the 5,000 a week he had initially promised), Buzzfeed News is reporting that the company is temporarily shutting down production of its Model 3 sedan to “improve automation.”

Of course, this comes after Musk famously claimed Tesla was relying too heavily on robots to run its assembly line (a sentiment he echoed in his CBS interview) – and that this was at the root of the company’s “production hell”.

 

 

Workers at the factory told Buzzfeed that the announcement of the temporary closure – expected to be only four or five days – came without warning, and that most workers are expected to use vacation time or stay at home pay during the break.

Just a few days after Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he’s feeling optimistic about his ability to speed up production on the company’s vehicles, the assembly line for the Model 3 in the company’s Fremont, California plant has been temporarily shut down — again.

The announcement of the four- to five-day production pause for Model 3 came without warning, according to Tesla employees who spoke with BuzzFeed News. During the pause, workers are expected to use vacation day or stay home without pay; a small number of workers may be offered paid work elsewhere in the factory.

A Tesla spokesperson said that the assembly line is on pause in order to “improve automation.”

The news hit Tesla shares like a brick…

Tesla

The company previously shut down production in late February. Also, last fall, the Wall Street Journal famously reported that Tesla had been assembling Model 3’s by hand.

This should go without saying, but we imagine this won’t help Tesla turn cash-flow positive in Q3…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2J3i7jl Tyler Durden

The First Domino Falls In Illinois… 400 More Funds To Follow

Authored by Ted Dabrowski and John Klingner via WirePoints.com,

You’d be mistaken to think Harvey, Illinois has a unique pension crisis. It may be the first, and its problems may be the most severe, but the reality is the mess is everywhere, from East St. Louis to Rockford and from Quincy to Danville. A review of Illinois Department of Insurance pension data shows that Harvey could be just the start of a flood of garnishments across the state (click here to see the list).

Harvey made the news last year when an Illinois court ordered the municipality to hike its property taxes to properly fund the Harvey firefighter pension fund, which is just 22 percent funded.

Now, the state has stepped in on behalf of Harvey’s police pension fund. The state comptroller has begun garnishing the city’s tax revenues to make up what the municipality failed to contribute. In response, the city has announced that 40 public safety employees will be laid off.

Under state law, pensions that don’t receive required funding may demand the Illinois Comptroller intercept their municipality’s tax revenues. More than 400 police and fire pension funds, or 63 percent of Illinois’ 651 total downstate public safety funds, received less funding than what was required from their cities in 2016 – the most recent year for which statewide data is available.

Two-thirds of Illinois’ 355 police pension funds failed to receive their full required contribution in 2016. And 60 percent of Illinois’ 296 firefighter pension funds suffered the same fate.

If those same numbers continue to hold true, all those cities face the risk of having their revenues intercepted by the comptroller.

More on the way

The state comptroller began intercepting Harvey’s revenues – sales, income and other taxes that the state collects on behalf of municipalities – after the city’s police pension fund certified that Harvey had failed to make its required pension contribution to the fund. Once a pension fund certifies a shortfall, the state comptroller must garnish city funds, according to a law passed in 2011 and then further clarified in 2015.

The state has already taken $1.5 million dollars from Harvey since February. Harvey is the first municipality to have its funds intercepted under the 2011 law.

Under the law, a city’s required yearly contributions to each pension fund must cover two parts. First are the normal costs – the cost of benefits created by employees working one additional year. The second is an amount necessary to amortize a portion of the legacy shortfall such that the debt is paid off by 2040.

Harvey’s police fund should have received $1.37 million in 2016. That’s the number found in both the DOI report and the fund’s actuarial report. Instead, the police fund received only $110,000, or just 8 percent of what it was supposed to. That lack of funding persisted over the past decade and continued into 2017, hence the intercept by the state.

Harvey may be the first city to suffer garnishment, but it won’t be the last. Illinois has a $10 billiondownstate pension crisis – made up of municipal police and firefighter pension funds – that is separate from the state’s own $130 billion crisis.

Some public safety funds are in good shape, but the majority are in trouble. And a growing number are approaching total insolvency. More than half of Illinois’ 651 public safety funds are less than 60 percent funded.

Contribution shortfalls

Harvey’s pension funds were among those facing the largest contribution shortfalls. The ten public safety funds most impacted, in percentage terms, received less than half their required amounts in 2016. Communities like East St. Louis, Round Lake Park, Sauk Village and Roberts Park were among the top ten.

Overall, nearly two-thirds of Illinois’ 651 pension funds got less than their required contribution from their cities in 2016. All those funds could potentially go after their cities and request a state-comptroller intercept of local revenues.

See PDF of Illinois police and fire funds and their funding shortfalls for 2016 below:

It’s foolish to think that garnishments are going to solve anything. Taxpayers in municipalities across the state – who already pay the highest property taxes in the nation – have been putting more and more money into pensions, only to watch the funds continue to deteriorate.

Despite a doubling of taxpayer contributions since 2005, police and fire pension debts have doubled to $10 billion instead of shrunk, while funding ratios have fallen.

Many will want to blame historical underfunding as the cause of this mess. But it’s really ballooning pension promises that’s the culprit.

In 1987, municipalities owed a total of $2.6 billion in benefits to public safety workers and retirees across the state. Today, that number has jumped to $23.4 billion. That’s nearly an 800 percent increase.

Those total owed pension promises have grown at a pace that’s swamping the state’s economy, inflation and household incomes. Inflation has risen by just 111 percent and household incomes by 127 percent over those 30 years.

And it’s not as if taxpayers didn’t try to keep up with the funding. Illinois police and fire pension assets, buoyed by taxpayer contributions, grew 607 percent over the past 30 years. That growth, too, was multiples faster than the growth of the economy, inflation, and resident incomes.

Not surprisingly, no matter what taxpayers put in, their payments could never catch up with the state’s out-of-control benefits. And with benefit and labor rules out of communities’ control, cities have had few ways of cutting the burden themselves.

Protecting the status quo

With nearly two-thirds of pension funds not getting the contributions they require in 2016 and a $10 billion shortfall already in place, it’s a wonder more cities haven’t had their revenues garnished.

The answer lies in city and union officials’ protection of the status quo. Even union officials don’t want the state to garnish city revenues because they know what will result: layoffs and pay cuts. They’d rather sacrifice pension funding to grow current payrolls because that’s where their power comes from – dollars right now.

And if the pension funds collapse, they’re gambling that the constitutional protections will bail them out – that an ever-shrinking number of taxpayers will be forced to pay no matter what.

Harvey was the perfect example of this for nearly a decade. The public safety unions there accepted raises at nearly double the rate of inflation.

At the same time, their retirement security was being gutted, the incomes of Harvey residents were collapsing, poverty grew by 7 percentage points, and the city lost 10 percent of its population.

But now that the crisis has deepened to the point where the state and the courts have stepped in, the game Harvey’s played is nearly over.

Paradox

The root of Harvey’s problems are the same ones driving cities and towns all across Illinois into crisis. They’re all stuck on the same path, dealing with the same impossible pension math. It’s just that Harvey managed to get to the end of the path first because of its deep economic plight and criminal mismanagement.

It all comes back to local control, and in Illinois munis’ case, a lack of it.

As one of Wirepoints’ readers commented recently:

“Harvey has no bond market option. No more room to tax option. No constitutional option to reduce their obligation. No ability to outright default option as they are now garnished. No cash flow option. No sellable asset option as the town is a wreck. What’s left to do? Bankruptcy. The problem is who will run that process?”

Cities in Illinois can’t reform pensions, cut labor costs, or (as of yet) declare bankruptcy. The state sets the rules that define pension benefits and the collective bargaining laws that must be followed. If Illinois cities are to get out of this impossible situation, that has to change.

It may seem paradoxical to supporters of the status quo, but bankruptcy, a constitutional amendment, pension reforms and changes to collective bargaining rules are what’s needed if Illinoisans really care about those who risk their lives for their communities. Otherwise, those workers will be out of a job, and maybe their pensions, to boot.

See PDF of Illinois police and fire funds and their funding shortfalls for 2016 below:

See PDF: City contributions to public safety pensions, 2016

Download a PDF of the report

via RSS https://ift.tt/2qHKTPl Tyler Durden

Israel Launches Airstrikes On Airbase Near Homs In Syria

We had barely finished commenting on Israel’s admission that it was responsible for last Monday’s deadly strike on Syria’s T4 military base – supposedly in retaliation for an Iranian drone flight in February – when reports hit of another Israeli strike, this time targeting Syria’s Shayrat airbase near Homs.

  • AIR DEFENSES RESPOND TO MISSILE ATTACK ON SHAYRAT AIRBASE IN HOMS AND SHOOT THEM DOWN -SYRIAN TV

Local press notes that Israel is the alleged source of the attack:

  • SYRIA MILITARY OFFICIAL SAYS ISRAELI MISSILES TARGETED SHARYAT AIRBASE & SURROUNDING AREA: AL MASDAR

While Sana adds that Syria shot down at least one missile:

  • SYRIA SAYS SHOT DOWN MISSILES FIRED AT HOMS PROVINCE: SANA

According to Al-Masdar News, the Syrian Air Defense fired several missiles at suspected Israel warplanes that reportedly entered from eastern Lebanon. The the Syrian Air Defense reportedly continues to target these suspected warplanes.

According to unverified twitter reports, the Syrian Air Defense is attempting to down these warplanes that are flying over the eastern slopes of the Qalamoun Mountains.

The attack takes place less than two days after another alleged Israeli attack targeted the Iranian Jabal Azzan military base in southern Aleppo which allegedly left 20 people dead.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2H32HiN Tyler Durden

“It Was The First Time We Attacked Live Iranian Targets”: Israel Admits Striking Iran Base In Syria

A senior Israeli military official admitted to NYT columnist Thomas Friedman that Israel targeted the Iranian drone command center at the T4 air base in Syria last week, an airstrike which killed 14 people, half of whom were Iranians active in Syria.

“It was the first time we attacked live Iranian targets — both facilities and people,” said the Israeli military official quoted by Haaretz.

Map

The admission validates accusations by Russia and the Syrian command – until now unconfirmed – which blamed Israel for the pre-dawn raid last Monday on the major air base in central Syria, saying Israeli fighter jets launched the missiles from Lebanon’s air space, and which a war-monitoring group said killed 14 people. Last week, Russia’s Defense Ministry said two Israeli aircraft targeted the T4 air base in Homs province, firing eight missiles. It said Syria shot down five of them while the other three landed in the western part of the base. Syrian state TV quoted an unnamed military official as saying that Israeli F-15 warplanes fired several missiles at T4.

Photos of the T4 base showed the aftermath of the airstrike.

Fast forward to today when the Israeli official said that last Monday’s attack was in retaliation for an armed Iranian drone that entered Israeli airspace in February, and “opened a new period,” saying that “this is the first time we saw Iran do something against Israel — not by proxy.

During the attack, Israel killed seven Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds force members, including Colonel Mehdi Dehghan, who led the drone unit operating out of T4, east of Homs.

Israel has been furious at Iranian forces operating out of Syria ever since February, when an Israeli F-16 fighter jet that carried out airstrikes on a Syrian air base was shot down after it struck targets in Syria in response to an Iranian drone that allegedly first infiltrated Israeli airforce.

The downed Iranian drone was armed with explosives and the Israeli military claimed that it was on its way to carry out an attack.

According to IDF spokesman, Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis, the drone’s flight path and Israel’s “intelligence and operational analysis of the parts of the Iranian unmanned vehicle” indicated that “the aircraft was carrying explosives” and that its mission was “an act of sabotage in Israeli territory.”

Needless to say, Iran was not happy with Israel’s admission, which prompted Tehran to vow retaliation against Israel for the attack, while the commander of Iran’s army ground forces, commander Heidari, said a date has been set for Israel’s destruction:

  • IRAN SAYS TO RETALIATE AGAINST ISRAEL FOR AIRBASE ATTACK IN SYRIA: AL-KHABBAR
  • IRAN ARMY GROUND FORCES COMMANDER HEIDARI SAYS DATE HAS BEEN SET FOR ISRAEL’S DESTRUCTION: MEHR

Meanwhile, however, it appears that Israel is continuing its now daily attacks on Syria:

  • UNIDENTIFIED MISSILES ENTERED SYRIAN SKIES, SANA REPORTS
  • UNIDENTIFIED AIRCRAFT OVER DAMASCUS SYRIA: LOCAL REPORTS
  • HOMS SYRIA MISSILE STRIKES BEING CARRIED OUT BY ISRAEL: LOCAL REPORTS
  • AIR DEFENSES RESPOND TO MISSILE ATTACK ON SHAYRAT AIRBASE IN HOMS AND SHOOT THEM DOWN -SYRIAN TV

And now we await what, if any, response Iran may have to this latest Israeli attack.

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2vlXtcj Tyler Durden

“Dear Paul Krugman…”

Authored by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

In his New York Times article of March 27, 2018 — “Immaculate inflation strikes again” — Paul Krugman argues that those economists who are of the opinion that the key factor that causes inflation is increases in money supply are very wrong.

According to Krugman, the key factor that sets in motion inflation is unemployment. While a decline in the unemployment rate is associated with a strengthening in the rate of inflation, an increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a decline in the rate of inflation.

Note that for Krugman inflation is about general increases in the prices of goods and services, which is a flawed definition. To ascertain what inflation is all about we have to establish how this phenomenon emerged. We have to trace it back to its historical origin.

The Essence of Inflation

The subject matter of inflation is “an act of embezzlement.” Historically inflation originated when a country’s ruler such as king would force his citizens to give him all their gold coins under the pretext that a new gold coin was going to replace the old one. In the process, the king would falsify the content of the gold coins by mixing it with some other metal and return diluted gold coins to the citizens.

On this Rothbard wrote,

More characteristically, the mint melted and recoined all the coins of the realm, giving the subjects back the same number of “pounds” or “marks”, but of a lighter weight. The leftover ounces of gold or silver were pocketed by the King and used to pay his expenses.1

On account of the dilution of the gold coins, the ruler could now mint a greater amount of coins and pocket for his own use the extra coins minted. What was now passing as a pure gold coin was in fact a diluted gold coin.

The increase in the number of coins is what inflation is all about. As a result of the increase in the quantity of coins (inflation of coins) that masquerade as pure gold coins, prices in terms of coins now goes up (more coins are being exchanged for a given amount of goods), all other things being equal.

Note that what we have here is an inflation of coins, i.e., an expansion of coins. Because of inflation, the ruler can engage in an exchange of nothing for something (he can engage in an act of diverting resources from citizens to himself). Also, note that the increase in prices in terms of coins is because of the coin inflation.

Under the gold standard, the technique of abusing the medium of the exchange became much more advanced through the issuance of paper money un-backed by gold. Inflation therefore means an increase in the amount of receipts for gold on account of receipts that are not backed by gold, yet masquerade as the true representatives of money proper, gold.

The holder of un-backed receipts can now engage in an exchange of nothing for something. Because of the increase in the amount of receipts (inflation of receipts) we now also have a general increase in prices.

Observe that the increase in prices develops here on account of the increase in paper receipts that are not backed up by gold. Also, what we have is a situation where the issuers of the un-backed paper receipts divert real goods to themselves without making any contribution to the production of goods.

In the modern world, money proper is no longer gold but rather paper money; hence, inflation in this case is an increase in the stock of paper money.

Observe that we do not say as monetarists are saying that the increase in the money supply causes inflation. What we are saying that inflation is the increase in the money supply.

So it seems that our Nobel Laureate, instead of discussing inflation is actually referring to its possible symptoms, which are price increases.

Once the proper definition of inflation is obliterated and inflation is viewed as general increases in prices then all sort of explanations of what causes these increases are possible.

By means of statistical correlation, Krugman asserts that a fall in the unemployment rate is an important driving factor of inflation. Hence, on this logic policy makers must carefully watch the unemployment rate and decide whether it has reached the point where it could trigger an explosion in the rate of inflation.

Why Low Unemployment Is Not the Cause of Inflation

But, using statistical correlations as the basis of a theory means that “anything goes.”

For example, let us assume that high correlation has been established between the income of Mr. Jones and the rate of growth in the consumer price index. The higher the rate of increase of Mr. Jones’ income, the higher the rate of increase in the consumer price index. Therefore, we could easily conclude that in order to exercise control over the rate of inflation the central bank must carefully watch and control the rate of increases in Mr. Jones’ income. This example is no more absurd than correlating the unemployment rate with the rate of increases in prices as Krugman does.

Contrary to Krugman, a low unemployment rate does not cause a general rise in the prices of goods and services and an economic overheating labeled as inflation. Regardless of the rate of unemployment, so long as every increase in expenditure is supported by production, no “overheating” can actually occur. The overheating emerges once expenditure rises without being backed up by production, a situation that emerges when the money stock is increasing.

In his article, Krugman argues that the Fed’s inflation target of 2% is too low. According to Krugman, the Fed should aim at a higher inflation target, which amounts to an increase in the monetary pumping. Furthermore, Krugman is of the view that the Fed should not tighten its interest rate stance since this could push the US economy into a liquidity trap.

If Krugman were to define correctly what inflation is all about, he would quickly realize that a tighter stance would be required to eliminate various bubble activities that undermine the process of wealth generation. Contrary to Krugman, a liquidity trap, which is another way of saying that Fed policies cannot generate any longer an illusion that these policies can grow an economy, is the outcome of very loose monetary policy of the US central bank. The loose monetary stance, which weakens the process of wealth generation, results in either stagnant or a shrinking pool of real wealth. Without an expanding pool of real wealth, the illusion that the central bank can grow an economy is shattered.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2JQ6ca1 Tyler Durden

US Planning To Open “Third Front” In China Trade Spat

In news that broke (conveniently, we should add) shortly after the market closed on Monday, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the White House is gearing up for what would be the third front in its nascent trade spat with China.

As the paper points out, Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is preparing a fresh trade complaint – again under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 – the same section of the trade act under which the US filed its complaint about China’s intellectual property abuses, aka the first salvo in the US’s trade war.

This time, Lighthizer is aiming at China’s unfair restrictions on US companies trying to establish a foothold in China in high-tech industries like cloud computing. As a general rule, China requires foreign firms to partner with a domestic firm in a “revenue-sharing agreement” before they can gain entry to the Chinese market. By comparison, the US allows Chinese firms like Alibaba to function almost totally unfettered.

China

To be sure, Lighthizer has yet to decide whether to go ahead with the complaint, leaving the tariffs on steel and aluminum and the investigation into IP abuses as the only concrete actions that the White House has taken to hold China accountable for what Trump has described as decades of abuses on trade (threatening to impose tariffs on $150 billion in goods doesn’t count).

The trade representative has yet to decide whether to go ahead with the complaint, the individuals said, which would be in addition to recent moves to ratchet up pressure on China, including the imposition of tariffs on a total of $150 billion in Chinese imports. But USTR, which has taken the lead in the China trade fight, views China’s restrictions on cloud computing as providing a clear-cut example that might garner public support.

Beijing requires U.S. cloud-computing firms, such as  Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. to form joint operations with Chinese companies and license their technology to the Chinese partners. The USTR has said in reports on Chinese trade practices that Beijing withholds licenses that would allow U.S. firms to operate independently in China.

As a result, U.S. companies can’t market their cloud-computing services in China or sign up customers directly. Chinese firms, such as Alibaba Group Holding , by comparison, are allowed to operate in the U.S. without restriction.

“Some non-Chinese companies are reluctant to participate in China’s cloud market due to the number of restrictions,” said K.C. Swanson, director of global policy for the Telecommunications Industry Association. “Meanwhile the U.S. has no restrictions on foreign participation in our markets, it’s a clear-cut reciprocity issue.”

Cloud-computing firms deliver computer services, including storage, software and analytics, over the internet, a service that is considered one of the most promising, high growth parts of the tech industry.

A spokeswoman for USTR declined to comment.

Should USTR go ahead with the complaint, it would become the third major action the U.S. has taken to further open the Chinese market—and would increase the risk of retaliation from Beijing. The U.S. has levied tariffs on imports of Chinese steel and aluminum, which has resulted in China hitting about $3 billion in U.S. imports to China with tariffs.

After reaffirming that China is on a “watch list” of possible currency manipulators (an issue that President Trump has suddenly taken up, ignoring a number of factors), WSJ says the Treasury is putting together restrictions on Chinese investment that could also be employed to prohibit Alibaba from offering cloud-computing services in the US or block the company’s expansion in another way.

Of course, Beijing has another edge in the burgeoning US-China trade war: US business groups, which have vehemently opposed the White House’s measures as counterproductive and akin to a tax on US businesses and consumers.

Last week, Trump applauded Chinese President Xi Jinping for touting several planned market liberalizations, including allowing automotive companies to operate in China without a domestic partner – a measure that had previously been touted by China’s top finance minister, Liu He.

While China has said this wasn’t intended as a “concession” to Trump, it’s possible that China could expand these liberalizations to include tech firms without losing face. Though that remains a big “if”.

If the recent past is any guide, expect to hear a response from China in the not-too-distant future (read tonight).

via RSS https://ift.tt/2J09CG0 Tyler Durden

There Is No “Patriotic Duty” To Pay More Tax

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

In 1873 during the administration of Ulysses S. Grant, the government abolished its income tax.

Aside from a single episode in 1894, there would be no income tax in the United States of America for nearly 40 years.

It was during this period that the United States emerged as the largest, most powerful economy in the world.

And the country achieved this with no income tax. No inflation. And very little public debt.

Today it’s entirely different. The dollar has lost over 99% of its value since 1913.

And the US has accumulated more debt than any other nation in the history of the world.

Entitlement program costs are soaring. The US government’s own figures estimate that the long-term funding gap for Social Security, Medicare, etc. exceeds $40 trillion. Many private estimates are several times that amount.

This is obviously concerning.

But what’s even more concerning is the complete lack of care and attention this issue receives.

Politicians continue to spend money with a dangerous sense of entitlement.

They believe that since they’re “America” they can do whatever they want without consequences, as if the laws of the financial universe don’t apply to the US.

And their judgment is clearly lacking.

They borrow money and go deeper into debt just to pay the interest on the amount they already owe.

And yet they continue to spend, often on the most wasteful and destructive things.

They throw money at failed programs. They hire armies of bureaucrats who make life more difficult for productive citizens.

They spend $2 billion just to build a website. Or a billion dollars to destroy $16 billion worth of ‘surplus ammunition’.

All of this is ultimately supported by taxes. Your taxes.

You see, the creditworthiness of any nation is underpinned by its ability to raise and collect taxes.

It’s a very simple calculus: when your government goes into debt, YOU are the collateral.

Whether you realize it or not, whether you signed up for this obligation or not, you’re on the hook. You’re the guarantor of your government’s debt.

So are your children and grandchildren.

Remember this as you’re standing in line at the post office to send off that annual tax return.

We’re told, of course, that in a Democracy we’re supposed to express our opinions at the voting booth; if politicians don’t do what we’d like, we fire them and replace them with a new batch.

President Obama used to say frequently, “Don’t Boo. Vote.”

That’s a catchy phrase for sure. But the reality is that voting is a completely ineffective, useless activity that consistently fails to change the system.

Some people may try, sure. Tax rates will go up and down. Spending will rise and fall.

But the prospect that an election can align the priorities of hundreds of politicians and tens of millions of voters is simply ludicrous.

Your real power as a taxpayer is to reduce the amount of money you owe to the government.

No, I’m not suggesting that anyone commit tax evasion or stop filing a tax return. This is a one-way ticket to the jailhouse.

But as Judge Learned Hand wrote in a 1934 tax case “Helvering v. Gregory”:

Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.

There are ALWAYS legal steps you can take to legally reduce the amount that you owe– from using tax-deferred options like IRAs or 401(k)s, to even moving abroad.

US tax code, for example, provides a clear path for Americans to move overseas and pay no tax on the first $104,100 in foreign earned income.

Or you can move to Puerto Rico and pay absolutely nothing on investment income or corporate dividends.

I was just on the island a few days ago meeting with some of my attorneys there.

And despite what you might have heard about Puerto Rico’s post-hurricane condition, they are absolutely open for business.

You can even start a qualifying company there and pay just 4% corporate tax… and then 0% tax on the dividends you put in your pocket.

And there are plenty of ways to reduce what you owe, even if you don’t want to leave home.

Last month at a closed-door event for our Total Access members, for example, we discussed two different ways to use international tax treaties to earn unlimited investment income… practically tax free.

There’s even a completely legal way to shield existing gains from taxation… forever.

This is particularly useful for early stage crypto-currency speculators who are looking for legal ways to reduce an enormous, looming tax bill.

[Special note to US crypto speculators: PLEASE do not forget to report any realized gains (i.e. sales or trades) of crypto to the IRS. These are taxable events, and the IRS WILL find out. Don’t be the sacrificial lamb. Report the income.]

Then there’s the very simple strategy of maximizing deductions and contributions to retirement vehicles, or setting up better, more robust retirement structures to be able to increase contributions even more.

Most people don’t realize how many options they have at their disposal to cut what they owe.

And in my mind, it not only makes obvious financial sense, but it’s one of the best weapons anyone has to fight back.

The only way the world can ever truly be ‘a better place’ is if the people who make it a worse place no longer have the financial resources to do so.

To continue learning how to legitimately reduce your taxes, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2H2Tyqt Tyler Durden

“Self-Centered, Self-Serving Jackass”: FBI Insiders Furious After Comey Interview

Current and former FBI agents are furious after former Director James Comey gave his first interview since President Trump fired him last year to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday night, reports the Daily Beast – which was privy to a play-by-play flurry of text messages and other communications detailing their reactions.

Seven current or former FBI agents and officials spoke throughout and immediately after the broadcast. There was a lot of anger, frustration, and even more emojis—featuring the thumbs-down, frowny face, middle finger, and a whole lot of green vomit faces.

One former FBI official sent a bourbon emoji as it began; another sent the beers cheers-ing emoji. The responses became increasingly angry and despondent as the hourlong interview played out. Daily Beast

Hoover is spinning in his grave,” said a former FBI official. “Making money from total failure,” in reference to Comey plugging his book, A Higher Loyalty.

Jana Winter of The Beast adds that when a promo aired between segments advertising Comey’s upcoming appearance with The View, the official “grew angrier.”

Good lord, what a self-serving self-centered jackass,” the official said. “True to form he thinks he’s the smartest guy around.”

A current official with the FBI said it was strange how Comey seemed so pleased with how things played out. “It’s how happy he looked on TV while cashing in on the biggest mistake in history. His mistake,” they said. “Jim Comey made that mistake. We all just wonder what could have been and what we could’ve done to change it.”

Not all the current and former FBI officials had problems with the interview, however – as one official who spoke out in support of Comey said “I thought he was highly trustworthy and very transparent, like watching someone in confession,” the former official said. “It seems like he’s still wrestling with it.

The majority, however, were all negative on the former Director’s interview – with one even souring as the interview progressed:

One longtime Team Comey source—who is still an FBI agent—sent thumbs-up emojis repeatedly during the first half hour, but even this loyalist began to lose patience by the halfway mark—sending a frowny face. A few minutes later there was a nauseous emoji, and then a poop emoji after the final segment. –DB

Sources confirm to ZeroHedge that a frowny face emoji is indeed very bad. In a stunning development, Comey’s interview even encouraged a former FBI official to start using emojis.

Another former FBI official not historically known for their use of emojis, sent a bowing emjoi which—they explained in a follow up message—they believed to mean “slamming my head into something, obviously.

Another source who works frequently with the FBI said they wouldn’t watch the extended cut of the interview.

Didn’t watch it—I don’t care, he’s basically a scumbag. I don’t know how they’re letting him write a book in the middle of an investigation that he’s part of. I wonder if he had his book cleared by the intelligence community? He’s supposed to but I bet he didn’t.”

Comey was fired by President Trump on May 9, 2017, after which he leaked memos he claims document conversations with Trump to the New York Times, kicking off the special counsel investigation headed by Robert Mueller – whose team started out looking at Russian influence in the 2016 election, and is now investigating the President’s alleged decade-old extramarital affairs with at least two women. Truly looking out for national security there Bob…

Hillary Clinton and her supporters blame Comey as a major factor in her 2016 loss to Donald Trump – as Clinton insiders have told the Daily Beast that Comey should “beg for forgiveness” and not try to use his book to explain away his actions.

Days before the election, Comey publicly announced that he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server, but he made no mention of the simultaneous inquires being made into Russian links to members of Trump’s team.

This was seen by many inside the FBI as Comey inserting the agency into the campaign, which was especially unwise coming so close to the election, when the agency tries to abstain from anything that could have political consequences. –Daily Beast

In his book, Comey – who said he was on the “verge of tears” after Obama gave him a pat on the head, and whose wife and children were admittedly giant Hillary fans, also admits that he expected Clinton to win, and that he feared that – if he didn’t disclose the reopening of the probe – that it would make Clinton an “illegitimate” president.

Mr. Comey acknowledges that he thought Mrs. Clinton would win the presidency and said it is “entirely possible” that he decided to reveal that the email investigation had started up again 11 days before the election because he was primarily concerned that if he concealed the renewed investigation, it would make her an “illegitimate president.”

Would he have made a different decision if Mr. Trump had been ahead in the polls? “I don’t know,” Mr. Comey concedes. –AP

Prior to becoming the DNC’s most wanted, Comey and his team notoriously let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her private server and mishandling of classified information – having begun drafting Clinton’s exoneration before even interviewing her, something which appears to have been “forgotten” in his book.

Comey also called out Obama and Lynch in his book – defending the FBI’s top brass and counterintelligence investigators charged with probing Clinton’s use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information, reports the Washington Examiner, which received an advanced copy.

I never heard anyone on our team — not one — take a position that seemed driven by their personal political motivations. And more than that: I never heard an argument or observation I thought came from a political bias. Never … Instead we debated, argued, listened, reflected, agonized, played devil’s advocate, and even found opportunities to laugh as we hashed out major decisions.

We’re sure there was a lot of laughing in Comey’s office – right up until 1AM on November 9, 2016.

It appears that James Comey isn’t making any friends, anywhere – except perhaps at his bank.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2ERexGA Tyler Durden