SINGAPORE: Singapore National Employers Federation ( SNEF ) president Robert Yap has resigned after , the union said it was informed of a “governance procedural lapse” during a routine internal review.  , In a media statement, SNEF said on Tuesday ( Jun 11 ) the , council “promptly engaged an external consultantContinue Reading
For assistance might be of benefit to people like Mr. Alvin Gan’s mom, who has dementia and resides with three people in a flat.
Mr. Gan used to be her mother’s major caretaker, making sure she ate and ate the right foods. He took her to a day treatment center for several years after he married and had his own children.
” But she did n’t manage to actually make some friends, a long- term friendship”, Mr Gan recounted.
No one was looking after her, she claimed. When I went to work, the house was empty, just her staying all by herself, and she got pretty sad”.
He became aware of the Red Crowns design while considering visiting a traditional medical facility.
She has had the opportunity to interact with various people her age while residing in a straight with people. Additionally, Mr. Gan stated that he can come to see her at any time.
” Yet before she was diagnosed with schizophrenia, there were not a lot of options left for me to look into. Most of the time, I had to employ domestic helpers to assist her in taking care, which is not the best option because the girl was just able to take care of her when she had to eat and drink, according to Mr. Gan.
” In the past, she stayed all by herself ever since my father passed on, so for many centuries, she was all alone. Psychologically, alone, mentally, she was only as well”.
Then, Mr Gan said she has become the “youngest girl” in her level and gets help from the other elders.
” She opened up quite a lot. She’s more available and more cheerful than before”, he added.
2 hours before
By Theo Leggett, BBC international business correspondent
Getty ImagesThe European Union is likely to impose tariffs on China as it is accused of selling electric automobiles at artificially low prices this year.
The BYD Seagull is a tiny, cheap, neatly styled electric vehicle ( EV ). An urban runabout that wo n’t break any speed records, but nor will it break the bank.
In China, it has a starting price of 69, 800 yuan ($ 9, 600, £7, 500 ). Due to safety concerns, it is anticipated that the cost of transportation in Europe will be at least twice that amount. But that would still remain, by electric vehicle standards, very low.
That prospect is worrying for Western companies. They worry that the tiny Seagull may turn out to be an aggressive varieties, one of a number of Chinese-built types poised to invade their own markets at the cost of indigenous vehicles.
Over the past 20 years, China’s domestic vehicle industry has grown quickly. Its creation, along with that of the power market, was a key component of the” Made In China 2025″ strategy, a 10- year professional policy launched by the Communist Party in Beijing in 2015.
As a result, businesses like BYD are now competing with Tesla to become the biggest electronic vehicle maker in the world. Established companies such as SAIC, the owner of the MG company, and Volvo’s user Geely, have also become huge participants in the EV business.
Last year, more than eight million electric vehicles were sold in China – about 60% of the global total, according to the International Energy Agency’s annual Global EV Outlook.
For politicians in Europe and the US, yet, this is a cause for concern. They worry that their own businesses may not be able to thrive because Chinese companies have a lot of surplus power and are entering foreign markets. They assert that substantial subsidies for domestic production keep Chinese companies ‘ prices at a level that different companies may struggle to match.
According to a report by the Swiss bank UBS, published in September, the Chinese advantage is real. It suggested that BYD could produce cars at some 25% lower cost than the best of the legacy global carmakers.
BYD and another Chinese companies were” set to conquer the world market with high-tech, low-cost Vehicles for the people,” according to the statement.
Meanwhile, earlier this year, the Alliance for American Manufacturing warned that the introduction of cheap Chinese cars could be an “extinction-level event” for the US auto industry. It called for a “dedicated and concerted effort to turn those imports back”, concluding that there was “no time to lose”.
Last month, the US took decisive action. The Biden administration raised its tariff on imports of Chinese battery-powered cars from 25% to 100%. Sales of Chinese-made EVs in the US are currently negligible; with the new tariffs, they are likely to stay that way.
The action was a component of a wider set of measures that Beijing has labeled “naked protectionism” and targeted imports from China.
The US is also subsidizing its own auto economy through tax incentives, which lower the cost of purchasing domestically produced cars.
The EU appears to be taking a more reasonable approach, despite strong language.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, made an announcement about an exploration into Chinese goods in her state of the union address in September of last year.
She claimed that “less expensive Taiwanese electric cars are now flooding the world.”
” Their rate is artificially lower by substantial state subsidies. This is distorting our business”.
The primary outcomes of that research are now on the verge.
The Commission’s anticipated provisional increase of duties on imported EVs from China will be between 20 and 25 % higher than the standard 10 % for imports from third countries.
Getty ImagesThis would be a much more equal answer than the US move, according to Schmidt Automotive Research’s Matthias Schmidt.
” The 100 % tariff is simply pure protectionism, discriminatory and stifles development, and prevents a dynamic environment for the consumer”, he says.
” If the EU imposes tariffs of no more than 25 %, it will be more about leveling the playing field and sprinkling up the 30 % cost advantage Chinese manufacturers have.”
However, tariffs may harm Western firms as well as helping them.
Initially, they would not just affect Taiwanese brands. For instance, BMW’s iX3 energy SUV is built at a shop in Dadong and exported to Europe. Additionally, the business intends to buy a lot of Chinese-made energy Minis.
Both designs may become subject to the tariffs, leaving the company to collect the additional cost, or lift prices. Tesla, a US company that manufactures automobiles for trade to Europe, would also be affected.
Second, although Western makes have invested strongly in production in China in recent years, in partnership with regional manufacturers, a number of them also export higher- value models to Chinese markets.
These shipments might be targeted if China wanted to retaliate by imposing its own stringent tariffs.
Getty ImagesIt makes sense then that executives at European carmakers have been remarkably unfavorable of the EU’s initiative.
Earlier this year, Volkswagen Group’s chief executive Oliver Blume warned that the introduction of tariffs was “potentially dangerous”, because of the risk of retaliation.
BMW’s CEO, Oliver Zipse, said last month that “you could very quickly shoot yourself in the foot” if you engaged in trade wars. He added that” we do n’t think our industry needs protection.”
In an effort to encourage European companies to do a better job, Ola Källenius, the CEO of Mercedes-Benz, has gone a step further by publicly calling for tariffs to be lowered rather than raised on Chinese EV imports.
France has largely backed the EU investigation. Yet even among French manufacturers, there is doubt as to whether tariffs are the correct approach.
Carlos Tavares, head of the Stellantis group which includes Peugeot, Citroen, Vauxhall/Opel and DS, has described them as” a major trap for countries that go down that path”.
He has warned that European carmakers are engaged in a” Darwinian” conflict with their Chinese rivals, which will likely have social effects as they lower their costs in an effort to compete.
Renault’s chief executive Luca de Meo, meanwhile, says” we are not in favour of protectionism, but competition must be fair”.
In an effort to compete with both, he has demanded the adoption of a strong European industrial policy to advance the sector, drawing inspiration from those taken up by the US and China.
Meanwhile, the UK is looking on with interest. The Trade Remedies Authority, the country’s trade watchdog, has previously stated that, if ministers or the industry desired an investigation into Chinese electric vehicles, he would be ready to do so.
It is understood that no such request has been made so far. Ultimately, as a deeply political issue, it will be something for the next government to address, after the election.
For both automakers and policymakers, higher tariffs may give Europe more time to adapt to the challenge presented by China.
However, many in the sector acknowledge that if Europe is to remain a major player in the global automotive industry, it will need to do much more than simply erect barricades at home.
Consider TSMC. The business has chosen spots at the center of the automotive supply chain despite not producing cars. Ford, BMW and Porsche all have amenities near Dresden, the webpage of TSMC’s timely European fantastic.  , Co- buyers in that stock include Robert Bosch, Infineon Technologies and NXP Semiconductors.
Anyone who wants to provide supplies or products to TSMC will need to operate in the vicinity of the European capital.
For its shop in Japan’s Kumamoto district,  , TSMC is teaming up with Sony Group,  , Toyota Motor and mechanical- electronics dealer Denso. This service will provide Japan’s world- leading carmaking, business and , consumer electronics industries.
The development strategy, announced in 2021, spurred manufacturers Mitsubishi Electric, Sumco and Kyocera to describe new opportunities in the area.
TSMC’s hospital in Arizona is a different tale. There is no compelling business case for setting up shop there because the area is devoid of noteworthy relevant companies. The Japanese company had little choice because of client pressure and incentives from US government levels at the state and federal levels. Even then, manufacturers were , quick to follow,  , including business companies , LCY Chemical and Topco Scientific.
With over 640 million seats counted on June 5, 2024, spectators in India’s largest vote, which marked the end of the process, as well as what lessons can be learned for the rest of the world.
The efforts made extensive use of AI, including algorithmic imitations of candidates, celebrities and dying politicians. By some quotes, thousands of American citizens viewed deepfakes.
But, despite worries of common propaganda, for the most part the promotions, candidates and activists used AI positively in the vote. They used AI for normal political activities, including politicking, but generally to better interact with citizens.
Democratic parties in India spent an estimated US$ 50 million on authorized AI-generated material for precise connection with their constituencies this election period. And it was generally effective.
American political strategists have used Artificial to boost their communication because they have long understood the influence of character and emotion on their constituents. Young and future Artificial companies like The Indian Deepfaker, which began out serving the pleasure sector, immediately responded to this growing need for AI-generated promotion material.
In January, Muthuvel Karunanidhi, who was chief minister of the southwestern state of Tamil Nadu for two years, appeared via video at his party’s children aircraft event. He wore his signature yellow robe, white sweater, dark glasses and had his familiar attitude – nose slightly bent backward. Karunanidhi passed away in 2018, though. His party authorized the deepfake. A dead politician was introduced into the Indian election campaign by fake technology.
In February, the All- India Anna Dravidian Progressive Federation party’s official X account posted an audio clip of Jayaram Jayalalithaa, the iconic superstar of Tamil politics colloquially called” Amma” or” Mother”. Jayalalithaa passed away in 2016
Meanwhile, local representatives called voters to discuss local issues, but the voice on the other end of the phone was an AI impersonator. Shakti Singh Rathore, a member of the Bhhartiya Janta Party ( BJP), has been a frequenter of AI startups, sending personalized videos to specific voters about the government benefits they received and asking for their support over WhatsApp.
AI was present in the Indian elections in other ways than just deepfakes. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed a crowd of a large number of people eager to celebrate the connections between the state of Tamil Nadu in the south of India and Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh’s northern state. As his Hindi speech was actually translated into Tamil, Modi proudly announced the launch of his “new AI technology” by requiring his audience to wear earphones.
The BJP used AI tools to make Modi’s personality accessible to voters in areas where Hindi is difficult to understand in a nation with 22 official languages and almost 780 unofficially recorded languages. Since 2022, Modi and his BJP have been using the AI- powered tool Bhashini, embedded in the NaMo mobile app, to translate Modi’s speeches with voiceovers in Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Odia, Bengali, Marathi and Punjabi.
Some AI companies distributed their own viral versions of Modi’s well-known monthly radio show” Mann Ki Baat,” loosely translated” From the Heart,” which they voice-cloned to regional languages as part of their demos.
Indian political parties used AI to bolster their ongoing meme battles, and they doubled down on online trolling. The Indian National Congress uploaded a short clip to its 6 million Instagram followers early in the election season, using the song’s title from a brand-new Hindi music album called” Chor” ( thief ). Modi’s voice was copied by the video, which placed his digital likeness on the lead singer and reworked his lyrics to criticize his close ties to Indian business tycoons.
On its 7 million-follower Instagram account, the BJP launched a counter-retaliation video featuring a supercut of Modi campaigning on the streets, mixed with supporters ‘ clips, and played to unique music. It was a well-known singer Mahendra Kapoor‘s old patriotic Hindi song that was sung by him but was revived using artificial voice cloning. Kapoor passed away in 2008 and is now 84.
A common meme that alters footage of rapper Lil Yachty on stage, Modi himself tweeted an AI-created video of him dancing. Such inventiveness in the peak poll season is truly a delight, he said.
In some cases, generative AI tools were used to convey the violent rhetoric used in Modi’s campaign, which put Muslims at risk and stoked violence. However, the harm can be attributed to the offensive rhetoric itself, not necessarily the AI tools used to spread it.
India is a first-time adopter, and its experiments with artificial intelligence serve as an example of what the rest of the world can anticipate from upcoming elections. Making it harder to tell the truth from fiction is made more accessible by technology’s ability to produce nonconsensual deepfakes of anyone, but its consensual applications are likely to increase that sameness.
The use of AI in participatory democracy that began with entertainment, political meme wars, emotional appeals to people, resurrected politicians, and persuasion through personalized phone calls to voters has opened a door for the role of AI in participatory democracy.
The BJP’s failure to win the anticipated parliamentary majority and India’s return to a highly competitive political system, among other things, highlights the potential for AI to play a positive role in deliberative democracy and representative governance.
Any political party or candidate wants to have more specific conversations with their constituents, which is a priority in a democracy. In an unprecedented attempt to make their messages more accessible, especially to rural, low-income voters, by using AI for more individualized communication across linguistic and ethnically diverse constituencies.
Voters can communicate their demands and experiences directly with their representatives, and this could be done through AI and the development of participatory democracy, which would enable personalized communication as well as dialogue.
India can serve as an example of extending AI-aided party-to-people communications beyond politics with its recent proficiency. These platforms are already being used by the government to offer citizens in their native tongues government services.
This technology could provide a new era of representative governance, especially given the demands and experiences of rural residents.
Vandinika Shukla is a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Practicing Democracy Project, and Bruce Schneier is a visiting adjunct professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.
This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The prosecutor argued that the semi-trailer was moving slowly so that it did n’t impede the Toyota.
The BMW behind could n’t stop in time after the Toyota collided with the semi-trailer.
According to professional data submitted at trial, the initial incident between the Toyota and the semi- trailer had a 66.6 per cent to 90 per cent contribution to Mr Lim’s injuries, while the Toyota- BMW collision had a 10 per cent to 33.3 per cent contribution.
The prosecutor found the semi- truck drivers, Mr Mohd Jafri Abdul Hamid, and his company 50 per cent answerable for Mr Lim’s injuries, as the driver’s actions had “high causal potency” and a “high degree of blameworthiness”.
He was aware of the road signs that warned drivers of big vehicles to maintain left, but he omitted them.
Because Mr. Lim’s injuries were directly caused by his overreaction, the Toyota drivers and therefore his company were held to be responsible for the first collision by 30 %.
The prosecutor found the BMW vehicle 20 per cent guilty, noting that while he flouted safe driving concepts, the next collision only exacerbated Mr Lim’s injuries.
The accused will be required to divide the S$ 4.7 million in damages awarded to Mr. Lim among themselves in accordance with their share of the total liabilities.
The S$ 1.9 million value of upcoming nursing care at Orange Valley Nursing Home and S$ 1.6 million in potential revenue loss are the most significant sums of the S$ 4.7 million awarded to Mr. Lim.
Five weeks before the incident, Mr Lim had just begun his new career as a finance professional with the Society for the Aged Sick, earning S$ 3, 500 a quarter.
His work was terminated in June 2020 for health reasons.
Prior to that, he worked on projects for Changi Cove and Sembcorp Design and Construction.
Before Mr. Lim was admitted to the medical household, Mr. Lim received about S$ 82, 000 for caregiving services from a local companion and his wife, and S$ 235, 000 for pain and suffering.
The Toyota driver, along with his employer, Mr. Liew Loy Sang, was unrepresented and absent from the trial.
Ms. Low Woon Hong, the driver of the BMW, and his employer, were represented by Mr. Low Woon Hong and Mr. Christopher Fernandez and Mr. Low Huai Pin from Tan Kok Quan Partnership.
Mr. Niru Pillai, Mr. Liew Teck Huat, and Mr. Phang Cunkuang represented the insurer of the Toyota.
The main takeaways from the case, according to Mdm Fung’s lead attorney, Mr. Singh, are that family members of accident victims do not have to struggle” to the point of burnout” in caring for accident victims and should not be hesitant to seek assistance from care providers.
The lawyer claimed that the victims are also entitled to recover the costs of the gratuitous care that family members have provided to them.
He added that Singapore residents who were seriously hurt in accidents in Malaysia are also entitled to compensation there if their losses are primarily caused by these entities and by local witnesses.
International businesses are facing slowing development and mounting challenges to extended- word conservation, according to a fresh report from KPMG International. The findings in KPMG’s Major risks forecast: Bottom lines for business in 2024 and beyond glow a light on the varied, difficult challenges facing companies looking to grow worldwide at a time of increasing divergence on regulation, conflict, technological advancement and social uncertainty.
The analysis of the report highlights the three most pressing risks for businesses right now, known as “bottom lines,” and are likely to have an impact on operations this year and beyond:
Stefano Moritsch, Global Geopolitics Lead at KPMG International, said:” To some extent, the COVID pandemic was a rehearsal for some of the broader risks and profound threats facing companies today. Leaders have improved their resilience, but for the first time in recent memory, they are facing challenges on a number of fronts, including conflict, complex regulation, climate change, and a “patrickwork” of AI adoption across various countries and regions.
The rise of trade protectionionism, according to Johan Idris ( pic ), Managing Partner of KPMG in Malaysia, could have an impact on the export-oriented nation’s export-oriented economy, which accounts for 66.1 % of Malaysia’s GDP in 2023. He added that “recent global events have revealed the fragility of the global trade ecosystem and disruptions will continue to impact organizations unable to shore up ample defenses. Business leaders should develop adaptive capacity to increase operational resilience as a strategy. This can be accomplished by using a top-down policy mandate and bottom-up corporate capabilities approach.
He also emphasized Malaysia’s need to navigate the changing landscape of AI governance, which will ensure the responsible integration of this transformative technology into the nation’s economic fabric. Businesses must actively shape their own AI strategies while the Malaysian government is developing a governance and ethics code framework. Any regulatory measures will quickly become outdated as a result of the rapid advancements in AI, so businesses must take the lead in AI governance and integration.
” AI presents a significant opportunity to revolutionize Malaysia’s industries. However, it is equally crucial to establish guidelines that address ethical issues and reduce potential risks associated with AI deployment, Johan added.
For organizations to effectively navigate the current “polycrisis” environment, KPMG’s report outlines five initial steps CEOs can take today:
KPMG has also created a heat map that examines the impact of the top risks on specific, crucial sectors. The Middle East’s uncertainty and the increasing politicization of access to minerals and other important resources are the main risks, according to the analysis. Second and third place are the financial services and infrastructure sectors, both of which are impacted by growing economic uncertainty and AI governance gaps.
The energy and natural resources sector also had the lowest Financial Performance Index ( FPI ) score among all sectors, according to KPMG’s analysis. KPMG FPI is a global financial health measure based on data from over 40 000 businesses. A lower score indicates that the sector has underperformed and might experience financial instability. This underperformance highlights the urgent need for businesses in this sector to reevaluate their strategies, manage risks effectively, and adapt to changing market conditions in order to improve their financial health.
Donald Trump also leads in most elections, and betting industry give him , a better than perhaps chance , of winning the election this November. Therefore, it is crucial to consider what his true guidelines will be and how they will affect the outcomes that Americans are interested in.
Best now, the results Americans , definitely worry about most , is inflation. Therefore, we should consider how Trump’s laws will impact prices and getting ahead of the curve.
This is an inherently challenging workout. Trump is n’t wedded to a particular ideology and is often very open to persuasion – especially if you come , bearing large checks  , for him and his businesses.
It’s often difficult to predict whether he’ll carry out his policy promises in a strong and substantial method or whether he’ll create a symbolic sign and leave it that way. However, we must make our best guess if we are going to make an informed choice regarding who should be leader.
The simple story below is that , there are three major ways , Trump could raise prices in the US: taxes, imbalances, and pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates.
A number of people are warning that Trump did increase prices by imposing high tariffs. For instance,  , how’s Matt Yglesias:
]T] ariffs have a distinct inflationary impact…]Consider ] a 10 % tax on imported olive oil. That makes imported olive oil more expensive… But it’s also going to raise the price of , domestic , olive oil, because price competition from foreigners has diminished …]N] ow imagine doing this across the economy. The cost of , everything , goes away.
Trump , has promised , a 10 % tariff on all imports from all countries, a 60 % tariff on all Chinese goods and , a 200 % tariff , on all cars made by Chinese- owned companies. Tariffs raise customer costs — in economics conditions, they represent a , damaging supply shock. Bad supply shocks reduce development, increase poverty, and push up inflation. So if you care about prices, it’s fair to worry about this.
There are lots of risks concerning , merely how much , taxes push up prices. To use just one example, it’s possible that tariffs would have a negative impact on the economy’s status as the country’s reserve currency, leading to a stronger dollar, which would allow Americans to purchase imported goods more expensively and may reduce some of the effects of the price.
It seems doubtful to me that Trump had take , the extraordinary, wrenching actions , needed to degrade the money, so currency appreciation is one force in the economy that would “push up” against the effects of tariffs. ( Of course, if Trump , did , actually go ahead and degrade the money, that would produce , yet higher prices. )
In fact,  , dollar appreciation , in 2018 might be one reason why Trump’s tariffs in his first term did n’t push up consumer prices much for Americans — only by , 0.2 % total, according to one study.
Because of these difficulties, distinct versions arrive at different inferences for how much Trump’s proposed tariffs would raise inflation.
For example, Bloomberg’s economics team forecasts , a total increase of 2.5 % in consumer prices , from , all , of Trump’s proposed tariffs, while Robinson and Thierfelder ( 2022 )  , predict an increase of 6.7 % , from just the 10 % global tariff alone.
This would be a one- day price increase, hardly a long- term rise in the inflation rate. Even a frenzied burst of inflation may cause voters to be uneasy for a while, as we saw in 2021-22, and a 6.7 % increase in consumer prices is nothing to begrudge.
So the risk of price- driven inflation is genuine, but the effect may be temporary, and there’s a real possibility that it would be modest in size. Another potential Trump policies, but, could have bigger and longer- profound effects.
Because it was reduced during his first term, we tend not to connect Trump with inflation. But that does n’t mean his policies did n’t contribute to the inflation of 2021- 22.
The , US$ 2.2 trillion CARES Act , and its ,$ 0.9 trillion follow- up , in December 2020 handed out large amounts of money to American families – even more than Joe Biden handed out in 2021.
Americans first saved the majority of that money before using it up, but in 2021 they started using the money that had already been saved up. Most economics think that this investing binge , contributed tremendously to inflation , in 2021 and early 2022.
In my opinion,  , Trump did the right thing around, because making sure that Americans were n’t economically ruined by Covid, and that the US economy recovered immediately, were more crucial than keeping prices low. However, Trump’s pandemic saving does show two points:
In reality, Trump’s disdain for poverty and lack of concern about imbalances predates the pandemic. Thanks largely to Trump’s tax cuts,  , the federal deficit increased , from 3.4 % in 2017 to 4.6 % of GDP in 2019.
And populist leaders generally do n’t tend to use austerity to distribute short-term goodies to maintain their popularity, even if this causes more pain for the citizens in the long run.
What did Trump’s gap policies look like after serving in office? In his blog, Yglesias flags , an analysis , by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which shows how extending the tax breaks from Trump’s first word would increase the regional loan:
Now, that’s not a huge increase, and the blue line for” current law” shows that Biden is already doing quite a lot of deficit spending. But it’s likely that Biden’s deficits are  , already , contributing to stubbornly above- target inflation.
As I wrote in , a post back in April, macroeconomics theory tends to think that government budget deficits are inflationary:
It’s theoretically possible that deficits can be inflationary. In fact, this is , how a typical New Keynesian macro model works. It’s also implied by a theory called , the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level. Therefore, it is possible that the US government’s large deficits are causing inflation to stay stubbornly above target.
Now as I noted in that post, macroeconomic theory is n’t always a great guide to reality. Governments have accumulated sizable debts in some cases, like Japan, without causing inflation. However, it’s unquestionably important to note that higher deficits under Trump would increase inflation.
And this problem is getting worse, because of rising interest costs. As the US government continues to roll over more and more of its legacy low-interest debt from before the pandemic at the new, higher interest rates, it is required to pay more and more every month to pay off the debt in order to service the debt. We are borrowing to pay the interest on our own borrowing, which is causing deficits to rise.
The only way to solve that issue is through austerity. Although it’s still up for debate whether Biden and Congress will continue to support austerity after this election, Trump’s record and his general populist leadership style suggest he wo n’t be willing to deal with the issue.
Instead, I anticipate that Trump will attempt to control rising interest rates by putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.
The Fed is supposed to be independent in theory; it is supposed to control interest rates in order to strike a balance between high employment and low inflation.
This implies that the Fed is supposed to do the dirty, pointless job of raising interest rates to combat inflation when inflation rises. In the short run, increasing interest rates can lead to a lot of short-term economic pain, as evidenced by Paul Volcker’s early 1980s increase in rates, which resulted in two painful but brief-lived recessions.
In other words, the Fed has the responsibility to act as the “bad cop” in the economy, and we give it some autonomy to protect it from the inevitable political repercussions when tough choices are required.
During his first term in office, Trump , repeatedly attacked , the Fed,  , demanding , that the Fed cut interest rates even more from their already low levels. Many people thought Trump was attempting to stifle the independence of the Fed by putting political pressure on them for political gain in the interim.
Now, Trump’s allies are preparing an even more aggressive , attack on Fed independence, according to WSJ:
In the middle of a deepening rift among his advisers over how aggressively to challenge the central bank’s authority, Donald Trump’s allies are quietly drafting proposals that would attempt to erode the Federal Reserve’s independence if the former president wins a second term.
Former Trump administration officials and other supporters of the presumed Republican nominee have spoken in recent months about a range of ideas, from incremental policy changes to a long-shot claim that the president should himself play a role in setting interest rates.
The group of Trump allies advocates for his consultation on interest-rate decisions, and the draft document suggests that the White House be more forcefully using the Treasury Department to review Fed regulations and using the Treasury Department as a central bank check. The group also asserts that Trump would have the authority to remove Jerome Powell from the Fed chair before his four-year term expires in 2026, according to people with knowledge of the situation.
In fact, Trump seems to , love nothing more , than feuding with, and establishing dominance over, American institutions, this is simply one more example.
Trump would remain in office for the duration of his term by forcibly forcing the Fed to lower interest rates, even in the face of rising inflation. It would also push down the government’s interest costs, delaying the need for austerity. However, higher inflation would be the cost of those low interest rates.
In addition, inflation expectations increased as US businesses, investors, and households realized that the Fed had been permanently compromised and politicized, putting an end to Volcker and his successors ‘ efforts to persuade Americans that the Fed is inherently hawkish.
A combination of tariffs, high and rising deficits, and monetary interference could push inflation back to 1970s levels. Larry Summers, who correctly predicted the inflation of 2021, is , right to worry:
Summers sees the same danger. ” It is difficult to predict the timing and the precise dynamics”, he told me,” but it is hard to imagine a policy package more likely to create stagflation” than measures that directly raise prices ( through tariffs ), undermine competition, enlarge deficits, and excessively expand the money supply. He predicted that as inflation expectations and long-term interest rates rise, there was a real risk that mortgage rates would rise above 10 % again during Trump’s presidency.
In Trump’s first term, he got lucky. Underlying inflationary pressures in the US were still fairly weak, deficits crept up but stayed under control, Trump’s early tariffs had only a minor impact, and the Fed managed to resist Trump’s initial attack on its independence. In a second term, he might get even luckier, but I would n’t bet the farm on it.
And then there’s the possibility that a second Trump term will bring about an actual economic catastrophe as well as painful and persistent inflation.
No one really knows what causes some nations to experience extremely high inflation rates. But , economists  , have  , a guess.
Basically, the idea is that when the government becomes committed to running big permanent deficits,  , and , the central bank becomes committed to permanently supporting that borrowing with money creation, everyone basically abandons the country’s currency and its value collapses.
Some people believe that this only occurs when nations engage in wars or experience some other form of geopolitical instability. But in many hyperinflations in developing countries, there ‘s , no war or revolution involved , — instead, the combination of infinite deficits and infinite deficit- supporting money creation is due to a country’s own internal politics.
In reality, this typically refers to a nation getting a populist leader who is determined to maintain power by providing fiscal aid to supporters and/or cronies and who manages to compel the monetary authority to back this strategy.
Could Trump follow this pattern? It’s not likely. It would take a heck of a lot of macroeconomic meddling for America to become Argentina or Venezuela because it is such a big rich country and the dollar is such an important currency.
But it’s not entirely out of the question, either. And the consequences of hyperinflation are so dire — Venezuelans were literally reduced to , premodern living conditions , in the 2010s — that it’s worth worrying about even if the chance is small.
Now, this might sound silly to some people who lived through Trump’s first term. Why would we anticipate super-high inflation if Trump came back to power if there was no inflation under Trump the first time? But it’s worth noting that in most episodes of hyperinflation, it , takes a number of years , under the fiscally irresponsible ruling regime for inflation to explode. Things look OK for a while, and then , bam.
For example, take Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro. Chavez, who presided over Venezuela in 2002, passed away in 2013. It’s pretty clear, in hindsight, that it was Chavez’ , failed economic policies , — continued by Maduro— that eventually resulted in Venezuela’s disastrous hyperinflation. However, until just before Chavez’s death, Venezuelan inflation appeared to be more or less in control.
Or consider Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a populist leader who has been in office since 2014 and served as prime minister for 11 years.  ,
Erdogan’s policy , of constantly forcing the central bank to lower interest rates caused the currency to , collapse , and inflation to go to over 60 % — not technically hyperinflation, but more than six times as high as US inflation in 2021- 22. Economic growth halted for a few years, and only a , timely reversal , of the low interest rate policy in 2023 managed to stabilize the situation.
However, Turkey’s inflation had been comparatively stable and low since 2004. It was four years into Erdogan’s term as president, and more than a decade since he became prime minister, before his policies made inflation explode.
When it comes to Trump and inflation, this is the main concern I have. Trump’s first term may provide a strong, peaceful macroeconomic environment that will persuade him to be a responsible steward of the macroeconomy, giving him the opportunity to commit macroeconomic arson in a second term.
Trump might have a corrosive impact on American macroeconomics, like Chavez and Erdogan, other populist leaders who have fought with their own institutions.
This , article , was first published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion , Substack and is republished with kind permission. Read the , original , and become a Noahopinion , subscriber , here.
Getty ImagesWe’re in the midst of a Moon hurry. In a culture for resources and space supremacy, a growing number of nations and businesses are aiming for the lunar surface. But are we ready for this new age of solar exploration?
This year, images were beamed back to Earth of China’s symbol unfurled on the Moon. It’s the government’s third landing there- and the first previously mission to gain samples from the Moon’s even side. In the past 12 months, India and Japan have even set down aircraft on the lunar area. Intuitive Machines, a US company, became the first secret company to launch a lander on the Moon in February, and many more are on the way.
However, Nasa wants to send people back to the Moon, with its Artemis explorers aiming for a 2026 getting. By 2030, China claims to have sent people to the Moon. And instead of brief visits, the strategy is to build continuous bases.
However, this new space race may result in conflicts being exported to the moon’s surface in a time of renewed great-power elections.
Our relation with the Moon will ultimately change very soon, warns Justin Holcomb, a geologist from the University of Kansas. He claims that the speed of space exploration is then “outpacing our norms.”
No country can individual the Moon, according to a 1967 UN deal. Otherwise, the amazing Outer Space Treaty asserts that any investigation must be conducted for the good of all people and in the interests of all countries.
Although it sounds quite calm and close-knit and collaborative, it is true that the driving power behind the Space Treaty was not assistance but the Cold War politics.
The fear that place had become a military fight increased as tensions between the US and the Soviet Union after World War Two, so the treaty stipulated that no nuclear arms could be sent into place. More than 100 countries signed up.
However, this new place age appears to be different from the one from that time.
Getty ImagesOne significant change is that contemporary sun operations are not just the creations of individual countries; they are also the creations of competing companies.
In January, a US commercial goal called Peregrine announced it was taking human remains, DNA tests and a sports drink, full with brand, to the Moon. It never made it there because of a gas leak, which led to debate over how delivering this varied inventory complied with the treaty’s tenet that exploration if benefit everyone.
” We’re starting to really take things that just because we can.” There’s no sort of rhyme or reason again”, says Michelle Hanlon, a space attorney and creator of For All Moonkind, an institution that seeks to guard the Apollo getting websites. Our Moon is within our power, she claims, and we are starting to misuse it.
State says also finally remain the key gamers in all this, even if solar private sector is on the rise. Any business must remain authorised to enter room by a state, according to Sa’id Mostehsar, chairman of the London Institute of Space Policy and Law, which will be governed by international agreements.
Joining the prestigious club of Moonlanders also offers a great deal of fame. India and Japan could very well claim to be international area players after their powerful missions.
And a country with a strong place business may stimulate the economy by creating jobs and creating new ones.
But the Moon competition offers an even bigger reward: its assets.
While the solar terrain looks quite lifeless, it contains minerals, including unique earths, metals like iron and titanium- and helium also, which is used in everything from superconductors to health equipment.
Estimates for the value of all this vary wildly, from billions to quadrillions. So it becomes obvious why some people view the Moon as a lucrative source of income. However, it’s also important to keep in mind that this would be a very long-term investment, and that the technology needed to extract and return these lunar resources may not be fully developed.
No state or organization could assert ownership of the resources there in a 1979 international treaty. Only 17 countries are parties to it, which excludes any nations that have visited the moon, including the US, and it was n’t popular.
In fact, the US passed a law in 2015 allowing its citizens and industries to extract, use and sell any space material.
Michelle Hanlon told me,” This caused the international community to be very consternated. ” But slowly, others followed suit with similar national laws”. These included Luxembourg, the UAE, Japan and India.
Water is the resource that is most in demand, which is surprising.
“When the first Moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts were analysed, they were thought to be completely dry,” explains Sara Russell, professor of planetary sciences at the Natural History Museum.
” But then, about ten years ago, we discovered that they contain little water that is trapped in phosphate crystals.”
ReutersAnd at the Moon’s poles, she says, there’s even more- reserves of water ice are frozen inside permanently shadowed craters.
Future visitors could drink the water, it could be used to make oxygen, and astronauts could even split it up into hydrogen and oxygen, allowing them to travel from the Moon to Mars and beyond.
The US is now making an effort to establish new guiding principles for lunar exploration and exploitation. Although it claims some new regulations may be required, the so-called Artemis Accords recommend that using and extracting resources from the Moon should be done in accordance with the Treaty for Outer Space.
China is notably absent from the list of more than 40 nations that have so far signed up to these non-binding agreements. Some people also contend that a new country’s authority should n’t be able to oversee lunar exploration.
Sa’id Moshetar tells me,” This really should be done through the United Nations because it affects all countries.”
However, resources could also lead to a conflict.
While there is plenty of room on the Moon, the best real estate on the planet is located close to ice-filled craters. What happens if everyone wants the same location for their base of call? And once a nation has established one, what’s to stop another from getting a little too close to establish their base?
” I think there’s an interesting analogy to the Antarctic”, says Jill Stuart, a space policy and law researcher at the London School of Economics. ” We’ll probably see research centers being set up on the Moon like they’re on the continent,” says one researcher.
However, who gets there first may make important decisions about a new lunar base, such as whether it covers a few square kilometers or a few hundred.
” There will definitely be a first- mover advantage”, Jill Stuart says.
” So if you can go there first and establish camp, then you can determine the size of your zone of exclusion. It does n’t mean you own that land, but you can sit on that space”.
The US or China are currently most likely to be the first settlers, adding a new layer of rivalry to an already tense relationship. And they are likely to establish the standard; whoever prevails may end up with the rules that will eventually apply.
Some of the space experts I spoke with believe there is unlikely to be another significant international space treaty if everything comes off as a bit ad hoc. The pros and cons of exploring the moon are more likely to be figured out through memorandums of understanding or updated codes of conduct.
There’s a lot at stake. The Moon is our constant companion as we observe how it changes throughout its various phases as it brightens in the sky.
However, as this new space race begins, we must begin to consider where we want to be and whether it runs the risk of creating very Earthly conflict.
BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.
The organization is also appealing to European tourists who want to leave the crowded Olympic stadium in the following month.
PUBLISHED: 8 Jun 2024 at 21: 01
The tourism authority of Thailand ( TAT ) recommends that the country promote “ghost tourism” for foreign visitors seeking horror-themed sites, a move that could increase” soft power” in Thailand.
Thai souls are soft power resources and movie about them have helped spread Thailand’s traditions around the world, said Siripakorn Cheawsamoot, assistant Po government for Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the United States.
He said Spanish visitors were interested in exploring secluded locations with amazing stories after meeting the Colonial embassy to Thailand.
Although there are many possible tourist destinations in the country, the Po has not publicly promoted this aspect of tourism.
Thailand’s Scar government, Thapanee Kiatphaibool, stated on Saturday that the campaign of Thailand’s soft energy has been a success as numerous international film and television production companies have been looking to work there recently.
The second season of the popular HBO TV set White Lotus, which is currently being shot in Bangkok, Phuket, and Koh Samui, and the Hollywood movie Jurassic World 4, which are both scheduled to premiere next year in Krabi and Trang, were cited by Ms. Thapanee.
The first, she said, is expected to generate over 650 million baht in income during the one- quarter filming time.
In another growth, the TAT announced that it is working with French-based Carrefour to introduce a Thailand hospitality deal during the 2024 Olympic Games, which are scheduled for July 22 through August 11 in France.
The strategy aims to draw attention to French people who might be trying to evade the arrival of foreign visitors to Thailand during the” Olympic Getaway” phrase.
According to Mr. Siripakorn, about 2, 000 tour deals are currently being offered to European tourists. The company is also working with airlines to facilitate direct flights from Paris and transport flights from different airports in the nation.
