Latest News Clips 2017.01.23

                       

1.      In Inaugural Address, Trump Continues to Shun Establishment

The New York Times           JAN. 20, 2017

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s Inaugural Address on Friday was a scalding repudiation of the Washington establishment. The question left hanging after this angry jeremiad: How will the new commander in chief be able to work with these people to govern the country?

Uncompromising in tone and entirely in keeping with his insurgent campaign, Mr. Trump dispensed with appeals to unity or attempts to build bridges to his opponents. He tarred the nation’s political class, arrayed behind him on the West Front of the Capitol, as faithless and corrupt.

“Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs,” he said. “And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”

“That all changes,” a grim-faced Mr. Trump declared, “starting right here, and right now.”

From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, presidents have come to Washington as agents of change and enemies of the status quo. Most have discovered, to their benefit or misery, that they must work the levers of government to push through their agenda. But none in recent memory have appeared so ready to lead by going to war against the existing order.

That could include members of his own party. Mr. Trump is as close to an independent as has ever served in modern times. He ran against the Republican establishment as much as he ran against Hillary Clinton.

In his address, he ignored the Republican leadership in Congress, and said nothing about working with Speaker Paul Ryan or Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, to advance a legislative agenda. His views on trade, foreign policy and the role of government are at odds with Republican orthodoxy, setting the stage for a clash between the party and its standard-bearer.

As for the Democrats, there were signs, under the leaden skies on the National Mall, that they were already girding for battle. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, issued a blunt warning to Mr. Trump, moments before he was sworn in, that the American people would stand up for the rule of law, a free press — the things, he said, “that make America America.”

Mr. Schumer quoted from a farewell letter that a Union soldier, Maj. Sullivan Ballou, sent his wife during the Civil War, days before he was killed in the First Battle of Bull Run. The doomed soldier’s words — which recalled the sacrifices made by the nation’s founders — could provide solace in the days to come, he said.

Democratic lawmakers wore buttons on their lapels that said “Protect Our Care,” a reference to the landmark health care law that Mr. Trump and Republicans in Congress have promised to overturn. About 60 Democrats boycotted the inauguration altogether — a movement that picked up steam once Mr. Trump clashed with Representative John Lewis of Georgia, after Mr. Lewis said that he did not view him as a legitimate president.

“There was very little in this speech that would offer comfort to a Trump opponent or skeptic,” said Michael Beschloss, the presidential scholar. “It had the texture more of a convention or campaign speech than what we usually hear in an Inaugural Address.”

And yet, Mr. Trump has presented himself as a dealmaker, not an ideologue, and it remains an open question whether he will continue to be the relentless populist who was on display on Friday.

For all the public tension between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer, the president has reached out to his fellow New Yorker, whom he has known for decades. He has named cabinet members who disagree with him on issues like banning Muslims or torturing terrorism suspects. He has suggested that his own views are themselves a work in progress.

Mr. Trump has shown a quicksilver ability to shift his positions on major issues, like his campaign promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. He mentioned neither in his speech.

Mr. Trump’s aides like to say he is a direct descendant of Andrew Jackson, the nation’s first populist president. Populists in the Jackson tradition, political theorists say, are protean in character.

 “They’re kind of like the moon,” said Walter Russell Mead, a professor at Bard College and a scholar at the Hudson Institute who has written extensively about Jackson’s influence. “They’re the brightest object in the night sky when the moon is full, but they wax and wane.”

2.      China's Xi defends free trade in speech at Davos

Bumpy run-up to Trump inauguration gives Chinese leader convenient opportunity to claim assertive role on world stage.

Aljazeera   17 Jan 2017

 

President Xi Jinping of China has offered a vigorous defence of globalisation and free trade in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Comparing protectionism with "locking oneself in a dark room" to avoid danger, but at the same time depriving the room of "light and air", he cautioned other countries against pursuing their own interests at the expense of others on Tuesday.

Xi did not mention the US president-elect, Donald Trump, in his speech of nearly an hour but many of the messages he sent seemed directed at Trump, who campaigned for the White House on pledges to protect US industries from foreign competition and levy new tariffs on goods from China and Mexico.

"No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war," Xi told the forum in the Swiss Alps.

He said economic globalisation has become a "Pandora's Box" for many, but that it was not the cause of many global problems.

Xi said the international financial crises were caused by the excessive pursuit of profits, not globalisation.

"China has no intention to boost its trade competitiveness by devaluing the renminbi, still less will it launch a currency war," he said.

His appearance, a first for a Chinese leader at the annual meeting of political leaders, chief executives and bankers in Davos, came as doubts emerge about whether the US will remain a force for multilateral cooperation on issues like trade and climate change.

Complaints about China

Xi's vocal support for free trade and criticism of protectionism could appear rich to other Western countries, who have grumbled about commercial restrictions in China that clash with the public assertions from officials.

Foreign companies complain that China is reducing access to its markets for electric cars, computer security technology and other promising fields or pressing them to give know-how to potential Chinese competitors.

Some say they are blocked from acquiring assets in China, just as Chinese companies have been on a foreign buying spree.

"The political leadership of China never ceases to assure us that further opening towards foreign investment ... is a priority," Michael Clauss, Germany's ambassador to China, said this week.

"However, many companies keep telling us that their difficulties in these areas have increased."

"It often appears that somewhere down the line, political assurances of equal treatment give way to protectionist tendencies."

China also faces US and European complaints it is exporting steel, aluminium, solar panels and other goods at improperly low prices, threatening thousands of jobs abroad.

Sign of shift

Klaus Schwab, WEF founder, said Xi's presence was a sign of the shift from a unipolar world dominated by the US to a more multi-polar system in which rising powers, such as China, will have to step up and play a bigger role.

"In a world marked by great uncertainty and volatility, the world is looking to China," he said before Xi spoke.

Europe is preoccupied with its own troubles, from Brexit and attacks to the string of elections this year in which anti-globalisation populists could score gains.

The bumpy run-up to the Trump administration has given China's Xi a convenient opportunity to advance his goal of giving his country a more assertive leadership role on the world stage.

China previously sought to capture the mantle as a supporter of world trade after Trump said he would pull the US out of the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal championed by President Barack Obama.

'Biggest challenge'

In his speech, Xi described the world economy as adrift, saying it lacked a "driving force" with inadequate global governance and unequal benefits that have widened the gulf between rich and poor.

"This is the biggest challenge in the world today," he said.

He called for a "new growth model" that takes into account climate change, ageing populations and increased automation, and said countries that face difficulties should not "lose confidence or run away from our responsibility; instead, we should join hands".

Xi hit hard on the metaphor of the world economy as an "ocean," saying countries "must have courage to swim in the global market".

"We should not develop a habit of retreating to the harbour whenever encountering the storm, for this will never get us to the other shore of the ocean," he said.

3.      Brexit: May’s threat to Europe: 'no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal'

Prime minister gives tough speech outlining government’s 12 priorities for Brexit negotiations as EU leaders warn that country is heading for ‘hard Brexit’

The Guardian    18 January 2017 

 

Theresa May warned European leaders that the UK is prepared to crash out of the EU if she cannot negotiate a reasonable exit deal in a speech where her tough talking rhetoric prompted key figures in Brussels to say that the country was on track for a “hard Brexit”.

     

The prime minister told EU counterparts that any attempt to inflict a punitive outcome on the UK would be an “act of calamitous self-harm” because it would then slash taxes to attract companies from across the world, in a one-hour address intended to spell out the country’s negotiating strategy.

Although May said that the UK could be the EU’s “best friend” if the article 50 divorce talks went well, she also said she was prepared to walk away. “And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she said.

Eurosceptic ministers and backbenchers were quick to praise May, but her remarks also triggered a backlash from lead European parliament negotiator on Brexit, Guy Verhofstadt. “Britain has chosen a hard Brexit. May’s clarity is welcome – but the days of UK cherry-picking and Europe a la cart [sic] are over,” he said.

Verhofstadt also delivered a tough response to May’s point about business. “Threatening to turn the UK into a deregulated tax heaven will not only hurt British people – it is a counterproductive negotiating tactic,” he tweeted, urging May to consider the concerns of 48% who voted remain.

Speaking at Lancaster House, London, the prime minister also committed to give both houses of parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal – prompting the pound to soar – although Downing Street was clear that the alternative to a negotiated exit would be defaulting onto the higher tariffs of World Trade Organisation rules.

Latest News Clip2017.01.16

                       

1.      The Biggest Changes Obamacare Made, and Those That May Disappear

The New York Times   Jan. 13, 2017

It looks like the beginning of the end for Obamacare as we know it.

After years of vowing to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as it is formally known, Republican lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have now passed a bill that will make it easier to gut the law.

Because they are using a special budget process, Republicans won’t be able to repeal all provisions of the health law. But it seems like a good time to look at the major changes Obamacare brought to health care, which of those changes may now disappear, and what might replace them.

1) Obamacare insured millions through new insurance markets.

The health law reduced the number of uninsured Americans by an estimated 20 million people from 2010 to 2016. One of the primary ways it did so was by creating online markets where people who didn’t get insurance through work or the government could shop for a health plan from a private insurer. The law offered subsidies for Americans with lower incomes to help pay their premiums and deductibles.

What would happen? The Republican bill is expected to eliminate the subsidies. This would make insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans and sharply reduce the number who buy their own health coverage.

With many fewer people buying coverage, the insurance markets are likely to become increasingly unstable. Many insurers will stop offering policies, and the remaining customers are likely to be sicker than current Obamacare buyers, a reality that will drive up the cost of insurance for everyone who buys it, and force more people out of the markets. The Urban Institute estimates that the change would cause a total of 22.5 million people to lose their health insurance.

What might replace it? Separate legislation may include some new form of subsidy to help people afford insurance. Plans from House Speaker Paul Ryan and the budget committee chairman Tom Price, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, would both offer a flat tax credit to help buy insurance that varies by age. A proposal from the House Republican Study Committee would give all Americans a standard tax deduction to buy insurance.

2) Obamacare insured millions more by expanding Medicaid.

The health law provided federal funds for states to offer Medicaid coverage to anyone earning less than about $16,000 for a single person or $33,000 for a family of four. Not every state chose to expand, but most did.

What would happen? The Republican plan is expected to eliminate federal funding for the expansion. An estimated 12.9 million people would lose Medicaid coverage, according to the Urban Institute’s projections.

What might replace it? Republican leaders have discussed reforming the remaining Medicaid program to give states more autonomy and to reduce future federal investment.

3) Obamacare established consumer protections for health insurance.

One of the law’s signature features prevents insurance companies from denying coverage or charging a higher price to someone with a pre-existing health problem. The law included a host of other protections for all health plans: a ban on setting a lifetime limit on how much an insurer has to pay to cover someone; a requirement that insurers offer a minimum package of benefits; a guarantee that preventive health services be covered without a co-payment; a cap on insurance company profits; and limits on how much more insurers can charge older people than younger people. The law also required insurance plans to allow adult children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.

What would happen? These rules can’t be changed using the special budget process, so they would stay in place for now. But eliminating some of the other provisions, like the subsidies, and leaving the insurance rules could create turmoil in the insurance markets, since sick customers would have a much stronger incentive to stay covered when premiums rise. .

What might replace it? Mr. Trump has said that he’d like to keep the law’s policies on pre-existing conditions and family coverage for young adults, but Senate Republicans recently voted against nonbinding resolutions to preserve those measures, suggesting they may be less committed. Some of the other provisions would probably be on the table if there were new legislation. Republicans in Congress would probably eliminate rules that require a minimum package of benefits for all insurance plans and allow states to determine what insurers would have to include. Mr. Trump has said he’d like to encourage the sale of insurance across state lines, a policy likely to make coverage more skimpy but less expensive for many customers. Republicans would also like to expand tax incentives for people to save money for health expenses.

Many of the Republican proposals would also establish so-called high-risk pools, which would provide subsidized insurance options for people with chronic health problems who wouldn’t be able to buy insurance without rules forcing insurers to sell them coverage.

4) Obamacare required individuals to have health insurance and companies to offer it to their workers.

To ensure that enough healthy people entered insurance markets, the law included mandates to encourage broader coverage. Large employers that failed to offer affordable coverage, or individuals who failed to obtain insurance, could be charged a tax penalty.

What would happen? The bill is expected to eliminate the mandates. Some experts think that eliminating the individual mandate, in particular, could destabilize insurance markets by reducing incentives for healthy people to buy coverage. The mandate had less of an impact on the employers, which had already been offering coverage.

What might replace it? Some Republican plans would allow insurers to charge much higher rates to customers who allow their coverage to lapse than to those who renew their policies every year. Such a system might provide a different financial incentive for healthy people to stay insured.

5) Obamacare raised taxes related to high incomes, prescription drugs, medical devices and health insurance.

To help pay for the law’s coverage expansion, it raised taxes on several players in the health industry and on high-income earners.

What would happen? The G.O.P. package may roll back those tax increases, though there is some disagreement among Republican lawmakers about the deficit impact of such changes.

What might replace it? Republicans have not discussed raising new taxes to replace those in the Affordable Care Act. But some of their plans would limit the tax benefits offered to people who get their health insurance through work. That change would increase tax revenues, but would increase the cost of health insurance for many people who get it through work.

6) Obamacare made major reforms to Medicare payments.

The law cut the annual pay raises Medicare gives hospitals and reduced the fees Medicare pays private insurance companies. It created new incentives for hospitals and doctors to improve quality. It also set up a special office to run experiments in how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals for health care services. Those experiments are now widespread and have begun changing the way medicine is practiced in some places.

What would happen? The new legislation is expected to leave these changes alone, even though many have come under criticism by Republicans in Congress over the years, including from Mr. Price, an orthopedic surgeon. Many of the experiments could be reshaped or eliminated through regulation or through a future budget process.

What might replace it? Republicans in Congress have long talked about even more ambitious changes to Medicare, intended to move more beneficiaries into private insurance coverage. Mr. Trump has said that he does not want to make major changes to Medicare, so it is unclear if such a proposal would move forward.

7) Obamacare made many smaller changes that will probably last.

Obamacare had a range of policies meant to improve health and health care, including requirements that drug companies report payments made to physicians, a provision written by the Iowa senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican; a requirement that chain restaurants publish calorie counts on their menus; and a rule that large employers must provide a space for women to express breast milk.

What would happen? When Republicans talk about repealing Obamacare, they tend to focus on the parts of the law that expanded insurance coverage and regulated health insurance products, not these ancillary parts. That means that portions of the Affordable Care Act that people don’t associate with the word “Obamacare” are likely to endure.

2.      Trump: Whether to commit to "one China" depends on Beijing's actions

DW.com     Jan. 14, 2017

 Trump, who is about to join the White House, spoke to US media about his relationship with China, saying everything is in the negotiations, including the "one China" policy. He also accused China of manipulating the exchange rate, leading to US companies in the competition at a disadvantage.

US President-elect Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that unless Beijing made some progress in exchange rate and trade policy, he would not have a "one-China" principle. In addition, he also said that "at least for some time" will still maintain the existing sanctions against Russia.

When asked by reporters about whether to support the "one China" policy on the Taiwan issue, Trump said: "Everything in the negotiations, including one China."

An over - the - phone call provoked Beijing

When he was elected president, Trump received a congratulatory message from Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen and questioned the "one-China" principle, which has been the subject of several decades of Sino-US relations, provoking anger in China.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang had responded by saying that upholding the one-China principle is the political foundation for developing Sino-US relations. "If this foundation is disturbed and destroyed, the healthy and stable development of Sino-US relations and cooperation in important areas between the two countries will be out of the question." Since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the People's Republic of China and the United States, Washington has officially recognized only one China, This is part of the territory.

"Is their intention to let the yuan devaluation"

Trump has said in the past, after he took office as China will be the currency manipulator. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he said he would not go to the White House on the first day to do it. "I'll talk to them first," he said.

"They are, of course, manipulating the exchange rate," he added, "but I will not be too hasty."

Trump expressed his dissatisfaction with China's exchange rate policy. "They will not say, 'We're letting our currencies go down', but say, 'Oh, the exchange rate is falling again.'" Trump told the Wall Street Journal, Say.

"Our business can not compete with them because the dollar is so strong that it will kill us," he explained further.

The Chinese government has not yet responded to Trump's comments.

"Why should we impose sanctions on those who help us?"

It is reported that the "Wall Street Journal" reporter Trump conducted an hour-long interview, Friday the newspaper will interview the contents of the summary published. In addition to China, another important topic is the relationship with Russia. "If Russia really helps us, then why do we impose sanctions on those who help us and do good?" Trump questioned the legitimacy of the sanctions: "If Russia really helps us, then why do we impose sanctions on those who help and do good?

In late December, the Obama administration ordered a series of sanctions against Russia as a response to Moscow's alleged attacks on US-based hackers. Trump argues that sanctions should be lifted if Russia does help in the fight against terrorism and other goals that are very important to Washington.

He also disclosed that in January 20th formally sworn in, he is ready to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "I understand they want to meet, which is fine for me," Trump said.

All of my Cabinet nominee are looking good and doing a great job. I want them to be themselves and express their own thoughts, not mine!

Prior to that, Trump nominated Secretary of State Tillerson and Defense Minister Matisse expressed in Russian policy and the President-designate are different positions, the two important members of the Cabinet are skeptical of Moscow. However, Trump responded to this also Twitter, his Cabinet members are very good, hope they maintain their character, to express their point of view.

3.      How can we prepare our workforce for the automation crisis? 

The Telegraph    8 SEPTEMBER 2016

   

The hero of WALL-E CREDIT: -/PIXAR

When the movie WALL-E was released less than a decade ago, it depicted a dystopian world few seriously imagined possible: a planet where humans are obsolete and robots performed virtually every task. Yet now it seems, with automation cutting a swathe through the labour market, that future may be arriving soon.

A report published by the OECD in May showed that at least half of the tasks performed in 35 per cent of all current jobs in the UK could be automated. 

By 2030, automation will have made white collar workers redundant on a scale comparable to what blue collar workers faced in the second half of the 20th centurySteve Fuller, futurist

Hardly a new phenomenon, it’s tempting to think, since we’ve been complaining about machines taking over tasks from men since the Luddites vandalised the farm machinery that was costing them their living in the 1820s. 

The difference this time is that it’s the comfortable middle class professions as well as the blue-collar jobs that are under threat, such as accountancy and the legal profession. 

Just as a taxi driver might be obsolete in the age of the Google self-driving car, so a junior lawyer may find that a computer auto-scanning legal documents is faster and cheaper than them at picking up mistakes.

So where does this galloping pace of change leave human workers?  The good news, as the OECD report points out, is that not all jobs will disappear: on average, only nine per cent of jobs, based on an analysis of 21 countries, are at a high risk of being fully automated.   

Secondly, machines will continue to need humans. It is only when machines are complemented by human involvement that we fully realise the societal benefits of technology.

Even in age of artificial intelligence, we need humans to frame the problems that we want computers to solve. With robots doing many jobs better and faster, humans will be able to spend more time on higher-level or creative tasks.

Computerised diagnostic systems may be more reliable at detecting cancer, but only a doctor can bring an empathetic bedside manner or devise a care plan that improves the patient’s quality of care.  

For every job lost through automation in the UK, claim the World Economic Forum, almost three new ones will be created. Computers might have abolished the need for every company to have a "typing pool"  – but they’ve created a whole service industry of IT support staff and analysts that cannot be automated.

Those predictions from the sixties that automation would give us all three-day working weeks and free up endless leisure time could not have been less accurate. Instead, many of us are chained to our jobs long after official working hours by the smartphone.  

But to take advantage of this brave new world we will need to learn new skills – and fast. The new ambitious computing curriculumintroduced by Michael Gove into state schools – including algorithms, logic and binary data – is welcome, as are the new lessons in coding for primary school children.

But 30 per cent of computer science teachers needed to provide the lessons have not yet been recruited. Many of those already in place lack the skills to teach the more demanding curriculum.  

To break the UK’s poor record in teaching computing, schools will need to attract highly prized graduates in maths and science away from better-paid careers. A report last month by Barclays showed the UK lagging far behind our competitors in digital skills in the workplace.  

Only 16 per cent of workers in the UK would be comfortable building a website compared to 37 per cent of Indian workers.

This can’t be the responsibility of schools alone. UK businesses themselves need to do much more. Two thirds of employees in India said their employer offered digital workplace training – compared to just 38 per cent in the UK. 

There are examples that UK business could learn from elsewhere. Siemens in Germany, for example, takes trainees and “future-proofs” them by teaching them soft skills such as teamwork, how to divide tasks efficiently and problem solving. 

In the US, IBM has established P-TECH (Pathways in Technology Early College High School) model schools, which take ninth-grade students with the target of them graduating six years later with both a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering.   

Even if we can’t predict what the jobs of the future may be, we do know what sorts of skills employees will need to survive in such a world – and it’s more than a good grasp of coding, as important as that is.  

As Laszlo Bock, who is in charge of hiring at Google said in a 2013 interview, although good grades “don’t hurt”, the company is looking for skills such as “leadership, humility, collaboration, adaptability and loving to learn and re-learn.”

A curriculum focused around exams naturally results in ‘teaching the test’  – which may well be squeezing out exactly those creative qualities that will be essential for tomorrow’s economy. 

A central theme of WALL-E was that it was humans themselves – not robots – that made themselves redundant with an over-reliance on technology.  

The risk is that humans will not learn the skills necessary to take advantage of the new job possibilities created by automation, and condemn themselves to obsolescence. 

But if we train our workers properly, the closing frames of the movie need not be fantasy: an image of humans and robots, compensating for each other’s weaknesses, working together harmoniously alongside each other.