יום רביעי, 27 בספטמבר 2017

טראמפ מציע קיצוץ דרמטי בשיעורי המס

מקיים את הבטחת הבחירות




טראמפ. יצטרך לעמול [צילום: אוון ווצ'י, AP]






מס היחידים המירבי יירד מ-39.6% ל-35%; מס החברות יצנח מ-35% ל-20%; סף המס יוכפל; חלק מהפטורים יבוטלו הבעיה הגדולה: מימון הקיצוצים שיסתכמו בטריליוני דולרים












▪ ▪ ▪
ממשל טראמפ מציע (27.9.17) את הרפורמה המקיפה ביותר בדיני המס בארה"ב מזה עשרות שנים, עם פרסום פרטי תוכנית המס שהבטיח הנשיא דונלד טראמפ במסע הבחירות שלו. במרכז התוכנית: קיצוץ במס ליחידים ולחברות, ביטול פטורים המצויים בשימוש נרחב ואחידות רבה יותר בין מערכת המס של ארה"ב לבין זו הנהוגה במדינות מתועשות אחרות.

במיסוי ליחידים, מציע טראמפ שלוש מדרגות מס במקום שבע כיום: 12%, 25% ו-35%. כיום השיעור הנמוך ביותר הוא 10% והשיעור הגבוה ביותר הוא 39.6%. הקונגרס יוכל לקבוע מדרגה נוספת וגבוהה יותר כדי להבטיח שהעשירים ישלמו יותר, אך הממשל אינו מציע האם וכיצד לעשות זאת.

עוד כוללת התוכנית את הכפלת סף המס להכנסה שנתית של 12,000 דולר ליחיד ו-24,000 דולר לזוגות נשואים. במסגרת זו, יפושטו מאוד ההליכים לקבלת הפטור והנישומים לא יצטרכו לבצע חישובים מורכבים של הכנסות ופטורים. הפטור ממס בגין ילדים יעלה; כיום הוא עומד על 1,000 דולר לילד לשנה, אך התוכנית לא כוללת בשלב זה את המספר החדש. היא כן כוללת פטור חדש בסך 500 דולר למי שתומך בבני משפחה אחרים, כגון זקנים.

טראמפ מציע לבטל את מס העיזבון. במקביל תבוטל האפשרות להכיר לצורכי המס הפדרלי בשורה של הוצאות, כגון מיסים מקומיים ומדינתיים. לעומת זאת, ההוצאה על ריבית משכנתה תמשיך להיות מוכרת לצורכי מס, וכך גם תרומות והפקדות לחינוך ולפנסיה.

גם במישור מיסוי החברות מוצע שינוי דרמטי, בדמות קיצוץ שיעורו מ-35% ל-20% בלבד. צעד זה נועד לשפר את התחרותיות של החברות האמריקניות, המתמודדות מול חברות ממדינות אחרות שברבות מהן מס החברות נמוך משמעותית מאשר בארה"ב. ההפחתה גם תעודד חברות זרות להירשם בארה"ב.

טראמפ הציג את עיקרי הרפורמה זמן קצר לאחר שנכנס לתפקידו, אך אז היה מדובר בשורה קצרה של עקרונות בלבד. לאחר כשלונו בביטול אובמה-קר, טראמפ מתכוון להטיל את כל כובד משקלו על תוכנית המס, הזקוקה לאישור הקונגרס בו שולטת המפלגה הרפובליקנית. מפלגה זו תומכת בעיקרון בקיצוצי מס, מתוך הנחה שהם מגבירים את הפעילות הכלכלית - וכך הפסדה של המדינה יוצא בשכרה.

עם זאת, טראמפ יצטרך לעמול כדי להבטיח את הרוב, במיוחד בסנאט שם הרוב הרפובליקני הוא 52 מול 48 ושם הוא נתקל שוב ושוב במרידות המסכלות את ביטול אובמה-קר. פקידים בבית הלבן אומרים, כי ההצעות מתואמות עם החברים הרפובליקנים בוועדות המיסים של שני הבתים. הרפובליקנים רוצים להעביר את החוק עד סוף השנה, כך שהשפעותיו יורגשו לקראת בחירות אמצע הקדנציה (לכל בית הנבחרים ולשליש מן הסנאט) בנובמבר 2018.

ניו-יורק טיימס מציין, כי תוכניתו של הממשל מותירה לקונגרס לקבל חלק ניכר מן ההחלטות הקשות, ובראשן: כיצד לממן את הקיצוצים העשויים להגיע לטריליוני דולרים. מאחר שארה"ב מתקרבת שוב ושוב לתקרת החוב שלה (אותה יש להעלות בחודש הקרוב) ולנוכח ההיקף הכספי העצום בו מדובר, נראה שלא יהיה מנוס מקיצוץ עמוק בשירותים הממשלתיים. טראמפ מצידו תומך בקיצוץ שכזה, והצעת התקציב שלו לשנה הקרובה כבר פוסעת באותו כיוון, מתוך התנגדות עקרונית לממשלה גדולה ומתערבת.

טראמפ מתכוון להציג את עיקרי התוכנית בהמשך היום בנאום באינדיאנה, ולומר שמדובר בעיקר בהטבה למעמד הביניים ובכלי להאיץ את הצמיחה שנותרה צנועה - כ-2% לשנה בלבד. הדמוקרטים טוענים, כי מדובר בהטבות לעשירון העליון - עליו נמנים טראמפ ורבים מחברי הקבינט שלו - על חשבון המעמדות הנמוכים יותר.

לדברי ניו-יורק טיימס - מתנגד עקבי של טראמפ - התוכנית נותנת יותר שאלות מאשר תשובות. בלא פרטים אלו, קשה לומר האם אכן משפחות במעמד הביניים הן שייצאו נשכרות ממנה, או שמא עשירי ארה"ב הם שירוויחו הכי הרבה.

The AfD Heartland; A Visit to Germany's Flyover Country


The right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany raked in over 30 percent of the vote in many areas of the eastern state of Saxony. It is a region with few foreigners but plenty of anti-immigrant sentiment. Why?



By Heike Klovert






Yes, it was a risk, says Ramona B., a saleswoman in a clothing store on the town square. Alexander Gauland, the overtly racist lead candidate for the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, is a catastrophe, she contends, adding that it is important to fight against climate change and for the European Union. Nevertheless, the 59-year-old clothing saleswoman cast her ballot on Sunday for the AfD. "Something has to change."



A lot of people in the small town of Wilsdruff, located a 30-minute drive west of Dresden, agree with Ramona B. Fully 36 percent of voters in the town cast their ballots for the AfD, significantly higher than for the second-place party, Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, which received 32 percent of the vote in Wilsdruff.




Ramona B.

The town is located in an electoral district in Saxony, the German state which shows the strongest support for the AfD. It is the district that Frauke Petry, the erstwhile co-head of the AfD who announced on Tuesday that she is leaving the party due to its stark rightward shift, calls home. In total, 36 percent of voters in the district overall voted for the right-wing populists, with some municipalities returning results of over 40 percent. Everywhere in the district, AfD emerged as the strongest political party.

But why?


Ramona B. says she couldn't make up her mind for a long time, until she saw a photo on television shortly before the election. It showed a blonde woman allegedly being cornered by dark-skinned men at the new year's eve celebrations in Cologne in 2015, when dozens of women were sexually harassed and some raped. The same TV report, however, pointed out that the image was a photoshopped montage. "Still," she says, "something did happen in Cologne!" She says she has nothing against foreigners, "but when they get the upper hand, it's not good for the country."

A Mistake

The conversation quickly turns to immigration when you ask people in Wilsdruff about the AfD's victory in the region. Not far from the clothing store, a stocky, 64-year-old man with a brown buzzcut turns into a side-street. He, too, voted for the AfD, he says, as did most of his friends and acquaintances.

"I need to know who is coming to our country," he says. Merkel, he says, should have admitted that it was a mistake to allow so many foreigners to cross the border into Germany. He argues that the money now being spent on integration could instead have been used to renovate schools and build more kindergartens.


He also says that he believes the EU and climate protection are important, nor does he have much regard for either Gauland or the AfD's ambiguous pension plan. But, he adds, domestic security is extremely important. He also doesn't really care that his district's representative in German parliament, Frauke Petry, has said she won't be part of the AfD parliamentary group in Berlin. "I voted for the party, the people are interchangeable," he says.

Neither the 64-year-old man, who asked that his name not be used, nor Ramona B. say that they have had any concrete problems with refugees. According to the town's administration, Wilsdruff is currently home to 10 asylum-seekers -- compared to an overall population of 13,900 residents. Right-wing violence of the type seen in towns like Freital and Heidenau, both of which are in the same electoral district, haven't been seen in Wilsdruff.

Nevertheless, many people here are plagued by fears of foreigners and of terror -- even those who didn't vote for the AfD. More must be done to prevent attacks, says Marie-Christin Saalbach, 21, while taking a walk with her young daughter and grandmother on the town square. That was a decisive factor in casting her ballot, though she ultimately chose the business-friendly Free Democrats instead of the AfD.

'An Insurgency Against the CDU'

Still, it is clear that in Saxony, Chancellor Merkel and her Christian Democrats are still closely identified with the decision to allow in hundreds of thousands of refugees in 2015 -- even though a lot has changed since then. Merkel has repeatedly emphasized the importance of securing the EU's borders, she has massively limited family reunification rights for asylum recipients and she was also instrumental in negotiating the EU-Turkey deal aimed at putting a stop to the influx of refugees flowing into Greece.

Ralf Rother is a member of Merkel's CDU and has been the mayor of Wilsdruff since 2003. He says he has often been asked recently why there is so much money available for migrants but what people view as a lack of funding for education and new teachers. People in his town, he says, have often expressed a lack of understanding for what they perceive as a significant problem.




"It is an insurgency against the CDU," says AfD politician Tobias Fuchs, 43, who lost to Rother in March mayoral elections in Wilsdruff. The region used to be a stronghold of CDU support, but Fuchs says the party isn't nearly as conservative as it was just 10 years ago. "AfD took over many of their issues," Fuchs says.


Plus, he adds, "AfD bashing" from politicians and the media contributed to his party's success in the general election. "There hasn't been a serious debate about the demands being made by the AfD."

The 64-year-old AfD voter with the buzzcut says that such bashing actually served to confirm his decision to vote for the party. "As soon as you say something against the government's refugee policy, people think you are a right-winger," he says. "That isn't the kind of democracy that we once wanted," he adds, referring to the state's East German past.

Mark Zuckerberg: I regret ridiculing fears over Facebook's effect on election


Facebook founder, who called it ‘crazy’ to suggest misinformation on site affected voters, describes change of heart as company provides ad content to Congress



Mark Zuckerberg said he should not have been ‘dismissive’ of concerns over the 2016 election. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


Mark Zuckerberg said he regretted dismissing concerns about the Facebook’s role in influencing the US presidential race, his latest acknowledgement that misinformation on the platform has affected elections.


Shortly after Trump’s surprise victory, the Facebook CEO had brushed aside charges that Facebook had had an impact on the race, calling it a “pretty crazy idea” and saying that voters “make decisions based on their lived experience”. But in a post Wednesday directly responding to Donald Trump’s tweet labeling Facebook “anti-Trump”, Zuckerberg expressed remorse for his earlier statements rejecting concerns about the dangers of propaganda and fake news on Facebook.



Russia's election ad campaign shows Facebook's biggest problem is Facebook
Julia Carrie Wong



Read more

“After the election, I made a comment that I thought the idea misinformation on Facebook changed the outcome of the election was a crazy idea. Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it,” the founder wrote, offering his first public admission that his initial remarks were off-base. “This is too important an issue to be dismissive.”


Facebook’s role in the election has faced close scrutiny in recent weeks following the company’s disclosure that a Russian-based influence operation had purchased $100,000 in ads to promote divisive political and social messages during the presidential campaign, prompting the company to agree last week to provide the contents of 3,000 ads to Congress.

The Russian ads spread controversial views on topics such as immigration and race and promoted 470 “inauthentic” pages and accounts, according to Facebook’s own description. The disclosure has added fuel to the findings of US intelligence officials that Russia was involved in influencing Trump’s race against Hillary Clinton.

Leaks this week have further suggested that the ads targeted groups like Black Lives Matter in an effort to exploit racial divisions and may have focused on audiences in specific locations, including Ferguson and Baltimore, the center of major police brutality protests.

Facebook has become increasingly important in a special counsel’s investigation of potential collusion between the Kremlin and Trump associates, prompting the president to directly attack Facebook and dismiss the scandal as a “hoax”.

Addressing the president’s latest tweet, Zuckerberg wrote: “Trump says Facebook is against him. Liberals say we helped Trump. Both sides are upset about ideas and content they don’t like. That’s what running a platform for all ideas looks like.”

Although the CEO has continued to try to present Facebook as a neutral platform, evidence has repeatedly suggested that propagandists have exploited the site to promote pro-Trump views, with the majority of top-performing false election stories during the campaign favoring the Republican candidate.

Zuckerberg, who has dismissed rumors that he plans to run for president in 2020, has increasingly weighed in on politics and publicly opposed a number of Trump’s policies. The CEO was critical of Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric during the campaign and recently doubled down on his opposition to the president’s decision to end a program protecting undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children.




Mark Zuckerberg defends Daca in livestreamed interview with Dreamers


Read more

Zuckerberg’s latest post once again tried to paint Facebook as a force for good in the election, noting that candidates communicated directly with tens of millions of followers each day and that the social network helped register people to vote.

Critics, however, have argued that Facebook is not doing enough and allows propaganda to spread with a model that depends on huge profits from cheap and easy ads purchased without any sales staff reviewing them.

Facebook has faced backlash for influencing politics across the globe. The Guardian reported earlier this year that a series of Conservative party attack ads in the UK were sent to voters in a key marginal constituency, utilizing dummy Facebook accounts.

Facebook also admitted last week that it had designated a Rohingya insurgent group a “dangerous organization” that should be censored, meaning it was silencing a group opposing Myanmar’s military, which has been accused by a United Nations official of “ethnic cleansing”.

Last week, the CEO said Facebook was “working to ensure the integrity of the German elections” and had taken actions against “thousands” of fake accounts. Facebook officials announced Wednesday that the company had removed “tens of thousands” of fake accounts in Germany in the month before the election and claimed that it planned to expand its partnerships with election commissions around the world.

יום ראשון, 24 בספטמבר 2017

שינוי הוא מסורת

עורך ראשי חדש בשבועון טיים




פלשנתל. העבר נוכח [צילום: טיים]






אדוארד פלשנתל מציג בפני קוראי השבועון החשוב ביותר בעולם את אמונותיו ואת הדרך בה הוא מקווה להצעידו לעבר המאה השנייה שלו
 

▪ ▪ ▪

אדוארד פלשנתל הוא העורך הראשי החדש של השבועון טיים, ובגיליון הקרוב מתפרסם מכתבו הראשון לקוראים. הוא נכתב בגוף ראשון וכך גם מובאים כאן עיקרי הדברים.

מעל שולחני תלוי מכתב מעורכי טיים לסבי. הוא ברח מגרמניה הנאצית בשנות ה-30, וכמו רבים אחרים ערך את ההיכרות שלו עם אמריקה דרך דפי המגזין. מדי פעם הוא השיב טובה תחת טובה ותרם לעורכי טיים את רעיונותיו – במקרה הזה במברק בו ציין ששגו כאשר השתמשו במילה Who במקום במילה Whom בשערו של הגיליון האחרון. העורכים השיבו שאכן מבחינה דקדוקית הייתה זו "הליכה על קרח דק", אך ציטטו מילונים מובילים כדי להוכיח שהשימוש במילה השתנה.

שינוי הוא מסורת בטיים. הוא עבר משחור-לבן לצבע; משערים מאוירים למסגרת אדומה בוהקת; מדפוס לרדיו ולקולנוע ולאינטרנט; מניו-יורק לקליבלנד וחזרה. הוא תמך במועמדותו של דווייט אייזנהאואר לנשיאות, וכעבור 20 שנה – במאמר המערכת הראשון שלו – קרא לסגנו, ריצ'רד ניקסון, להתפטר מהנשיאות.

בארבע השנים האחרונות, בהנהגתה של חברתי ננסי גיבס, טיים השתנה יותר מאשר אי-פעם בתולדותיו. תחום העיסוק שלנו מצוי בתנועה מהירה – ואנחנו נעים יחד עימו. העיסוק שלנו בחדשות משתרע כעת לא רק מסביב לעולם אלא גם מסביב לשעון. מה שהחל ב-1923 כמגזין מודפס עם 9,000 מנויים, מגיע כעת מדי יום ל-100 מיליון איש בפלטפורמות השונות שלנו.

ועדיין נמצאים כאן המרכיבים החיוניים, המתחילים בתשוקה ובמחויבות של העיתונאים שלנו. הם טסים לליקוי חמה, נוהגים לתוך הוריקנים, לובשים חליפות מגן כדי לעקוב אחרי וירוסים קטלניים, מפליגים במים סוערים כדי לספר על פליטים. חשובה באותה מידה היא המחויבות שלנו להוגנות ולדיוק. יש הרבה דעות והרבה גישות; התפקיד שלנו הוא לחשוף אותם – אבל יש רק אמת אחת.

אחת המסורות של טיים היא מכתב העורך, בו מי שנכנס לתפקיד – 18 עד כה – מציג לקוראים את עצמו ואת סדרי העדיפויות שלו. אני תלמיד של ההיסטוריה; מאמין ש"העבר עודנו אמיתי ונוכח", כפי שכתב פיטר טיילור בספרו על עיר הולדתי, ממפיס. אחרי שסיימתי לימודי משפטים ודיפלומטיה, החלטתי שאין מקום שמעריך דעות ורעיונות מאשר חדר חדשות, ולכן אין מקום טוב מזה לעבוד בו. באמצע 15 שנותי בוול סטריט ז'ורנל עזבתי את וושינגטון כדי לעבור בין מדורים ומקומות. תמיד אהבתי להיות חלק מהחיפוש אחרי דרכים חדשות לספר את הסיפור ולהגיע לקוראים. זה מה שמשך אותי לטיים – מוסד שהחל עם צוות עיתונאים שיכול היה להיכנס לשלוש מוניות, ושמצליח ליידע, לאתגר ולבדר את קוראיו.

כולנו בטיים לוקחים ברצינות את תפקידנו כמספרי סיפורים ואת מחויבותנו להבטיח שהמוסד ימשיך לשגשג לתוך המאה השנייה שלו. אנחנו לוקחים ברצינות גם את מחויבותנו כלפיכם. אני מקווה שכמו סבי ורבים אחרים לאורך הדורות, תמשיכו לומר לנו את דעתכם על עבודתנו.

מרקל נבחרה שוב; הישג ניכר לימין




מרקל. קדנציה רביעית [צילום: מתיאס שרדר, AP]


למרות ירידה של שליש בכוחה של מפלגתה, מרקל תוכל להקים קואליציה של קצת יותר ממחצית חברי הבונדסטג AfD הקיצונית צפויה להיות השלישית בגודלה

▪ ▪ ▪
אנגלה מרקל תהיה קנצלר גרמניה גם בארבע השנים הבאות, אך מעמדה יהיה חלש משמעותית מאשר היום - מלמדים המדגמים שפורסמו (24.9.17) עם סגירת הקלפיות בבחירות לבונדסטג. לצד זאת, צופים המדגמים הישג גדול מן המצופה למפלגת הימין הקיצוני "אלטרנטיבה לגרמניה" (AfD), שתהיה השלישית בגודלה בבונדסטג.



שילוב המדגמים ותוצאות האמת שפורסמו בשעתיים הראשונות שלאחר סגירת הקלפיות, מוביל את ערוץ הטלוויזיה הממלכתי ZDF לצפות, כי המפלגה הנוצרית-דמוקרטית בראשות מרקל תזכה ב-218 מבין 630 המושבים - ירידה של שליש בכוחה לעומת 309 צירים בפרלמנט היוצא. המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית בראשותו של מרטין שולץ תקבל 138 מנדטים בלבד, לעומת 193 כיום.



AfD תהיה השלישית בגודלה, עם 87 מושבים לעומת אפס כיום. זוהי הפעם הראשונה מאז 1945 בה מפלגת ימין קיצוני נכנסת לבונדסטג, וכאמור - בצורה בולטת במיוחד. המפלגה הליברלית-דמוקרטית, התומכת במגזר העסקי, צפויה לקבל 68 מנדטים לעומת אפס כיום. הירוקים יקבלו 60 מושבים לעומת 63 כיום. למפלגת השמאל מעניקים המדגמים 60 מושבים, לעומת 64 בבונדסטג היוצא.



לאחר פרסום התחזיות אמרה מרקל, כי מפלגתה השיגה את מטרתה בכך שנותרה הגדולה ביותר בבונדסטג - הישג משמעותי לנוכח העובדה שהיא שולטת כבר 12 שנים, הדגישה. היא הודתה שניצב בפניה "אתגר ניכר" והצהירה על רצונה לזכות מחדש באמונם של הבוחרים שהעבירו את קולותיהם ל-AfD. מרקל רמזה, כי מדיניותה בנושא הפליטים תרמה לעליית הימין הקיצוני: לדבריה, ברור שהציבור מוטרד מ"סוגיות ביטחוניות" באותה מידה שמעסיק אותו השגשוג הכלכלי.



באופן מפתיע הודיע מנהיג הסוציאל-דמוקרטים, מרטין שולץ, כי מפלגתו לא תחדש את "הקואליציה הגדולה" עם הנוצרים-דמוקרטים אלא תישאר באופוזיציה. לפני הבחירות רווחו הערכות, לפיהן שתי המפלגות ישובו וישתפו פעולה. כעת נותרה בפני מרקל אפשרות אחת בלבד - מה שמכונה "קואליציית ג'מייקה" על שם צבעיהן של המפלגות: להקים קואליציה בת כ-350 מושבים עם הירוקים והמפלגת הליברלית-חופשית - הקואליציה הראשונה מאז המלחמה שיהיו בה יותר מאשר שתי מפלגות.



ניתוח ראשוני של המדגמים מעלה, כי AfD זכתה להצלחה גדולה במיוחד בשטחי מזרח גרמניה, שם המצב הכלכלי קשה מאשר בשטחי המערב גם 25 שנה לאחר האיחוד. באזור הקומוניסטי-לשעבר גרפה המפלגה 21.5% מהקולות - נתון המציב אותה במקום השני אחרי הנוצרים-הדמוקרטים (26%) ולפני השמאל (16.5%). הסוציאל-דמוקרטים קיבלו רק 14.5% מהקולות במזרח. מנהיגת הימין הקיצוני בצרפת, מארין לה-פן, מיהרה לברך את AfD על הישגיה.

Far-right AfD enters German parliament: What it means for German politics

The far-right AfD will be the third-largest party in the Bundestag. This will have no immediate effect on policy per se, but will alter the political tone. In a nutshell: things are about to get a lot nastier.





For the first time in the modern history of the Federal Republic of Germany, voters have elected a far-right party to the country's parliament. But what does "far-right" mean and how will political culture change? The answers are both very complicated and really simple.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) promotes itself as a patriotic, democratic, conservative party. However, critics from across the political spectrum say it's an association of right-wing extremists. In a pointed reference to the AfD, Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel bemoaned the fact that "true Nazis" would once again be part of the Bundestag.

A complex identity

Speaking to foreign journalists, Germany's leading academic expert on political parties, Oskar Niedermayer, defined the AfD as follows: "The spectrum of positions represented in the AfD cannot be summed up by one word. I call them a nationalist-conservative party with increasing connections to right-wing extremism."

That's the complicated bit. The simple one is the AfD's lone effective issue. The official party platform may be 76 pages long and offers many positions on everything from taxes to public TV to animal rights, but a recent study by the respected Bertelsmann foundation found that the only topic upon which significant numbers of Germans believe the AfD had any expertise was immigration.

On election day, the party listed seven reasons to vote for the AfD on its website – the first four were about asylum seekers, immigration and Islam. Party platform notwithstanding, the AfD actually offers only one thing to many people: fear of and hostility toward those considered foreigners.

"The conglomerate of refugees, terrorism and Islamism is what the AfD has as a core brand right now,” Niedermayer said.

That doesn't mean that all AfD voters are would-be Nazis, but there is no overlooking the fact that the party sees the German people as not just one group equal in worth to all others, but as an ethnic-cultural unit that is superior to, for instance, people from Northern Africa. Nowhere is this more apparent than when one looks at the individuals the AfD put forward on lists of potential parliamentarians.


Jens Meier is one of the likely new AfD deputies accused of having extremist views

A parliamentary group full of right-wing extremists

As things stood on the evening of September 24, initial exit polls indicated that the AfD stood to win around 87 Bundestag seats. The vast majority of those — if not all — were to be filled from lists of candidates in each of Germany's 16 federal states. Those candidates reflect the character and views of the party nationwide. The controversial statements made by party leaders Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel — some say intentionally — have been extensively reported on, but the party's parliamentary group is hardly likely to now temper its stances.

In the past, AfD party members — many of whom are now virtually assured of Bundestag seats — have declared that the "constitution is not written in stone," demanded an end to "the cult of guilt" surrounding the Holocaust, warned against "the creation of mixed peoples" (Mischvölker - also translatable as mongrel peoples) and called Chancellor Angela Merkel and other leading mainstream politicians "traitors to their people."

Many have been linked to smaller right-wing extremist parties like the NPD and Die Republikaner (the Republicans) and are connected with the PEGIDA and Identitarian movements, which are both kept under observation by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

There are, of course, relative moderates in the party, led by party co-chairwoman Frauke Petry, but as Gauland made clear after the first exit-poll prognosis when he vowed to "hunt down" the new government and Merkel, the election result is not going to encourage the AfD to back off its more radical positions. After examining the views of 94 candidates with a realistic chance of gaining a Bundestag mandate, Spiegel magazine's Bento platform deemed 35 of them "right-wing extremists."

Thus Germans can expect words, phrases and concepts which haven't been in currency since the Third Reich to be used in the Bundestag.


The AfD election party in central Berlin drew crowds of protesters

AfD likely to be political pariahs

Precisely what role the AfD will play in the 19th Bundestag of the Federal Republic won't be clear until a governing coalition is formed. With the SPD ruling out another coalition with the conservatives, the AfD likely won't be the largest opposition party. And in any case, lacking any allies in the Bundestag, the AfD will have little to no influence on any legislation passed in the coming four years.

New parties in parliament, as both the Greens and the Left Party experienced, usually have a difficult early time of it. And the particularly controversial AfD will hardly be an exception.

"They won't have any real effect at all on German politics," said Niedermayer. "No one will form a coalition with them. They'll be excluded. Their motions will be shot down. If they put forward reasonable motions that other parties might agree with, they will be voted down, and the other parties will put forward slightly modified motions."

For instance, the Left Party vowed to initiate a parliamentary inquiry about what Weidel called Merkel's "illegal" decisions, but it is well-nigh unthinkable that they will be able to persuade any of the other parties to support that endeavor.

What the AfD will have is a soapbox beyond the considerable speaking time the party will enjoy in the next Bundestag. Political talk shows and other institutions of German political culture will now have no choice but to give spokespeople for the far-right party a platform. That will make the tone of German politics far less measured, far more coarse and cutting, than it is now.

It remains to be seen how Merkel, who is known for being absolutely unflappable, will fare in a new daggers-out environment.


AfD co-chair Frauke Petry's future remains undecided

Is the stage set for a power struggle?

Another open question is whether those who voted for the AfD will be satisfied with verbal barbs toward the chancellor without any concrete legislative results and whether the party leadership will rip itself apart in fights over the spoils of power.

For a long time, the "moderate” Petry was the party's most recognized and popular figure, but she declined to stand as a top candidate and has been marginalized somewhat by a party conference that went against her. Gauland and Weidel have filled the vacuum and are certain to resist if Petry tries to reclaim her top-dog status.

"Gauland has said he wants to lead the party's parliamentary group with Weidel,” Niedermayer explained. "If Petry decides to put herself forward for that function we'll see where the power lies.”

On the other hand, there is also possibility for tension between the 76-year-old hardliner Gauland, who is more connected with extremists, and the 38-year-old Weidel, an economist who lives in a same-sex partnership and is considered more "moderate." The AfD's lead could also represent the fault line along which the party breaks apart.

"I still think that the AfD only has a chance to establish itself in the long term in Germany, if they draw clear boundaries between themselves and right-wing extremism," Niedermayer said. "It's never happened in the history of the current Germany that such a party has established itself, and it's difficult under any circumstances for any party to establish itself. Because of our past, I don't see this happening.”

For the time being, though, AfD are celebrating a historical election result that redefines the parameters of German political culture — and not in sense that promises to increase social harmony in the country.

יום שישי, 22 בספטמבר 2017

5 facts about government debt around the world


Public debt has increased sharply in many countries in recent years, particularly during and after the Great Recession. Globally, the total amount of government debt now exceeds $63.1 trillion, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of International Monetary Fund data.

Here are five facts about government debt around the world. This analysis is based on IMF data for 43 countries that are members of the Group of Twenty or the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The figures used are for consolidated debt issued by all levels of government, less debt held by other governmental units (unless otherwise noted).

1The United States has more government debt than any other country analyzed, with nearly $20 trillion in gross debt in 2016. Japan was second, with 1,285 trillion yen (more than $11 trillion in 2016 dollars), followed by China with 34.5 trillion yuan (nearly $5 trillion). (Gross debt refers to all public debt – including intragovernmental debt, or what the government owes itself. Net debt, by contrast, is gross debt minus government assets related to debt, such as pensions for government workers.)

Worldwide, public debt is still significantly lower than total debt owed by the private sector. Private debt made up about two-thirds of all non-financial-sector global debt in 2015.



2As a share of its GDP, Japan’s gross debt far exceeds that of all other nations analyzed. Japan’s gross public debt was more than twice its gross domestic product in 2016, far higher than the debt-to-GDP ratio of most other countries examined. Public debt in Greece, Italy, Portugal, the U.S. and Belgium also exceeded GDP. The reasons for each country’s debt load vary, but in Japan and elsewhere, an aging population has contributed.

The median debt-to-GDP ratio across the 43 countries analyzed was 54.2% in 2016. Estonia, Saudi Arabia and Russia had among the least gross debt relative to GDP.

Experts differ on what constitutes an appropriate or “safe” level of public debt relative to GDP. One analysis by Moody’s Analytics categorized countries into four different levels of debt urgency. The analysis raised red flags about several countries, including Japan, Italy and Greece. But it found that debt levels in other countries, including the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom, were “safe.”

A 2014 Pew Research Center survey found that public debt was a top concern in many advanced economies, with a median of 64% citing it as a very big problem.

3Norway’s GDP far outweighs its net debt. While Norway’s gross debt was 33% of its GDP in 2016, its net debt was -284.5% of its GDP. In other words, excluding intragovernmental debt, Norway’s public financial assets far exceeded its total debt. Other countries where financial assets exceeded net debt include Finland (-51.4%), Saudi Arabia (-18.9%) and Sweden (-18.3). Across the 27 analyzed countries for which the IMF has data, net public debt in 2016 was 42.9% of GDP. The country with the greatest share of net debt was Portugal, at 120.9% of GDP. Japan followed at 119.8%, but that number was half the country’s gross debt as a share of GDP.

4Brazil spends more than any other country analyzed on debt interest payments as a share of revenue. In 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, the Brazilian government spent 42.1% of its revenue on interest payments, up from 28.8% the year before. (Data for China, India, Mexico and Saudi Arabia were not available.) Debt is widely perceived as a problem in South America’s most populous nation: 91% of Brazilians said in a 2017 Pew Research Center survey that public debt is a very or moderately big problem.

Spain and Iceland spent the second- and third-most on debt interest payments in 2015, with 15.6% and 13.5% of their total government revenue, respectively, going to interest. The governments of Estonia, Norway and Luxembourg spent 1% or less of their revenue on debt interest payments. The global median of interest payments as a share of revenue was 5.5%.

5Debt as a percentage of GDP increased in 34 of 43 countries between 2006 and 2016. Across most countries in this analysis, gross debt as a percentage of GDP increased substantially after the Great Recession. In the world’s seven major advanced economies (known as the Group of Seven), debt as a share of GDP increased by an average of 22.2% between 2008 and 2011. As of 2016, Germany was the only G-7 country that had scaled its debt-to-GDP ratio back to pre-recession levels. (The increase in debt as a share of GDP reflects not just increased borrowing, but slowing productivity: In 2009 alone, for example, global GDP growth was -1.74%.)

Six countries saw their debt as a share of GDP increase by more than 50% between 2006 and 2016: Greece (increase of 77.8%), Portugal (68.7%), Spain (60.4%), Japan (54.9%), Slovenia (52.9%) and Ireland (52.8%). Overall, median debt growth as a percentage of GDP was 16.2% between 2006 and 2016.

Conversely, nine countries decreased their debt levels between 2006 and 2016: Norway (-19.1%), Israel (-17.9%), Turkey (-15.6%), Saudi Arabia (-13.5), Indonesia (-8%), India (-7.6%), Argentina (-7.4%), Switzerland (-5.2%) and Sweden (-1.3%).

A recent drop in oil prices has also affected the debt levels of nations that depend heavily on oil. In the case of Saudi Arabia, for example, the country’s gross government debt as a share of GDP increased by nearly 11 percentage points between 2014 and 2016. 2015 was the first year since 2009 that the country experienced any increase in debt relative to its GDP.

Central and Eastern Europe's Crisis of Convergence


Adriano Bosoni



As the European Union braces for reform, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are approaching a crossroads. Some are interested in drawing closer to the bloc: The leaders of Slovakia and the Czech Republic recently said that their countries belong in the "core" of the union, and a minister from Romania spoke about joining the eurozone within five years. But others are keeping their distance: The Hungarian and Polish governments insist that the European Union has no right to interfere in their domestic affairs. These developments show an increasing awareness in the region that strategic decisions are fast approaching.

The countries of Central and Eastern Europe have a complex relationship with the European Union. They rushed to join the bloc after the end of the Cold War, and since then, they have been among the fastest-growing countries in Europe. They are all net receivers of European funds, and their populations are for the most part supportive of EU membership. But many of them have only partially embraced Continental integration, remaining outside the eurozone and resisting Brussels' attempts to interfere with their domestic policies.

Several governments have accused the union of undermining their national sovereignty and identity. They see the bloc as a club of nations that cooperate in areas of common interest, but remain as sovereign as possible. Recently, several Central and Eastern European countries have tried to increase military, economic and energy cooperation from the Baltic to the Black seas to enhance their autonomy. The Visegrad Group in particular is a key tool for the region to express its views on continental affairs. Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are members, and they also invite Romania and Bulgaria to some of their meetings. The group has been particularly critical of an EU Commission plan to distribute asylum seekers across the bloc, which they see as a confirmation of their misgivings about Brussels.

Poland and Hungary have been the most vocal critics of the European Union, but not long ago a Czech president suggested holding a referendum on EU membership and a Slovak prime minister said Brussels bureaucrats were detached from reality. So far, this political rhetoric hasn't led to any meaningful negative consequences for these governments. They criticize Brussels' attempts to interfere with their domestic affairs — which plays well with some sectors of the electorate — while they receive significant agricultural and development funds from the European Union, which is also useful at home. But the Brexit referendum is forcing countries to reassess their national strategies.



Enter Brexit
Britain's exit from the European Union will deprive Central and Eastern European governments of a key ally when it comes to EU reform. Like them, the United Kingdom sees the bloc as a trade association among countries not necessarily interested in developing supranational structures. London has been skeptical of proposals to federalize the European Union and has obtained multiple opt-outs from initiatives such as the euro or the passport-free Schengen area. For Poland and Hungary, a United Kingdom that defends these views from within the EU was a much more valuable ally than a country that is on its way out of the bloc and uncertain about its future.

In addition, the impact of the British referendum was so profound that most EU leaders now understand that they cannot remain immobile. In recent months, there has been a plethora of proposals for EU reform. Most are in an embryonic phase, and many will be watered down or shelved. But there is a common narrative that makes Central and Eastern Europe nervous. Most of the plans involve the eurozone, not the European Union as a whole. This makes sense, as the crisis of the past decade focused primarily on the currency union, and its members are particularly driven to solve its pending problems. But underneath this seemingly pragmatic view, there is a deeper message: The European Union is the eurozone, and the countries that do not use the euro are not as relevant as those that do.

This connects directly to the concept of a "multi-speed Europe," a Continental bloc where some countries deepen their integration while others do not. The European Union already moves at different speeds because, for example, some countries use the euro while others don't, and some countries take part in the Schengen Agreement while others don't. But so far, the official goal of the European Union is that at some point all its member states will reach the same level of integration. If the European Union were to abandon its pledge of an "ever closer union," the political and institutional environment on the Continent would be severely disrupted. It would mean that for first time the bloc is officially acknowledging the existence of first- and second-tier member states.

This is a worrisome prospect for Central and Eastern Europe. The region depends on the European Union for trade, investment, subsidies and, to some extent, security. The Czech Republic and Slovakia are intimately connected to the German economy. Poland and Romania see membership as a part of their security strategy, which consists of having as many international alliances as possible to deter Russian aggression. Should these countries opt out, or be excluded, from the next stage of Continental reform, some would have to rely on the United States for investment, protection or energy imports. But the White House may not be as interested in subsidizing Polish farmers or paying for Romania's roads as Brussels is.

Since the end of the Cold War, peace and prosperity in Central and Eastern Europe were the result of a combination of close ties with the United States and of membership in the European Union and NATO. If any of these factors is removed from the equation, entire national strategies have to be revised. A point could be made that in the case of weaker ties between Central and Eastern Europe and the rest of the European Union, NATO membership could be enough to provide security to the region. But security is not only connected to the military. Over the past two decades, EU membership has meant more solid institutions, more transparent democracies and a stronger rule of law in the former Communist bloc. All of these reduce the room for Russian manipulation, especially when Moscow's strategy is based on exploiting institutional shortcomings, not just on military intervention.
Difficult Choices Ahead
Slovakia and the Czech Republic have already suggested that they intend to remain as close as possible to the Continent's biggest players. Their decisions are motivated by economic and historical reasons, because they are former members of the Holy Roman Empire that are intimately connected to the German economy. But the choice will be harder for Poland and Hungary, which are governed by nationalist forces that see the European Union's federalist and post-national aspirations as a threat to their national sovereignty and identity.

Geopolitics suggests that Poland should want to remain as close as possible to Western Europe. The existence of Poland as a nation, located in the heart of the North European Plain and easy to invade, has been challenged traditionally by Germany and Russia, forcing Warsaw to seek as many foreign allies as possible. Germany is no longer an immediate threat, but Poland still feels an intense sense of urgency — more than its peers in the Visegrad Group — when it comes to Russia. And this is where Polish and Hungarian imperatives diverge, because Budapest does not perceive an external threat the way Warsaw does.

It is also possible that the nationalist governments in Warsaw and Budapest are only an exception and that sooner or later pro-European administrations could return to power. In fact, there have been large demonstrations against both governments in recent years. So far, the contradiction between criticizing the European Union and enjoying the benefits of membership has not led to any meaningful consequences in the rebel countries. As the prospect of weaker ties with the bloc becomes more real, voters could return to pro-EU leaders. But the more the nationalist rhetoric takes root in these countries, the harder it will be for them to change direction.

But Central and Eastern European countries are not the only ones facing strategic choices; dilemmas lie ahead for Western European countries as well. In recent weeks France has criticized Poland and Hungary, suggesting that their participation is not essential for the next stage of EU reform. In addition, France and Austria have pledged to restrict the use of an EU program that allows Central and Eastern European nationals to find temporary jobs in Western Europe. EU officials, in turn, have threatened to suspend voting rights and even to cut funding for countries that fail to follow the bloc's rules.

But enforcing these threats could fuel new waves of nationalism in the region. A weaker EU presence in Central and Eastern Europe could lead to illiberal and unstable states on the bloc's eastern flank, creating political, economic and even security threats for the European Union. Such a scenario would profoundly worry Germany. The fate of the region may be a secondary concern for France, but Germany sees the area as its natural sphere of economic and political influence. In the coming debate on the future of Europe, Berlin will probably seek to be involved in the region as much as possible. This could come at the price of compromises and watered-down EU policies to accommodate the region.
Roadblocks to Reform
The question of whether Central and Eastern Europe will let go of the EU is intimately linked to the question of whether the EU will let go of the region. And, all things considered, a multi-speed Europe may never happen. As well as managing existing East-West tensions, EU reforms have to overcome the grating relationships between Europe's northern and southern members, which have different views of the bloc's future. Regardless, the mere discussion of a reformed European Union is enough to trigger strategic discussions in Central and Eastern Europe. After all, this is a region where the fate of nations is often determined by events beyond their borders.

For the European Union, the main challenge will be to find a balance between countries that want to deepen cooperation on monetary, fiscal, defense and migration affairs and countries that are reluctant to give up their national sovereignty. Without the United Kingdom, the ability of Central and Eastern Europe countries to shape the negotiations will be heavily constrained, forcing those countries to make decisions that they have been able to avoid for two decades.

Nike’s Brilliant Marketing Strategy — Why You Should Be (Just) Doing it Too

By ReferralCandy

It’s safe to say Nike’s at the top of its game right now.


Not only does it own 48% of the American athletic footwear market, but its share of the basketball footwear market is at a staggering 96%!

What sort of marketing strategy has Nike used to achieve and maintain this level of market dominance?

Sure, the high-profile celebrity endorsements probably play a role, but for the most part, Nike’s dominance comes from far more than just throwing money at athletes, actors, and artists.
1. Meaningful story — They’re selling more than a product; they’re selling aspiration

Nike didn’t build its loyal fan base by harping on its iconic waffle shoes.

In fact, Nike’s ads rarely, if ever, mention their products at all.

What their ads do, and do well, is induce emotion in the consumer through ‘emotional branding’. Each ad is carefully crafted to evoke particular feelings and needs in the consumer that can only be satisfied by Nike products.

It does this by playing up the traditional narrative of a hero who works hard to overcome adversity, ultimately emerging victorious against a terrible foe.

But it isn’t a literal enemy being fought in this case. Nike takes the analogy to a level far more relatable: the ‘terrible foe’ is the voice in your head that tells you, “You can’t”. To that, the organization says: “Just do it.”
Prime example of Nike’s emotional branding (Nike).

Each Nike ad is designed to inspire — to tell us that we can do anything, if we just try.
1. They earn word-of-mouth by creating compelling ‘Watercooler Moments’

It’s vital to have your consumers talking about your brand.

It keeps you at the forefront of your customers’ minds, and allows you to reach those who have not heard of you!

One way of achieving this is by creating ‘watercooler moments’ — experiences so exciting that people would talk about them for days on end.

It’s something Nike’s very good at doing.
2. Unique, Exciting Things — Nike Phenomenal Shot

During the FIFA 2014 World Cup, Nike partnered with Google to create ‘Nike Phenomenal Shot’.

When a Nike athlete scored a goal, display ads were delivered to fans in real-time. Fans could also rotate their players around in 3D, framing them for shots that can be personalized with filters, captions, and stickers. Once you’re done with your ‘Phenomenal Shot’, you can share it on social media.
Nike’s ‘Phenomenal Shot’ campaign in action (Creative Criminals).

More than 500,000 “Phenomenal Moments” were created –amazing in itself, but even more so considering the subsequent reach every moment could obtain once shared.
3. Original YouTube series Margot vs. Lily received over 80,000,000 views

In 2016, Nike created a Youtube series to complement its marketing campaigns.
Nike’s original Youtube series, Margot vs Lily (Nike).

Margot vs Lily centres around two sisters, and it features Nike merchandise like shoes, workout gear, and Nike+ technology. It also directs viewers to the #BetterforIt website, which contains more detailed content for those interested in initiating and improving their fitness journey.

But it’s not just an extended ad, the show has a compelling story that’s actually fun to watch!

As of now, the series has received over 80 million views, leading to increased downloads of the Nike+ Run and Training Club, as well as greater activity and purchases by existing members.
4. Newsworthy Technology — Nike Self-Lacing Shoes

The coolest tech so far however would have to be Nike’s new self-lacing shoes.
Nike’s first self-lacing shoes, the HyperAdapt 1.0 (Nike).

The HyperAdapt 1.0 has sensors that automatically moulds the shoe to the shape of your foot when you step into it.

Today: self-lacing shoes. Tomorrow: hoverboards?
5. They make some really fun ads that people love sharing and talking about

Nike makes some of the best ads in the business. They teem with world-class athletes displaying their extraordinary skills.

One of Nike’s most successful ads is ‘Winner Stays’. The ad features teenage boys transforming into Ronaldo, Neymar Jr. and other soccer superstars as they battle it out on the soccer field; it netted; it netted the sportswear brand more than 107.8 million views.

6. They’re socially-conscious

Consumers today expect more from the companies they buy from. They want their purchases to have a positive impact on the environment and on society, and they don’t hesitate to reward brands that do.

Nike engages in several community outreach initiatives both within the US, and globally.
Three main drivers of Nike’s community outreach programme (Nike).

Recently, Nike opened its 7th community store in Detroit, a city struggling to thrive amidst bankruptcy and years of economic hardship. Like Nike’s other community stores, its mission is to serve the city through volunteer work and promoting physical fitness.

The store opened to huge lines, with customers queuing up 2 days before its launch!
7. Constant innovation — NIKE+

Much like sharks, a business needs to keep moving forward to stay alive.

Nike learnt this the hard way in the mid-1980s when it lost out on the lucrative aerobics market to Reebok. Since then, it has worked hard to ensure that never happens again.

In 2006, Nike developed the ‘Nike+iPod’, an activity tracker that records the distance and pace of its user’s workout through a sensor in the sneaker.
Photo by Pietro & Sylvia, CC BY 2.0.

It was ground-breaking technology in wearable tech that resulted in an 8.1% rise in profits within the first six months.

Even today, Nike continues to expand on the Nike+ technology, releasing phone apps, watches, and even a dedicated training app!
8. Flyknit

In 2012, Nike broke new ground when it introduced its revolutionary Flyknit technology.

While traditional sneakers are made up of individual pieces that are stitched together, Nike shook things up by utilising computer-controlled “knitting” technology to shape the entire upper-part of the shoe.

This reduced the number of components by up to 35 pieces, producing a lighter shoe that still provides as much strength and support as other top running footwear in the market.
The size 9 Nike Flyknit racer, which incorporated Nike’s flyknit technology, weighed a mere 160g (Nike).

Following its launch, competitors like Adidas and Skechers quickly entered the market with similar technology, eager to get a piece of the action.
9. They’re Killing it on Social Media

Social media isn’t a one-way street for Nike; it’s a conversation.

The company maintains separate Twitter accounts for each of its subsidiary brands (e.g. @nikefootball, @nikebasketball), which they predominantly use to respond to consumer @mentions.


Aside from that, Nike’s posts are fun, short, and often motivational, which make for easy reading and sharing.

They also frequently contain calls-to-action for followers to respond to and engage with the brand.

יום חמישי, 21 בספטמבר 2017

What is the role of Germany's parliamentary opposition?




Following the federal election, the right-wing AfD will likely be among the opposition in the Bundestag. This will have consequences for democratic life in Germany. Learn about the opposition's rights here.


After the federal election, all parties who garnered more than 5 percent of the popular vote nationwide are allocated seats in the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of parliament. Parties who are not part of the government coalition make up the parliamentary opposition.

What is the role of the opposition?

In a parliamentary democracy like Germany, the tasks of the opposition have traditionally included scrutinizing the work of the government, initiating debate about policies and presenting alternatives to bills brought forward by government politicians.

All parliamentarians are free to state their beliefs. This also goes for members of the opposition, whose opinions can be diametrically opposed to the views of parliamentarians in government parties.


Is there such a thing as an opposition leader in Germany?

No. In Germany, being the opposition party that has won the most votes comes with a certain prestige, but there's no specific position attached to it.

It's important to know that the parties making up the opposition aren't one big block. The two parties in the current opposition, the Left Party and the Greens, are both on the left side of the political spectrum. But if the far-right populistAlternative for Germany (AfD) makes it into the Bundestag, parties with opposing convictions will make up the opposition.

What special rights does the biggest opposition party have?

The number of seats a party holds in the Bundestag, allocated according to the percentage of votes they won, does matter when it comes to the time granted to speakers. If, as polls predict, the AfD does indeed become the third-largest party in the Bundestag after the conservative CDU and the Social Democrats (SPD), their parliamentarians will be able to speak longer in debates than parliamentarians of other opposition parties.

The Bundestag budget committee is traditionally headed by someone from the largest opposition party. If the AfD wins this position, however, the other parties have already said they'll deviate from this tradition.


According to the most recent polls, the AfD stands to become Germany's leading opposition party

What tools does the opposition have?

One tool to oversee the work of the government is the enquiry. All parliamentary groups can file an enquiry containing questions directed at the government. In general, enquiries are almost exclusively filed by the opposition. The number of seats a party has in the Bundestag doesn't matter when it comes to enquiries - the largest opposition party has no special privilege here.

An enquiry is a popular way to scrutinize the government's work asking for clarifications of government plans or results of government policies. In the last legislative period from 2009 to 2013, parliamentarians filed 54 "large" enquiries, requiring plenary debate and 3,629 "small" enquires, necessitating a written response.

Another tool is the fact-finding committee. Parliamentarians can vote to establish such a committee on a certain political issue at any given time. The initiative from this usually comes from the opposition because the committee is supposed to uncover irregularities or even wrongdoings involving the government. High-profile examples in recent years have included committees on the NSU neo-Nazi group and the NSA surveillance affair.

Originally, a quarter of all parliamentarians needed to vote in favor of initiating a fact-finding committee for it to go forward. But because the opposition in the current Bundestag only has 20 percent of the seats, this number was adjusted downward. This is not permanent, however, and might be changed again depending on the size of the opposition after the upcoming election.







German election campaign placards
Christian Democratic Union (CDU)

After three terms in office, Chancellor Angela Merkel is no stranger to election posters. With a budget of 20 million euros, the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) is pinning up some 22,000 placards across Germany. The use of a deconstructed German flag brings out the party's patriotism, while the main focus of slogans is on issues such as security, family and work.



What roles do opposition parties play outside of the Bundestag?

All parties represented in the Bundestag, including the opposition, are also represented in committees or councils throughout civil society in Germany. If the AfD enters the Bundestag, this will be a particularly touchy issue.

Parliamentarians sit on the boards of Germany's public broadcasters and the Federal Agency for Civic Education, which provides students and other interested parties with information about what it means to be a German citizen – as well as Germany's Nazi past and current right-wing crimes.

For committees where parliamentarians only send one person, he or she usually comes from one of the big parties leading the government. Sometimes their smaller coalition partner will receive one of these seats. But for boards or committees that several parliamentarians serve on, the seats are usually distributed among all parties, including the opposition, which will likely include the AfD.

נסיקתו וקריסתו של שולץ שולץ. בלי מסר ברור [צילום: מתיאס שריידר, AP] גרמניה פונה ימינה איתמר לוין אקונומיסט מציע לשים לב להישג הצפוי של מפלגת "אלטנרטיבה לגרמניה" הימנית-קיצונית, ואומר שאירועים עתידיים עלולים לחזק אותה עוד יותר לרשימה המלאה הישנוניות של מרקל איתמר לוין הקנצלרית ניהלה במכוון מסע בחירות שקט ומשעמם – וזה יספיק לה כדי לזכות בקדנציה רביעית ברציפות. נכון שהימין מתחזק, אבל צפויה לה קואליציה עם רוב של למעלה מ-70% לרשימה המלאה אמאל'ה, אדם טוב והזועמים איתמר לוין מילון מקוצר של מונחים פוליטיים מרכזיים בגרמניה: מדוע היא מכונה "ארץ הרכב", כיצד מתייחסים הגרמנים לאנגלה מרקל, מי עומד בראש "אלו שמבינים את פוטין" לרשימה המלאה המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית פנטזה על חזרה לשלטון כאשר העמידה בראשה את מרטין שולץ, אך כעת היא בדרך הבטוחה לתבוסה נוספת. פייננשל טיימס מסביר מדוע מקור: גיא חזן, פייננשל טיימס (16/09/2017) ▪ ▪ ▪ נסיקתו וקריסתו בסקרים של מרטין שולץ, מנהיג המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית, היא אחת התעלומות הגדולות ביותר של הפוליטיקה הגרמנית – כותב פייננשל טיימס. כאשר נבחר שולץ, לשעבר נשיא הפרלמנט האירופי, בינואר השנה לעמוד בראש המפלגה, שטף אותה גל של אופוריה. חבריה חשו שסוף-סוף בחרו מנהיג שיכול להחזיר אותם לשלטון אחרי 12 שנותיהם של אנגלה מרקל והנוצרים-דמוקרטים. לפני בחירתו של שולץ השתרכה המפלגה הרחק מאחור עם 20% בסקרים; אחריה היא זינקה ל-30% וכמה סקרים אפילו טענו שהיא עוברת את הנוצרים-דמוקרטים. אבל הבועה התפקעה והמפלגה חזרה למקום בו הייתה. מומחים טוענים שאין זו אשמתו של שולץ, מציין העיתון. בעיותיה של המפלגה הרבה יותר עמוקות, ונובעות בין היתר מכך שמרקל הכניסה את מפלגתה-שלה עמוק לתוך השטח הסוציאל-דמוקרטי, עד כדי כך שלפעמים קשה להבדיל בין השתיים. אומר קאי ארצהיימר, מומחה לפוליטיקה מאוניברסיטת מיינץ: "מה הטעם לבחור בסוציאל-דמוקרטים כאשר יש לך את הנוצרים-דמוקרטים של מרקל? כל הדרישות של השמאל – שכר מינימום, נישואים חד-מיניים, צמצום הנשק הגרעיני – מולאו בידי ממשלת מרקל". הקריסה של שולץ היא חלק מסיפור רחב יותר. המעמד העובד, שהיה שנים רבות בסיסו של השמאל הפוליטי, הולך ומצטמק ומפלגות השמאל מפסידות בבחירות ברחבי אירופה. אוּוֶה יוּן מאוניברסיטת טרייר מסביר, שהצלחת הסוציאל-דמוקרטיה בעבר נבעה מהבטחתו למוביליות חברתית, אך קשה לקיים אותה בעידן בו המבנה החברתי נעשה קשיח יותר. גם הבטחותיו של השמאל להרחיב את הזכויות הסוציאליות נראות פחות אמינות, כאשר הגלובליזציה מעמיקה את התחרות ומחייבת את הממשלות לקצץ בתקציבי הרווחה. המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית הגרמנית סובלת גם מהתרחקות של מצביעים שאינם מסכימים עם דעותיה בנושא הלהט"ב והפליטים. עובדי צווארון כחול שמרנים עורקים בהמוניהם למפלגת הימין הפופוליסטית "אלטרנטיבה לגרמניה" (AfD), בדיוק כשם שמקביליהם בצרפת תמכו במארין לה-פן ובחזית הלאומית. שולץ עצמו שגה בכך שהדגיש מסע הבחירות שלו את הקריאה ל"צדק חברתי", אומר פייננשל טיימס. זה לא עבד, משום ש-90%-80% מתושבי גרמניה אומרים שמצבם טוב. לשולץ גם לא היה מסר ברור אחד שסביבו תוכל המפלגה להתלכד – בניגוד לקנצלרים וילי ברנדט וגרהרד שרודר שהצליחה המפלגה להעמיד בעבר. "לסוציאל-דמוקרטים הייתה הזדמנות לבדל את עצמה כמפלגת העתיד, והיא החמיצה אותה" – קובע פרנק שטראוס, מנהל סוכנות הפרסום באטר שעבדה עם המפלגה ב-30 מסעות בחירות




שולץ. בלי מסר ברור [צילום: מתיאס שריידר, AP]




המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית פנטזה על חזרה לשלטון כאשר העמידה בראשה את מרטין שולץ, אך כעת היא בדרך הבטוחה לתבוסה נוספת. פייננשל טיימס מסביר מדוע

▪ ▪ ▪
נסיקתו וקריסתו בסקרים של מרטין שולץ, מנהיג המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית, היא אחת התעלומות הגדולות ביותר של הפוליטיקה הגרמנית – כותב פייננשל טיימס.

כאשר נבחר שולץ, לשעבר נשיא הפרלמנט האירופי, בינואר השנה לעמוד בראש המפלגה, שטף אותה גל של אופוריה. חבריה חשו שסוף-סוף בחרו מנהיג שיכול להחזיר אותם לשלטון אחרי 12 שנותיהם של אנגלה מרקל והנוצרים-דמוקרטים. לפני בחירתו של שולץ השתרכה המפלגה הרחק מאחור עם 20% בסקרים; אחריה היא זינקה ל-30% וכמה סקרים אפילו טענו שהיא עוברת את הנוצרים-דמוקרטים. אבל הבועה התפקעה והמפלגה חזרה למקום בו הייתה.

מומחים טוענים שאין זו אשמתו של שולץ, מציין העיתון. בעיותיה של המפלגה הרבה יותר עמוקות, ונובעות בין היתר מכך שמרקל הכניסה את מפלגתה-שלה עמוק לתוך השטח הסוציאל-דמוקרטי, עד כדי כך שלפעמים קשה להבדיל בין השתיים. אומר קאי ארצהיימר, מומחה לפוליטיקה מאוניברסיטת מיינץ: "מה הטעם לבחור בסוציאל-דמוקרטים כאשר יש לך את הנוצרים-דמוקרטים של מרקל? כל הדרישות של השמאל – שכר מינימום, נישואים חד-מיניים, צמצום הנשק הגרעיני – מולאו בידי ממשלת מרקל".

הקריסה של שולץ היא חלק מסיפור רחב יותר. המעמד העובד, שהיה שנים רבות בסיסו של השמאל הפוליטי, הולך ומצטמק ומפלגות השמאל מפסידות בבחירות ברחבי אירופה. אוּוֶה יוּן מאוניברסיטת טרייר מסביר, שהצלחת הסוציאל-דמוקרטיה בעבר נבעה מהבטחתו למוביליות חברתית, אך קשה לקיים אותה בעידן בו המבנה החברתי נעשה קשיח יותר. גם הבטחותיו של השמאל להרחיב את הזכויות הסוציאליות נראות פחות אמינות, כאשר הגלובליזציה מעמיקה את התחרות ומחייבת את הממשלות לקצץ בתקציבי הרווחה.

המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית הגרמנית סובלת גם מהתרחקות של מצביעים שאינם מסכימים עם דעותיה בנושא הלהט"ב והפליטים. עובדי צווארון כחול שמרנים עורקים בהמוניהם למפלגת הימין הפופוליסטית "אלטרנטיבה לגרמניה" (AfD), בדיוק כשם שמקביליהם בצרפת תמכו במארין לה-פן ובחזית הלאומית.

שולץ עצמו שגה בכך שהדגיש מסע הבחירות שלו את הקריאה ל"צדק חברתי", אומר פייננשל טיימס. זה לא עבד, משום ש-90%-80% מתושבי גרמניה אומרים שמצבם טוב. לשולץ גם לא היה מסר ברור אחד שסביבו תוכל המפלגה להתלכד – בניגוד לקנצלרים וילי ברנדט וגרהרד שרודר שהצליחה המפלגה להעמיד בעבר. "לסוציאל-דמוקרטים הייתה הזדמנות לבדל את עצמה כמפלגת העתיד, והיא החמיצה אותה" – קובע פרנק שטראוס, מנהל סוכנות הפרסום באטר שעבדה עם המפלגה ב-30 מסעות בחירות

Clinton opens door to questioning legitimacy of 2016 election

Hillary Clinton, in an interview that aired Monday on NPR, said she "would not" rule out questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election if Russian interference is deeper than currently known.
The comment, a remarkable step for the former Democratic nominee, exemplifies Clinton's belief that President Donald Trump and his campaign could have knowingly received help from Russian operatives in the 2016 election.
Clinton has said previously that she conceded to Trump quickly and attended his inauguration because the nation's peaceful transfer of power is critical. But her comments to NPR signal that as the depths of Russia's interference are revealed she could envision a time when she questions Trump's legitimacy as president.


NPR's Terry Gross asked Clinton directly during the interview whether she would "completely rule out questioning the legitimacy of this election if we learn that the Russian interference in the election is even deeper than we know now?"
"No. I would not," Clinton said.
Gross asked: "You're not going to rule it out?"
"No," Clinton said. "I wouldn't rule it out."
Clinton is in the midst of a media blitz to promote her new memoir, "What Happened," a reflection on her stunning loss in the 2016 election and diagnostic for the Democratic Party going forward. The subsequent book tour has thrust Clinton back into the public eye after months largely out of the news.
In the book, Clinton casts Trump as a toxic but hapless leader who won the White House by preying on the nation's fears. Nowhere in the book, however, does she directly question his legitimacy, although she certainly comes close in the 500-page memoir.
Glen Caplin, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, reiterated in a statement after the interview aired that the former secretary of state "has said repeatedly the results of the election are over but we have to learn what happened."
"I would hope anyone in America concerned about the integrity of our democracy would feel the same way if we got there. But we're not," Caplin said. "Right now Bob Mueller and several congressional committees are investigating to what extent the Russians impacted our election and who exactly helped them do so."
Clinton devotes an entire chapter to Russia, saying that the nation's intervention in the 2016 election -- which is currently being investigating by a host of congressional panels and a special counsel -- led to Trump's win.
"In many ways, Trump is the embodiment of everything they had been working toward, and the perfect Trojan Horse for Putin," Clinton writes.
She adds, "No foreign power in modern history has attacked us with so few consequences, and that puts us all at risk."
Clinton, in her interview with Gross, adds that there are likely no avenues, however, for her to challenge the 2016 results if she feels she needs to.
"Basically I don't believe there are. There are scholars, academics, who have arguments that it would be, but I don't think they're on strong ground," she told Gross. "But people are making those arguments. I just don't think we have a mechanism."
Clinton also mentioned that the Kenyan Supreme Court overturned their recent presidential election and ordered a new vote.
"What happened in Kenya, which I'm only beginning to delve into, is that the Supreme Court there said there are so many really unanswered and problematic questions, we're going to throw the election out and redo it," Clinton said. "We have no such provision in our country. And usually we don't need it."
Clinton's comments are sure to further Trump's deeply held belief that investigations into Russia -- and Democrats' calls for further pressure on the White House -- are nothing more than the left's attempts to rewrite the 2016 election and make up for Clinton's loss.
"This whole narrative is a way of saving face for Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were supposed to win," Trump posted on social media in March. "The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They lost the election, and now they have lost their grip on reality."
In her book, Clinton also wrote that once the election was over, she felt she needed to help the transition to Trump's presidency go smoothly.
"Still, I felt a responsibility to be there," she wrote about attending Trump's inauguration, no matter how painful. "The peaceful transfer of power is one of our country's most important traditions."
And she made the same case hours after her crushing loss, as she stood before the nation and her supporters to publicly concede the election.
"Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power," she said. "We don't just respect that. We cherish it."

יום ראשון, 17 בספטמבר 2017

זה יותר מדי יציב


שבוע לבחירות בגרמניה




עימות מנומס ומשעמם


נצחונה הצפוי של אנגלה מרקל בשבוע הבא מלמד על המשך הטסטוס קוו בגרמניה - אבל יש פרשנים הטוענים, שהיציבות הממושכת דוחפת מצביעים לזרועות המפלגות הקיצוניות

לפי כל הסימנים, אנגלה מרקל תזכה ביום ראשון הבא (24.9.17) בתקופת כהונה רביעית רצופה כקנצלר גרמניה. בעידן של תהפוכות פוליטיות כמעט בכל מדינה חשובה, זוהי תופעה יוצאת דופן שרבים מקדמים בברכה – במיוחד לאור המתחולל בארה"ב. אבל אישאן ת'ארור, במאמר המתפרסם בוושינגטון פוסט, מזהיר שעלולות להיות לכך גם תוצאות שליליות.

הייתה תקופה בה המרוץ נראה כמעניין, כאשר מרטין שולץ – הנשיא לשעבר של האיחוד האירופי העומד בראש המפלגה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית – זינק בסקרים בתחילת השנה. אולם הפופולריות שלו נסקה מוקדם מדי ומפלגתו הובסה בבחירות במדינות המרכיבות את גרמניה. הבוחרים רוצים להישאר עם מרקל, המבטיחה המשכיות ויציבות.

אחת הבעיות של שולץ, מסביר ת'ארור, הייתה חוסר יכולתו לבדל את מפלגתו מהנוצרים-דמוקרטים בראשות מרקל. שתי המפלגות שותפות בקואליציה, שאפשרה למרקל לקדם יוזמות ליברליות כמו החלטתה השנויה במחלוקת להכניס מאות אלפי מהגרים בשנת 2015. העימות היחיד בין השניים היה מנומס ומשעמם.

יריביה העיקריים של מרקל מוצאים את עצמם מביטים מעבר לכתף אל עבר מפלגת "אלטרנטיבה לגרמניה" הקיצונית-ימנית, הנוטלת מהם קולות של מעמד העובדים. אבל אפילו המפלגות הקיצוניות משני הצדדים לא יקבלו יותר מאשר רבע מהקולות. הסטטוס-קוו בגרמניה כמעט מובטח, מסכם ת'ארור.

זה לא כל כך נורא כאשר הפופוליזם מימין ומשמאל הרים את ראשו בארה"ב, בריטניה וצרפת. צילו של דונלד טראמפ מוטל על הבחירות בגרמניה. מאז נובמבר שעבר, מרקל היא אולי המנהיגה החשובה ביותר במערב והמובילה של הסדר הליברלי, אל מול איומים מפנים ומחוץ. "כל השאר לא יציבים. ארה"ב בלתי יציבה. אבל מרקל מחזיקה את ארצנו יציבה" – אמר משתתף בעצרת בחירות של... שולץ. "טראמפ עזר למרקל", אומרת אנגלה דונפילד, נשיאת קרן מרשל. "העובדה שהגרמנים אינם בוטחים בנו כרגע, אומרת שהם פונים אל מי שהם מכירים הכי טוב והכי סומכים עליו".

הספקולציות העיקריות סביב הבחירות אינן סביב המנצחת הברורה, אלא סביב הקואליציה שתקים – אומר ת'ארור. התהליך עשוי לארוך זמן מה, בהתחשב במו"מ המוכר לנו כישראלים. מרקל יכולה לנטוש את הקואליציה עם הסוציאל-דמוקרטים ולהקים ממשלה עם שתי מפלגות קטנות יותר – הירוקים והדמוקרטיים החופשיים – מה שפעם לא בא בחשבון מבחינת השמרנים בגרמניה, אבל כעת הוא אפשרות ממשית כאשר הירוקים עוברים את אחוז החסימה (5%).

אבל השלטון הממושך של מרקל הוא יותר סממן למיומנות הפוליטית שלה מאשר ליציבות מובנית בגרמניה – טוען ת'ארור. העורך הפוליטי של היומון המוביל בילד, פריץ אסר, מציין: "מצביעים שמתחת לגיל 26 מעולם לא הלכו לקלפיות בבחירות פדרליות כאשר התוצאה לא נראתה ברורה מראש. קשה לשכנע אותם שההצבעה שלהם באמת משנה. ובגלל הקואליציה הנוכחית, הוויכוחים בין המפלגות המובילים מסתיימים לפני שהם מתחילים".

כאשר מרקל תחליט לפרוש מהחיים הציבוריים, החישובים הנוכחיים יאבדו את משמעותם. הפרשן סבסטיאן פייפוק אומר, כי המפלגה הנוצרית-דמוקרטית תשקע במאבקים פנימיים על דרכה. בשנים האחרונות אימצה החברה יוצר יוזמות שמאליות כדי להישאר בשלטון, אבל לא ברור כמה זמן זה יחזיק מעמד אחרי מרקל.

אבל בינתיים, התמשכות הסטטוס-קוו של מרקל עלולה להוביל יותר מצביעים לזרועות הקיצוניים מימין ומשמאל. "היציבות הפוליטית בגרמניה יותר פגיעה מכפי שנדמה. כוחות הפופוליזם עולים בצורה משמעותית", כתב יאשה מונק מאוניברסיטת הרווארד. "לממשלה הבאה יהיה קשה כמו לזו הנוכחית לקדם יוזמות ליברליות או לתקן את הבעיות באירופה. למרות שהמשבר נראה באופק, חוסר שביעות הרצון מהסטטוס-קוו עמוק מכפי שרוב המשקיפים סבורים".

Move Over, Millennials: Generation Z Enters the Workforce

A survey shows members of the latest cohort value diversity, technology and giving back to their communities



Young workers gather at EY’s International Intern Leadership Conference in July




As the postmillennial smartphone generation begins joining the workforce, bosses would be wise to prepare for young technophiles with an inclusive view of the workplace and a hunger for employers whose values reflect their own.

That’s according to a new survey conducted in July by EY at the International Intern Leadership Conference, the business consultancy’s annual gathering of interns. The survey of 1,600 Generation Z respondents, born in the mid-1990s or later, aimed to gauge the group’s perspective on the future of work, says Larry Nash, the company’s U.S. recruiting leader.

The survey’s findings suggest the cohort places a priority on “building something better and leaving something better for future generations,” Mr. Nash says. “They want to have a purpose in their work.”

Gen Z’s optimism has been reflected in other surveys. This year Goldman Sachs Group Inc. surveyed 1,700 of its summer interns and found the vast majority planned to get married or form domestic partnerships and have children. Some 83% also expected to buy a house by the time they were 40 and 63% planned to buy a car by age 30.



How does a company whose workers are mostly millennials keep them focused and discourage them from leaving? Madwell ad agency chief creative officer Chris Sojka outlines five ways he says he has succeeded in keeping his millennial-heavy staff largely intact on Lunch Break with Tanya Rivero. Photo: Madwell

The consulting firm BridgeWorks estimates that Gen Z accounts for 61 million people in the U.S.

Mr. Nash says managers intent on attracting and retaining these young workers should find ways to take advantage of their talents and understand their career values.

Generation Z’s inclusive mind-set is an asset employers can leverage, Mr. Nash says. More than three-quarters of those surveyed said their ability to work well with people from different backgrounds and cultures set them apart from older workers.

These young workers seek out employers with similar values and opportunities to make a difference in their work, Mr. Nash says.

Mr. Nash suggests providing these young workers with the opportunity to give back to their communities and use their skills in a philanthropic way. Some 27% of respondents assign priority to devoting time to their communities when looking for an employer, according to the survey.

An affinity for technology is another Generation Z trait. In contrast to fear among older workers that automation will cost them their jobs, Generation Z is excited about artificial intelligence and robotics, with three-quarters of respondents saying they think new technology will spur an evolution of human work. Two-thirds think it will increase their productivity, and more than half think it will allow them to focus on more valuable work.

“This is a generation that grew up being comfortable with technology right away,” Mr. Nash says.

הסינים מאשימים את היפנים

45 שנים לנורמליזציה - והמשברים נמשכים



התחרות איננה רק בספורט [צילום: AP]


היחסים בין סין ליפן הורעו בשנים האחרונות, ובאופן לא מפתיע - מומחים המצוטטים בעיתון הרשמי צ'יינה דיילי תולים את האחריות במעשיה של טוקיו

לפני 45 שנה נירמלו סין ויפן את היחסים ביניהן, אחרי עשרות שנים שכללו מלחמות עקובות מדם. אבל שתי המדינות עודן ניצבות במידה רבה משני עברי המתרס: סין – דיקטטורה קומוניסטית התומכת בקוריאה הצפונית; יפן – דמוקרטיה מערבית ובעלת ברית חשובה של ארה"ב. היומון הרשמי צ'יינה דיילי עסק בעתיד היחסים בין המדינות, ולמרות שהוא מצטט שלושה מומחים מן האקדמי – ניתן לשער שהוא מביע את דעתה של בייג'ינג.

פרופ' ז'ו יונגשנג מהאוניברסיטה הסינית ליחסים בינלאומיים אומר, שהאירוע הוא סיבה למסיבה רק אם יפן תימנע מלחזור על מה שעשתה לפני חמש שנים. סין התכוננה לחגיגות גדולות במלאת 40 שנה לנורמליזציה, אבל ראש ממשלת יפן דאז, יושיהיקו נודה, החליט שזה הזמן לתפוס איים שסין טוענת שהם שייכים לה. מאז הלכו היחסים בין השתיים והתדרדרו, ויונגשנג מאשים כמובן את טוקיו: "סדר היום השאפתני שלה נראה כמיועד לפגוע באינטרסים האסטרטגיים של סין".

עם זאת, יש תקווה ששתי המדינות יחזירו את יחסיהן למסלול הנכון, ויזכרו שסין היא שותף הסחר הגדול ביותר של יפן ושיפן היא שותף הסחר השני בגודלו של סין. יונגשנג מאמין, שלמרות המתחים הדיפלומטיים והביטחוניים, סחר בהיקף שכזה יישאר גורם מייצב ביחסי סין-יפן. גם התיירות ההדדית נרחבת למדי, במיוחד כאשר יותר ויותר סינים בוחרים ביפן כיעד לחופשה. ולמרות שראש ממשלת יפן, שינזו אבה, ידוע בתוקפנותו כלפי סין – הוא הביע בגלוי את רצונו להיפגש עם נשיא סין, שי ז'ינפינג, ולשפר את יחסי המדינות.

פנג ז'ונפנג מהאקדמיה הסינית למדעי החברה אומר שהיחסים הורעו במידה ניכרת מאשר פרשת האיים. ממשל אבה אף החמיר את המצב כאשר העניק תוארי כבוד ל-14 פושעי מלחמה ממלחמת העולם השנייה, ואף התקרב מאוד להעניק ליפן את הזכות לנהל מלחמות מחוץ לגבולותיה – מה שנאסר בחוקה שכפתה עליה ארה"ב אחרי 1945. יפן עמלה להרחיב את נוכחותה בחו"ל, תוך תחרות ישירה מול סין. מדיניותה מקשה מאוד על בייג'ינג – המעדיפה יחסים טובים – להיענות למחוותיו של אבה, טוען ז'ונפנג.

"השקפותיו הימניות של ממשל אבה וחוסר רצונו להתמודד עם עברה הידוע לשמצה של יפן מתקופת המלחמה, הם האשמים ביחסים הקרים בין המדינות", הוא מאשים. "היחסים יוכלו להשתפר אם אבה יראה את עלייתה של סין כהזדמנות ולא כאיום מבחינתה של יפן". עם זאת, העובדה שסינים רבים בוחרים לבקר ביפן, מלמדת שאזרחי שתי המדינות אינם מוכנים לתת ליחסים להמשיך ולהתדרדר. ז'ונפנג מקווה שקשרים אלו ישכנעו את היפנים עד כמה אבסורדית מדיניותה של ממשלתם.

גם מאבקי הסחר אינם צריכים להיות מכשול, משום שבייג'ינג מציעה גישה שונה לחלוטין: שיתוף פעולה בין מדינות ה"חגורה" האסייאתית-אפריקנית, שבמרכזה סין. אלא שבפועל, מאשים ז'ונפנג, מדיניותה של טוקיו באזור ההודי-פסיפי מיועדת רק לטובתה שלה, תוך השלכות עוינות על דיפלומטיית המבוגר האחראי בה נוקטת סין. ואלו אינן חדשות טובות ליחסים בין המדינות.

המומחה השלישי שמצטט צ'יינה דיילי הוא יו קיאנג מאוניברסיטת בייג'ינג ליחסים בינלאומיים. גם הוא, ממש לא במפתיע, תולה את האחריות ביפן ומאשים את אבה בחוסר נכונות להתמודד עם פשעיה של ארצו. היחסים בין שתי המדינות התאפיינו בעליות ומורדות מתונים, אבל זה כבר לא עובד משום שהמתחים התגברו בהתמדה בחמש השנים האחרונות. סקרי דעת קהל גם מצביעים על ירידה במספר היפנים שיש להם דעה חיובית על סין.

הזרם המתמיד והגובר של תיירים סינים ביפן אינו מלמד בהכרח שהפיוס בין שתי המדינות באמת הופנם, סבור קיאנג. הוא מלמד בעיקר על העדפות הקניות של הסינים, בהתחשב במוניטין של המוצרים היפניים והמכס המוטל על מוצרים דומים הנמכרים בסין, וגם על הדמיון התרבותי בין שתי המדינות

What Is Trump Worth to Twitter? One Analyst Estimates $2 Billion By

Monness Crespi sees risk of multiple compression if Trump quit


‘No better free advertising in the world than the president’


Without Donald Trump, Twitter Inc. could lose almost a fifth of its value.

That’s the conclusion of Monness Crespi Hardt & Co. analyst James Cakmak, who said that the social media company would see as much as $2 billion in market value wiped out if @realDonaldTrump quit tweeting.

It’s not that the president’s defection would touch off a mass exodus, lowering the number of “monetizable” daily active users, Cakmak said in an interview. Instead, losing its most prominent user would hit Twitter’s intangible value and lead to what’s known as multiple compression.


“There is no better free advertising in the world than the president of the United States,” said Cakmak, who has a neutral rating on Twitter shares.

While Twitter doesn’t disclose the total number, Cakmak estimates daily users are around 125 million, about 30 percent fewer than Snap Inc. Twitter said in July that daily active users rose 12 percent in the second quarter, compared with the same period in 2016.
Trump has 36 million followers and has tweeted more than 35,000 times since joining the social media service in 2009.

Twitter’s business doesn’t face much risk from “potential diminishing political relevancy,” Cakmak said in a note published Thursday. “What’s most important is the execution of the right strategy, since at the present state we find Twitter not capitalizing on the opportunity that’s in front of them.”

Twitter shares have fallen 14 percent since Trump won the presidency in the November 8 election. The company’s market cap is about $11.7 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

יום ראשון, 10 בספטמבר 2017

Facebook Wins, Democracy Loses



By SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN


 On Wednesday, Facebook revealed that hundreds of Russia-based accounts had run anti-Hillary Clinton ads precisely aimed at Facebook users whose demographic profiles implied a vulnerability to political propaganda. It will take time to prove whether the account owners had any relationship with the Russian government, but one thing is clear: Facebook has contributed to, and profited from, the erosion of democratic norms in the United States and elsewhere.

The audacity of a hostile foreign power trying to influence American voters rightly troubles us. But it should trouble us more that Facebook makes such manipulation so easy, and renders political ads exempt from the basic accountability and transparency that healthy democracy demands.

The majority of the Facebook ads did not directly mention a presidential candidate, according to Alex Stamos, head of security at Facebook, but “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from L.G.B.T. matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.”

The ads — about 3,000 placed by 470 accounts and pages spending about $100,000 — were what the advertising industry calls “dark posts,” seen only by a very specific audience, obscured by the flow of posts within a Facebook News Feed and ephemeral. Facebook calls its “dark post” service “unpublished page post ads.”

This should not surprise us. Anyone can deploy Facebook ads. They are affordable and easy. That’s one reason that Facebook has grown so quickly, taking in $27.6 billion in revenue in 2016, virtually all of it from advertisers, by serving up the attention of two billion Facebook users across the globe.

The service is popular among advertisers for its efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness. Facebook gives rich and instant feedback to advertisers, allowing them to quickly tailor ads to improve outcomes or customize messages even more. There is nothing mysterious or untoward about the system itself, as long as it’s being used for commerce instead of politics. What’s alarming is that Facebook executives don’t seem to grasp, or appreciate, the difference.

A core principle in political advertising is transparency — political ads are supposed to be easily visible to everyone, and everyone is supposed to understand that they are political ads, and where they come from. And it’s expensive to run even one version of an ad in traditional outlets, let alone a dozen different versions. Moreover, in the case of federal campaigns in the United States, the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act requires candidates to state they approve of an ad and thus take responsibility for its content.


None of that transparency matters to Facebook. Ads on the site meant for, say, 20- to 30-year-old home-owning Latino men in Northern Virginia would not be viewed by anyone else, and would run only briefly before vanishing. The potential for abuse is vast. An ad could falsely accuse a candidate of the worst malfeasance a day before Election Day, and the victim would have no way of even knowing it happened. Ads could stoke ethnic hatred and no one could prepare or respond before serious harm occurs.

Unfortunately, the range of potential responses to this problem is limited. The First Amendment grants broad protections to publishers like Facebook. Diplomacy, even the harsh kind, has failed to dissuade Russia from meddling. And it’s even less likely to under the current administration.

Daniel Kreiss, a communication scholar at the University of North Carolina, proposes that sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube maintain a repository of campaign ads so that regulators, scholars, journalists and the public can examine and expose them. But the companies have no impetus to concur and coordinate. And Congress is unlikely to reform a system that campaigns are just learning to master.

Facebook has no incentive to change its ways. The money is too great. The issue is too nebulous to alienate more than a few Facebook users. The more that Facebook saturates our lives, families and communities, the harder it is to live without it.

Facebook has pledged to install better filtering systems using artificial intelligence and machine-learning to flag accounts that are run by automated “bots” or violate the site’s terms of service. But these are just new versions of the technologies that have caused the problem in the first place. And there would be no accountability beyond Facebook’s word. The fact remains that in the arms race to keep propaganda flowing, human beings review troublesome accounts only long after the damage has been done.

Our best hopes sit in Brussels and London. European regulators have been watching Facebook and Google for years. They have taken strong actions against both companies for violating European consumer data protection standards and business competition laws. The British government is investigating the role Facebook and its use of citizens’ data played in the 2016 Brexit referendum and 2017 national elections.

We are in the midst of a worldwide, internet-based assault on democracy. Scholars at the Oxford Internet Institute have tracked armies of volunteers and bots as they move propaganda across Facebook and Twitter in efforts to undermine trust in democracy or to elect their preferred candidates in the Philippines, India, France, the Netherlands, Britain and elsewhere. We now know that agents in Russia are exploiting the powerful Facebook advertising system directly.

In the 21st-century social media information war, faith in democracy is the first casualty.