# data[].attributes.headline
Post #10(December 9, 2016)- Corporations in America 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #10(December 9, 2016)- Corporations in America 

# data[].attributes.body
Since countries have started manufacturing goods at lower labor costs. Manufacturing companies have left the US in search of higher profits. This has been an issue within the political system because they want to keep jobs here. Past presidential candidates including Trump have promised to keep major manufacturers here.

This article is relevant because it talks about manufacturers leaving their countries in search of cheap labor. Which reminded me of the video “China Blue” which shows manufacturers exploiting people for higher profits. Which in return leaves the people of the US without jobs and a higher unemployment rate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A MAN with a background in business, running on a platform of lower taxes and protective tariffs, is elected president of America. He views this as a mandate to intervene in corporate affairs. Bosses are told what their priorities ought to be: more jobs and higher wages. This may sound like Donald Trump, already successful in persuading Ford, a carmaker, and Carrier, an air-conditioning company to keep jobs in America even before his inauguration. It also describes Herbert Hoover. In 1929, soon after he was sworn in, Hoover called executives to the White House for some "jawboning". For intervening in business from a position of authority has a long tradition in American politics.

The desire to meddle dates as far back as 1791. Alexander Hamilton then set out arguments for nurturing and protecting "infant industries". Any restraint was in part because the federal government lacked the resources and authority to do so. Individual states, however, took on the role with gusto. By 1840 they had lent and invested themselves into the red, prompting laws preventing future intervention. Almost all, says Naomi Lamoreaux of Yale University, were rescinded in the 20th century as the memories of failures faded while the desire to intervene remained.
Get our daily newsletter
States now compete furiously for business. Firms shop around for the most favourable subsidies when deciding where to locate headquarters, factories or sports teams. Carrier's decision to stay in Indiana was assisted by the promise of hefty tax exemptions. New York has allocated billions of dollars to encourage tech firms to set up in depressed areas of the state.

Presidents have also long attempted to shape corporate activity using any means at their disposal. Carrots are dangled and sticks wielded. Shame and praise, broad rules and one-off deals, startup funds and nationalisation have all played a part. The result has been an often-fractious relationship between business and government. Mr Trump's interventionist instincts may differ only by degree.

The federal government's largesse towards business began in the latter half of the 19th century with the railways, which cut across state boundaries. Early intercontinental lines received federal loans and large land grants in the West. The irresistible urge to oversee parts of the economy meant that in the 20th century handouts turned to direct management. In part this was driven by national emergency. Woodrow Wilson, under laws passed to support involvement in the first world war, nationalised railways, canals, telegraph lines and arms production, and expropriated American subsidiaries of German firms. Franklin Roosevelt used the same law to shut banks briefly upon his assumption of the presidency in 1933.

Roosevelt had previously observed Hoover's hands-on approach to business with disdain but his reservations were transient. Intrusiveness is popular because it yields immediate results. Hoover's jawboning had persuaded Henry Ford to raise salaries at his car plants, utilities to invest, and companies not to cut jobs. To boost wages, Hoover curtailed immigration. To protect businesses he signed the Smoot-Hawley Act, increasing duties on thousands of imports from beverages and wool to tungsten and clocks.

Train of thought

After unseating Hoover, Roosevelt busily issued regulations and told businessmen how to conduct their affairs, pausing only when the Supreme Court ruled that there were limits to federal power over intrastate commerce in a case that challenged the administrations' power to block customers from buying the chicken of their choice.

The enthusiasm for meddling survived other presidential transitions. Roosevelt's successor, Harry Truman, seized 28 enterprises, including meat packing, railways and oil refiners, often in response to labour disputes. This behaviour only ended in 1952 when nationalisation of the steel industry to preclude a strike was blocked by the Supreme Court, which said Truman needed congressional support.

Direct control is not the only way to use the power of the presidency. The bully pulpit can be even more effective. The era of explicit bullying began with Teddy Roosevelt, who lambasted the men behind large corporations as "malefactors of great wealth" and launched antitrust prosecutions. But the most famous use of the presidency to berate firms came in 1962.

Stung by an announcement of steel-price increases, John Kennedy sermonised rather than nationalised. He blamed "a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility...[and]...shows such utter contempt for the interests of 185m Americans". Facing a public backlash and after visits from the FBI, to check of their expenses, the steel bosses caved in. A decade later Richard Nixon went further. In response to a "real and pressing problem of higher prices", he froze all wages and prices.

American presidents can hand out favours as well as harsh words. In 1962, when France and Germany imposed duties on American goods, including chickens, Lyndon Johnson responded by imposing a tax on imported pickup trucks. This resulted in a lucrative part of America's vehicle market being produced almost entirely domestically. Carmakers sought favours again in the early 1980s, from Ronald Reagan. He imposed "voluntary" export restraints on Japanese carmakers. They responded by building factories in America.

The arrangements between government and business have become more complex in recent years, as broader policy replaced specific interventions. Bill Clinton, for instance, was adept at using arcane incentives, often in the form of obscure tax benefits, or threats, such as restrictions on operations or acquisitions. Disastrously, banks were encouraged to issue more subprime loans to advance the administration's interest in home ownership by poorer people. More recently Barack Obama has pursued this technocratic approach, issuing vast numbers of rules that give discretion to arms of the executive branch. The finance and energy sectors have been particularly affected.

Is it working?

As Mr Trump prepares to follow in, and perhaps embellish, this tradition of presidential activism, the most important question is whether it works. Mr Trump's goal of boosting manufacturing employment would require reversing a 70-year trend (see chart). The consequences of presidential action, intended and unintended, can be hidden, indirect or long delayed. But there are many reasons to believe politicians would do better by focusing their attentions elsewhere.

Direct investments seem particularly fraught. The Obama administration lost $535m in public guarantees for Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels that filed for bankruptcy in 2011. Johnson's subsidy for pickup trucks provides an explanation for why America's big carmakers were so uncompetitive that they came close to perishing in the financial crisis, surviving only after a bail-out by Mr Obama. It skewed production and left them unable to respond when high fuel prices shifted buyers towards more fuel-efficient cars.

Similarly, enthusiasm for forcing down prices through persuasion or law has faded. Kennedy's anger at the steel industry is now seen as rage misdirected at a symptom, inflation, rather than the problem itself-onerous labour contracts and a lack of investment. Nixon's wage and price controls, initially greeted with applause, were disastrous. Production slowed and shop shelves emptied. Hoover's jawboning to preserve wages and employment undermined firms' ability to adjust to an economic slowdown and his endorsement of Smoot-Hawley partly caused a worldwide depression by undermining trade.

However important those lessons may be, Mr Trump is likely to draw others, notably that there is plenty of precedent for presidents to meddle with business. If Mr Trump differs from his predecessors, it is in the pleasure he takes in doing deals. Many presidents were fond of the occasional anti-business rant but none has shown the same delight in one-off negotiations that produce winners (Mr Trump) and losers (anyone on the other side of the table). For that reason alone, his brand of interventionism may be more heavy-handed than any in the recent past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A MAN with a background in business, running on a platform of lower taxes and protective tariffs, is elected president of America. He views this as a mandate to intervene in corporate affairs. Bosses are told what their priorities ought to be: more jobs and higher wages.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9(December 9, 2016)- Brexit may cause Grexit

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9(December 9, 2016)- Brexit may cause Grexit

# data[].attributes.body
With the announcement of Brexit people in Greece are concerned that Grexit may become a possibility. Although the government hasn’t mentioned anything many of the working class are for Grexit occurring. If this does occur Greece will be facing less foreign investment which will cause their economy to worsen more.

This article is relevant because it talks about Grexit becoming a possibility after Brexit. Which reminded me of financialization since Greece doesn’t have the best economy. If Grexit does occur then they could risk losing foreign investment. Which their economy heavily relies on to keep afloat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In many respects Greece has more reason than the UK to be angry with the European Union, and to want to leave.

Its people and government are embittered by the imposition of harsh austerity measures by the EU and IMF.

Those bailout conditions have brought years of deep recession and high unemployment, but have done little to reduce Greece's huge debt burden.

And as a frontline country in the migrant crisis, Greece feels let down by Brussels and EU member states, in its struggle to cope with the arrival of more than a million refugees and migrants over the past 18 months.

The anger shows in a pan-European survey published by the Pew Research Center earlier this month, in which Greeks top the table in their response to many of the questions asked.

For example, 71% of those who took part had an unfavourable view of the EU - far higher than in the UK.

More than 90% disapproved of the way the EU was handling economic issues and the migrant crisis.

And now with the UK having voted to become the first member state to leave the EU, an important precedent has been set.

Latest developments: UK votes to leave EU

EU referendum: Full coverage

Brexit: What happens now?

Uncharted territory: Can the EU save itself?

Spectre of Grexit

So could Brexit be followed by Grexit?

On the streets of Athens, it's not hard to find people delighted by the British vote to quit the EU.

"I think the decision is very good, I think they did well," says Ionna Kokka.

"It is something we and all the other countries should also have done, because the situation is unbearable for everybody.

"There are no jobs, households are on their knees and we're being suffocated from all directions."

But these are the views of the minority, with most Greeks, like the government, still in favour of being part of the EU.

Market jitters

And yet, the risk remains of Brexit precipitating the departure of Greece from the eurozone and therefore possibly the EU.

Immediately after the UK referendum result was announced on Friday, stock markets around the world plunged, as did the value of the pound.

The Athens stock exchange was particularly hard hit, with foreign investors pulling out of some of their riskier investments in Greece.

"It's going to be a turbulent summer," says the stockbroker Nikos Chryssochoidis. "Greece needs foreign investment."

"The major problem is the Greek banking sector and these stocks have been really battered. As long as they remain at these very low levels, this poses [the question] again how viable they are."

The turbulence also means it will now be more expensive for the Greek government to borrow the money it needs.

Knock-on effects

And there are concerns about the impact the sharp fall in the pound's value could have on tourism, the country's most important industry.

Already one senior official has warned of a potential "wave of cancellations" by British holidaymakers, because the weak pound will make Greece a more expensive destination.

Around two million British tourists visit the country every year.

With the Greek economy already fragile, some commentators here are pessimistic.

'I think that Greece, because of the difficulties it has faced and the challenges of the (austerity) programme it has signed, will be a prime candidate for an exit from the eurozone," says the journalist and author Yannis Palaiologos.

But the stockbroker Nikos Chryssochoidis believes it's too early to evaluate the situation.

And he argues the shock of the UK departure from the EU, and the concern other countries might follow, could help Greece, because Brussels will now feel the need to tread more softly.

"Maybe you'd be more inclined to listen to what Greece has to say about the current (austerity) programme, which is very strict," he says.

"And maybe you'd be more comfortable to alleviate Greece from the burdens."

That is certainly the hope of the government here and the Greek people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nervous Greeks worry Brexit may lead to Grexit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In many respects Greece has more reason than the UK to be angry with the European Union, and to want to leave. Its people and government are embittered by the imposition of harsh austerity measures by the EU and IMF.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8(December 9, 2016)- North African Migrants to Italy

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8(December 9, 2016)- North African Migrants to Italy

# data[].attributes.body
The people from North Africa are fleeing their homelands due to racism and poor living situations. Although the journey is horrible, they’d rather cross the Mediterranean Sea than to stay home. This has put pressure on the Italian asylum system due to the large amounts of traveling migrants seeking refuge.

This article is relevant because it talks about migration. Migration is caused by people leaving their home countries seeking a better life. The article ties into this because it talks about the people of Northern Africa trying to escape the inhumane treatment of their home countries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of migrants arriving in Italy from North Africa has risen to its highest-ever level.

This year's total is now more than 171,000, the interior ministry said, beating the previous record of 170,100 in 2014.

About 4,690 migrants have died or gone missing trying to cross the Mediterranean in 2016, the UN says, which is also a record number.

The arrivals are putting increasing pressure on Italy's asylum system.

More than 176,000 people are now being housed in reception centres across the country.

'Push' factor drives migrants away from Libya to Europe

Migrant tragedy: Anatomy of a shipwreck

Migrant story enters new phase

The majority of migrants arriving in Italy come from African countries, the interior ministry said, including 36,000 from Nigeria, 20,000 from Eritrea and 12,000 from Guinea.

Many intend to travel north, with Germany and Sweden among the popular destinations.

The rise in numbers reaching Italy comes after migrant routes via Greece and the Balkans were largely closed down by an agreement between the EU and Turkey in March. In 2015 more than a million migrants arrived in Europe, mainly through Turkey.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned last week that he could let more migrants through if talks on EU membership for Turkey were frozen.

Rescues or tragedies are being reported almost every week, with migrants frequently crossing the Mediterranean on packed, flimsy boats.

On Monday, Italy's coast guard said about 1,400 people had been rescued from 11 inflatable dinghies and two small boats off the coast of Libya.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of migrants arriving in Italy from North Africa has risen to its highest-ever level. This year's total is now more than 171,000, the interior ministry said, beating the previous record of 170,100 in 2014. About 4,690 migrants have died or gone missing trying to cross the Mediterranean in 2016, the UN says, which is also a record number.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #7(December 9,2016)- Zimbabwe's Financial Crisis. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #7(December 9,2016)- Zimbabwe's Financial Crisis. 

# data[].attributes.body
Zimbabwe’s currency is no longer worth anything due to inflation. As a result of this Zimbabwe has adopted several currencies including the US dollar in hopes of helping their economy. This has caused the people of Zimbabwe to sleep outside the banks in order to withdraw money before its gone.

This article is relevant because it reminds me of the video “Inside Job” as well as financialization. Due to the fact that right now Zimbabwe has no financial stability and the people are suffering. It’s relevant to the video because people are losing their life savings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is midnight and about 30 people are preparing to settle down for the night on the streets of Zimbabwe's capital, Harare.

Their floral fur-pile blankets are spread out over cardboard boxes on the cold, hard pavement. The women are on one side, the men on the other.

But these are are not homeless people.

Some are security guards, traders, and even an accountant and a psychologist and this is a bank queue.

"We are forced to sleep here because if you don't, you wont get any money. I have tried coming at 4am but it's a waste of time," says a woman who chose not to give her name. Next to her, her seven-year-old daughter is fast asleep.

"Only those that are first in this line will get money. Banks are limiting the number of people they pay out. "

She holds out a green piece of paper with the number 10 written on it - her place in the queue.

A group of unemployed young men are distributing numbers. By midnight they have already given out 200.

One called Muchekadzafa confesses they keep some numbers back and sell them to those who don't want to sleep in the queues for $1 each.

"It's an opportunity to survive, because we don't have jobs," he says.

Zimbabweans are going to extraordinary lengths to withdraw their savings. Often, it's an agonising wait with no guarantees.

Banks are open 08:00-15:00 on weekdays and 08:00-11:30 on Saturdays.

The previous day the first 165 people received money at this bank. The others came back the following night and they withdrew $50 (£40) each. They are back again.

Banks have gradually slashed withdrawal amounts over the past year, from $2,000 a day to $100.

But most people are lucky to get anything at all.

Running out of money

Seven years ago the southern African country abandoned its local currency, which had been made worthless by inflation rates that reached 231 million per cent, and adopted a basket of currencies, mainly the US dollar.

The policy change wiped out the Zimbabwe dollar savings overnight, but helped stabilise the economy.

Now industries are failing to produce enough goods, imports are outpacing exports and the country is running out of money, again.

The central bank has announced plans to introduce a new surrogate currency within the next month but no date has been announced.

Elderly woman:
"Maybe bonds will end queues, if it means we can sleep in our beds again, it might be the only solution. It doesn't matter that they don't [have] value outside the country."
The government says the so-called bond note will be pegged in value to the US dollar.

But the reaction has been violent, as many people fear it will suffer the same fate as the Zimbabwe dollar.

Opposition supporters and members of public have shut down the city centre and blockaded roads with burnt objects in the most violent demonstrations in recent years.

They have called for President Robert Mugabe to step down for failing to stem the economic crisis.

The announcement of a new currency has also sparked old fears of hyperinflation and fuelled panic withdrawals, especially among the tens of thousands of traders who need foreign currency to buy goods in South Africa for sale locally.

"There is a lot of uncertainty. We are afraid of bond notes because we don't have confidence in it," says Stanley Kufandirove as he waits in the queue.

"If its going to help us it's fine, but the issue is confidence - unless we believe in this bond note, it won't work."

An elderly woman who works as a cleaner is more hopeful: "Maybe bonds will end queues, if it means we can sleep in our beds again, it might be the only solution. It doesn't matter that they don't [have] value outside the country."

Zimbabwe's central bank has produced media jingles and plans to embark on a road show to ally public fears.

'Bond tissues'

It denies that the bond notes are a way of reintroducing the Zimbabwe dollar through the back door.

Rather they will be paid out as an incentive to mineral and agricultural exporters at a rate of 5% for every dollar earned.

The bank's governor John Mangudya says they will not overprint the note, which is backed by a US $200m facility.

Mr Mangudya has told the public: "If you don't want the bond notes, use plastic money."

But the mistrust continues.

An elderly man who didn't want to be identified says he still has trillions of worthless notes stuffed in boxes at home. "Why should we expect more? It's all the same fake money."

Themba Dube is resigned: "They are giving us bond tissues, worthless money, but where are they putting the hard currency?

"We are our on knees as a people, we have no choice and it might help to end queues.

"Even if they decide to give us leaves we will accept them. But before the bond notes come, I want to withdraw my cash and leave the account empty."

Read more about Zimbabwe's economic crisis
Zimbabwe shutdown: What is behind the protests? From preacher to Captain Zimbabwe 'Mugabe must go' clashes in Zimbabwe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Zimbabweans are spending the night outside banks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A currency shortage in Zimbabwe brought on by an economic crisis has pushed banks to limit amounts that can be withdrawn forcing depositors to sleep outside banks to increase their chances of accessing their money, writes the BBC's Shingai Nyoka.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #6(December 9, 2016)- Trump's Trade Policy Scenarios

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #6(December 9, 2016)- Trump's Trade Policy Scenarios

# data[].attributes.body
Trump has made it very clear that he wants to improve the trade deals in the United States in order to bring in more jobs. Including previous deals and the current Trans-Pacific Partnership. The article gives three scenarios on the implications this may have on the economy in the US.

The article is relevant because it talks about trade. Since the United States is a major importer of goods this may have drastic consequences to our economy. Especially since the United States is a major importer of cheap goods made in countries like China who offer cheap labor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Global Shivers

Image

A Chinese-made banner at the Yiwu International Trade Center this month in Jinhua, Zhejiang Province. Credit Credit Visual China Group/Getty Images

Donald J. Trump, through decades in public life, has been consistent on one core policy idea: that the United States has gotten a raw deal from its major trading partners in the agreements that bind their economies. Renegotiating those terms will surely be a top priority for his administration.

But what will that mean in practice? While the broad thrust of Mr. Trump's thinking on trade is clear, and he has mentioned a few specific policies he would embrace, he and his appointees will have wide latitude in how they pursue more favorable trade arrangements for the United States. A YouTube video released on Monday reiterated a campaign promise to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and more vaguely vowed to "negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores."

Since Election Day, trade experts have been gaming potential scenarios of what Trump administration trade policy might look like in detail. Some of those possibilities would risk only modest disruptions to the world economy and could very well result in better long-term arrangements for American companies.

Others would blow up the underpinnings of the modern global economy, endanger trillions of dollars' worth of cross-border commerce, and stand a good chance of prompting a worldwide recession.

Here's what those possibilities look like, from the most benign to the most disruptive.

There really are some elements of the United States' existing relationships with major trading partners that are dysfunctional and disadvantageous to the United States. By taking more aggressive stands on some of them, a Trump administration may be able to get better deals.

Mr. Trump has said repeatedly that he wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. A lot of things can fit under the rubric of "renegotiate," though, and there is room to update the deal in ways that would prove beneficial to the United States. The agreement is 23 years old, after all. And there is plenty of room to adjust terms in ways that preserve the deeply intertwined North American economy.

"There are too many parts of it that are not working," said David Malpass, an economist on the Trump transition team, at an event in October. "There is supposed to be regular annual review between the parties of Nafta to see where it's not working well and to have kind of a constant process of renewal. That's been dropped away. And so that's something that needs to be looked at."

The Trump administration could also pick a variety of industries where it believes trade partners have treated the United States unfairly and bring cases before the World Trade Organization. Paired with targeted duties to punish what it sees as unfair behavior, the approach could win more favorable deals. The Bush administration did just that with steel tariffs in 2002, as did the Obama administration with a 35 percent tax on Chinese tires in 2009.

Trade experts are generally skeptical that these efforts prove worthwhile. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Sean Lowry of the Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated that American consumers paid an extra $1.1 billion for tires in 2011 to safeguard a mere 1,200 American tire-making jobs. That's $900,000 per job saved.

But Mr. Trump's administration could bring a series of such cases, and if, as he promises, his team members prove to be made up of tougher, smarter negotiators than their predecessors, perhaps they could get better results. Even if they don't, the $18 trillion United States economy will most likely be O.K.

Mr. Trump has said he will instruct his Treasury secretary to declare China a currency manipulator. The George W. Bush and Obama administrations didn't do this, although they also thought that China artificially depressed the value of its currency to the benefit of Chinese exporters. However, they calculated that subtle diplomacy would be more likely than head-on confrontation to get results.

But who knows? Maybe that calculation was wrong, and a more confrontational approach would have led China to allow its currency to respond to market forces. The Chinese government has allowed its currency to rise relative to the dollar over the last few years, putting it roughly in line with economic fundamentals and reducing the urgency of the issue. (But it could still be in the United States' interest to put in place agreements to make sure this remains the case.)

Naming China a currency manipulator merely triggers negotiation over what to do about it. Such negotiation would most likely be hard-fought, and it might result in a better long-term arrangement for the United States. Or not. But either way, it wouldn't need to disrupt day-to-day trade relations.

That assumes that Mr. Trump takes a more aggressive stance using existing channels and authorities, and wages the battle with the trading partner over specific cases and industries. If so, it will keep lawyers and lobbyists for those industries busy.

"There would be pushback, but you'd be working within the relevant legal frameworks and using existing institutions as they were intended by Congress and the W.T.O. and our trading partners," said Scott Lincicome, a trade lawyer at White & Case who has been critical of Mr. Trump. "Everybody will talk about it, but it won't change the global macroeconomic outlook."

Ambiguous language in the statutes grants the president broad authority over trade policy. Mr. Trump could be the kind of president willing to use that authority to its fullest.

Rather than focus on targeted duties on individual products as part of a W.T.O. case, the government could invoke emergency authority to place broad-based tariffs on goods from a given country. Think of the 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports that Mr. Trump at one point threatened during his campaign, or perhaps an escalating tariff set to rise until the trade deficit with a given country declines.

Moves along those lines would get everyone's attention, but they would also create enormous ripple effects. There would surely be legal challenges by the targeted country's industries, as well as swift and potentially painful retaliation from trade partners. China (or Mexico, or Japan) wouldn't take these kinds of measures lying down.

"With these blunt instruments, there would be a lot of effects," said Derek Scissors, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "It would hit poor Americans the hardest in the sense that it's a regressive tax that makes things like clothing and consumer electronics more expensive."

And the retaliation would most likely be fierce. If China is the target, it might cancel orders for Boeing airliners and buy from Europe's Airbus instead. (The United States exported $15 billion worth of aircraft to China last year). Or perhaps the Chinese would retaliate against American agriculture, endangering the $10.5 billion in United States soybean exports to China and endangering farms across the Midwest - prime Trump country, as the decision-makers in China will surely be aware.

And with the economic underpinnings of major industries under stress, the financial markets would probably enter a period of remarkable volatility. Expect plummeting stock prices for major United States companies that do business around the world.

The Trump administration would be risking significant damage to the United States economy if it took this route, without any guarantee of coming out with a more favorable long-term deal on the other side.

Trade wars that would be started by broad-based tariffs on major trading partners would be economically disruptive but would still leave the basic infrastructure of the global trade system in place.

The most extreme versions of a Trump trade policy, however, could wreak havoc on the entire system of global economic connections that the United States helped build since the end of World War II.

If the Trump administration can't get the concessions it seeks in renegotiating Nafta, would he follow through on his threat to use the power, written into the trade agreement, to withdraw entirely with six months' notice?

Or if the administration brings cases to the W.T.O. and loses, will the United States abide by the rulings, or will it follow Mr. Trump's campaign threat to abandon an organization meant to bring order to the global trade system?

If he seeks to do those things using executive authority, will Congress stand by or seek to stop him?

"For the last 100 years or so, Congress and the executive branch have had a kind of gentleman's agreement where Congress delegates its authority over international trade to the president as long as Congress gets the ultimate say," Mr. Lincicome said. In a more extreme case of a Trump trade agenda, he said, "the risk is you have not just an economic crisis but a constitutional crisis."

This is pretty far down the road of speculation. The various business interests who have the president-elect's ear would surely try to persuade him not to risk everything by being so drastic. Financial markets since the election have appeared to reflect an expectation that the benign scenario for Trump trade policy will emerge. The S.&P. 500 index, the Dow Jones industrial average, the Nasdaq Composite index and the Russell 2000 index all hit new highs Monday.

The question of whether one of the more extreme, every-country-for-itself-trade-war scenarios emerges instead boils down to this: Does Mr. Trump mean some of the things he has said on the campaign trail about reopening the very basics of United States economic relationships, or was it all just words?

The economic consequences of the answer are huge.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trade Policy Promise and Peril: A Look at 3 Possible Scenarios. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Will Trump Trade Policy Actually Look Like? Three Possibilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Global Shivers Donald J. Trump, through decades in public life, has been consistent on one core policy idea: that the United States has gotten a raw deal from its major trading partners in the agreements that bind their economies. Renegotiating those terms will surely be a top priority for his administration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #5(October 16, 2016) China gets Seat in World Economics

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #5(October 16, 2016) China gets Seat in World Economics

# data[].attributes.body
The IMF has given China a seat in the worlds econimics. China's currency the renminbi will now be among the top currency's for trade. This is now due to China opening up there boarders and letting FDI occur.

This article is relative because China has now opened its boarders to let FDI occur. Which lets international banks invest and decide the worth of the renminbi. This article reminds me of the World- Systems Theory of Development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China has the world's second-largest economy, but its currency, the renminbi, has long been kept out of the International Monetary Fund's elite club of the world's strongest national tenders. That changed this weekend.

After years of liberalization reforms, the IMF announced Saturday the renminbi would join the bank's group of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currencies. The group curries a kind of pseudo-currency, which is used only by the IMF to supplement countries' official coffers when finances are tight. The value of this currency is determined by the strength of each of the currencies in the basket - the dollar, the pound sterling, the euro, the Japanese yuan, and now the Chinese renminbi.

Inclusion in the SDR is largely symbolic in terms of market movement; China's lagging economic growth isn't going to get a shot in the arm simply because it's now been included. But it is a reward for recent efforts by China to open up its economy to foreign investment and influence, something U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew have for years demanded.

But IMF's inclusion of the renminbi is important. It's an acknowledgement that China, after decades of being closed to the kind of foreign investment that can be made in free markets all over the world, is opening for business. It also shows that Beijing is allowing its economy to be subject to the same supply and demand forces that push the American, European, Japanese, and British economies in positive or negative directions.

Finally, the IMF's decision shows that the emergency-lending bank believes China is increasingly allowing markets to determine the value of the renminbi. Currency manipulation by Beijing is a hot-button issue on the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign trail, where both Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton Beijing of keeping the value of its currency low to promote lagging Chinese exports.

"The inclusion into the SDR is a milestone in the internationalization of the renminbi, and is an affirmation of the success of China's economic development and results of the reform and opening up of the financial sector," the People's Bank of China, China's central bank, said in a

The IMF China's application to join the SDR in 2010. It had kept the renminbi out of the SDR because it historically hasn't been "freely usable," meaning that it wasn't widely used to pay for international transactions or traded on international monetary exchanges. In August 2015, the fund extended its SDR currency basket window to September 2016. At the time, the IMF said the new timeline would give countries drawing from the fund, like Ukraine, "lead time to adjust in the event that a decision were to be taken to add a new currency to the SDR basket." But it also gave China more time for liberalization reforms.

China took full advantage. After an August 2015 IMF progress report determined China hadn't embraced liberalization reforms the IMF demanded - and that Chinese President Xi Jinping had long promised - Beijing took the hint. A week later, it allowed the renminbi to "float" for three days and let supply and demand determine its value, just like the euro, pound, and dollar do each day. As its value decreased, the value of Chinese stocks plummeted, taking the rest of the world down with them.

Then, in September 2015, China announced it would open its domestic foreign exchange market to foreign central banks, allowing the likes of the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank to make bets on the renminbi's value. In the past, central banks would have had to route investments in the yuan, the name of an individual unit of Chinese currency, through local banks - a costly and complicated process. This move was an imperative one, because central banks can now hedge bets on other currency, like the euro or dollar, in China because they can take a position on the renminbi.

In addition, the People's Bank of China announced in October 2015 it would remove caps on deposit rates. This means financial institutions can offer Chinese savers a market-based rate of return for their money, as opposed to one determined by the Chinese central bank.

None of this means that the renminbi will be replacing the dollar as the world's standard currency any time soon. As Lew last week, "Being part of the SDR basket at the IMF is quite a ways away from being a global reserve currency."

The IMF's decision also does not mean that Chinese authorities will stop meddling in their economy to keep its currency strong or to prevent massive stock losses Chinese stocks experienced last summer.

"We believe that the Chinese authorities will remain committed to exchange rate flexibility and capital account liberalization over the long-term as they hope to internationalize the [Chinese yuan] but progress is likely to be gradual and bumpy," a team from BMI Research, which covers emerging markets, said a recent research .

Photo credit: LINTAO ZHAANG/Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
IMF Officially Gives China A Seat at the Adult Table of World Economies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China has the world's second-largest economy, but its currency, the renminbi, has long been kept out of the International Monetary Fund's elite club of the world's strongest national tenders. That changed this weekend. After years of liberalization reforms, the IMF announced Saturday the renminbi would join the bank's group of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currencies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #4(October 16, 2016) US Eases Rules on Travelers to Cuba

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #4(October 16, 2016) US Eases Rules on Travelers to Cuba

# data[].attributes.body
President Obama wants to ease the rules on American travelers in regards to how much rum and Cuban cigars can be brought back into the US. As well as other measures that would benefit both countries greatly. This comes after the US open its borders to trade with Cuba.

This article is relevant because it talks about the US opening up its boarders to trade with Cuba after turning its back to the communist country. While reading this article it reminded me of the World-Systems Theory of development because the US is opening its doors to Cuba

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
American travellers to Cuba will now be able to bring back far more rum and cigars, after the Obama administration announced new trade measures.

The previous $100 (£82) limit has been lifted, meaning most visitors could bring home up to 100 cigars and several bottles of rum.

The latest measures reflect continuing moves by the former Cold War rivals to normalise relations after 53 years.

President Barack Obama paid a historic visit to Cuba in March.
What next for US-Cuba relations? Passengers on an 'emotional' crossing
The latest raft of measures are in an administrative order by the president, meaning he can sidestep the Republican-controlled Congress.

Analysts say he wants to cement the new trade relations before he leaves office in January.

Other measures in the latest batch include:

lifting limits on cargo ship travel between the nations

easing rules on joint medical research

allowing export to Cuba of some US goods sold online

allowing US firms to improve some Cuban infrastructure

allowing Cuban pharmaceutical firms to apply for US approval

But the cigar and rum measures will be the most beneficial for Cuba. Given the high value of some cigars in particular, the Cuban government could benefit to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Analysis: Will Grant, BBC Cuba correspondent
The most important announcement is probably the move to lift a restriction on cargo ship travel between the old enemies that had prevented them from docking in US ports for at least 180 days after visiting Cuba.

But undoubtedly the most eye-catching was the decision to lift the $100 limit on rum and cigars. The fact that the record numbers of US visitors to Cuba can now buy much more is welcome news for the Castro government.

That said, it will still reiterate its calls for the US economic embargo to be lifted entirely. The Cuban delegation plans to put a resolution in front of the UN General Assembly by the end of the month, which is likely to be resoundingly supported.

President Obama cannot lift the embargo without the US Congress, but he can weaken it significantly. He has done that on several occasions over the past two years.

Mr Obama said in a statement: "Challenges remain - and very real differences between our governments persist on issues of democracy and human rights - but I believe that engagement is the best way to address those differences and make progress on behalf of our interests and values."

More than 160,000 Americans went to Cuba in 2015 and the figure could double this year.

In July, Cuba and the United States formally re-established relations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American travellers to Cuba will now be able to bring back far more rum and cigars, after the Obama administration announced new trade measures. The previous $100 (£82) limit has been lifted, meaning most visitors could bring home up to 100 cigars and several bottles of rum.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3(October 16, 2016) Bridge collapses in Indonesia

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3(October 16, 2016) Bridge collapses in Indonesia

# data[].attributes.body
A bridge connecting Nusa Lembongon and Nusa Ceningan collapsed during a Hindu celebration today. It is believed that there have been eight fatalities but officials will not know until the search continues tomorrow morning.

This article is relevant because it talks about the build of the bridge being 30 years old which makes it old and dangerous. This article reminded me of the UN's Sustainable Goals and Development reading and lecture. The goal that stood out to me was #9 which talks about infrastructure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A bridge connecting two small islands near the Indonesian resort island of Bali has collapsed, killing at least eight people, officials say.

People were passing over the suspension bridge for a religious ceremony when the accident occurred, a police officer told Reuters news agency.

The water was not deep but many of the victims were crushed by debris, he said.

Thirty other people were injured. All were reported to be local residents.

The bridge, which carries pedestrians and motorbikes, connects the islands of Nusa Lembongan and Nusa Ceningan, which lie off the south-east coast of Bali.

The collapse occurred around 1830 local time (1030 GMT). The bridge was busy because people were taking part in a Hindu ceremony at a nearby temple.

"Before the bridge collapsed it was already shaking," disaster agency spokesman Sutopo Purwo Nugroho told AFP news agency.

"Some motorcyclists and people fell into the sea, and people in the area immediately tried to save them."

Three children were reported to be among the dead. Earlier reports had put the death toll at nine but this was revised.

Officials said it was not clear whether anyone was missing. A fresh search would begin at daybreak, one said.

Andrew Sutherland, a British expatriate and tour operator in the area, told the BBC the bridge was the only one connecting the two islands.

"It's been there for about 30 years and it is quite a rickety bridge," he said. "It's only used for a few people to cross at the same time, normally motorbikes, nothing more than that.

"Unfortunately today was a very large ceremony for the local population and a large amount of people were crossing the bridge when it did collapse."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bridge connecting two small islands near the Indonesian resort island of Bali has collapsed, killing at least eight people, officials say. People were passing over the suspension bridge for a religious ceremony when the accident occurred, a police officer told Reuters news agency.

# data[].attributes.body
Britain at the moment is indecisive if it should leave the single market or the customs union or both. Which is what the European Union follows as far as trade goes. This movement is being called Brexit especially if Britain decides to leave.

The article is relevant because Britain is trying to leave a system that isn't working for them. This reminds me of Keynesian Economics because the customs union sets the trade tariffs. as for the single market is free trade the way Hayek thought the market should be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WHEN discussing a "hard" or a "soft" Brexit, commentators regularly talk of the European Union's "customs union" and "single market". Currently Britain is a member of both. It is possible to be a member of just the customs union but not the single market (look at Turkey, Andorra or the Isle of Man). Conversely, it is possible to be a member of just the single market but not the customs union (take Norway or Iceland). Often the two terms are elided, which has the effect of concealing important differences. What are they?

A customs union is a type of free-trade area. Two or more countries agree to abolish restrictions on mutual trade, and to set up a common system of tariffs and import quotas that apply to non-members. In the jargon, they have a "common external tariff" (CET). The EU, for instance, has a common 10% tariff on cars imported into it. The main advantage of a customs union is understood when you consider what happens when there is no CET. If France had zero tariffs on Japanese whisky, but Britain had a 10% tariff, then it would be a profitable wheeze to export Japanese whisky to France, and thence (freely) to Britain. So Britain would have to carefully monitor whisky imports from France, and slap a tariff on any Japanese stuff sneaking in (so-called "rules of origin" regulations). With a CET, however, such monitoring is no longer necessary (because the possibility of such arbitrage is eliminated). One disadvantage of a customs union, however, is that its members are not allowed to negotiate their own trade deals with third countries.
Get our daily newsletter
What of the EU's single market? It is sometimes called the "internal market" and was once called the "common market". This is another type of enhanced free-trade area, though for a different reason. Not only do goods move freely, but so do services, investment and people. To achieve this much more ambitious goal, the EU needs to get involved in harmonising regulations across the single market. This is why there are much-maligned rules on, for instance, the efficiency of vacuum cleaners across the EU. In the absence of such regulations there would be a regulatory race-to-the-bottom: countries would compete to produce the cheapest-possible vacuum cleaner across the EU, sacrificing safety in the process. It also explains why there is free movement of people: this allows for the exchange of typically non-tradable goods, such as plumbing.

With all this in mind, what should Britain do? It is possible to be a member of the single market without being an EU member. The European Economic Area (EEA) agreement leaves three countries (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) in such a position. They are not part of EU customs union and thus free to strike their own deals (but, remember, they need to abide by complicated "rules of origin" regulations). If Britain however decides to quit the single market, there is no point in being part of the customs union; quitting it would allow the British to strike their own trade deals. The best option from an economic perspective, of course, is for Britain to quit neither the single market or the customs union. But then that wouldn't be Brexit, would it?
Dig deeper
What is the difference between a "hard" and "soft" Brexit?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The difference between Europe's "customs union" and "single market"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHEN discussing a "hard" or a "soft" Brexit, commentators regularly talk of the European Union's "customs union" and "single market". Currently Britain is a member of both. It is possible to be a member of just the customs union but not the single market (look at Turkey, Andorra or the Isle of Man).

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #1(October 16, 2016) Aid Trucks Looted In Haiti

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #1(October 16, 2016) Aid Trucks Looted In Haiti

# data[].attributes.body
Since the landing of Hurricane Mathew in Haiti people have become desperate for every day necessities. Officials are also worried about a cholera outbreak due to dirty water caused by the recent hurricane. Although officials have asked for monetary aid from the UN not much has been raised.

This article is relevant because it talks about Haiti being a poor country and having been devastated by hurricane Mathew. This reminded me about the UN's sustainable and development goals that we read about. The goal that I was specifically reminded about was #6 clean water and sanitation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Angry Haitians looted aid trucks as the UN secretary general visited parts of the country hit by Hurricane Matthew, which killed 900 people.

Ban Ki-moon said he witnessed a looting incident in Les Cayes, where he promised more aid to Haiti. He also urged countries to donate more.

Officials say more than 1.4 million people urgently need humanitarian help.

There are also fears of a cholera outbreak, with spikes in cases and deaths reported in the south west.

The waterborne disease reached the island via Nepalese UN troops after the deadly earthquake in 2010, causing the deaths of nearly 10,000 people.

Hurricane Matthew in pictures

How do Haiti and Florida compare?

Aid lessons from Haiti quake

Can a cholera epidemic be avoided?

Tensions have been high as help has yet to reach many families whose crops and water supplies have been destroyed.

Haitian police and UN peacekeepers used tear gas to disperse a group of 100 residents who attacked humanitarian convoys in Les Cayes on Saturday.

"We understand the impatience and the anger of the population who are waiting for emergency relief. We are doing all we can to facilitate the arrival of the assistance soon as possible," Mr Ban said.

He flew over areas hit by the hurricane alongside Prime Minister Enex Jean-Charles.

"I was very, very sad when we saw the complete devastation. But people the world over stand with you," the UN chief added.

"We are going to mobilize as many resources and as much medical support as we can to first of all stop the cholera epidemic and second support the families of the victims."

Some 120,000 homes were either damaged or destroyed when Category Four Hurricane Matthew swept through on 4 October with winds of 145mph (230km/h).

Mr Ban visited a shelter in Les Cayes and told the displaced "kembe fem" in Creole, meaning "hang in there".

In the town, one of the worst affected by Matthew, the streets have been cleaned and businesses have reopened.

But power, transport and communications links are still difficult in other areas.

Last week, Mr Ban called for a "massive response" to help the country, the poorest in the Americas.

The UN launched an emergency appeal for nearly $120m (£97m) in aid, but just a fraction of it has been raised.

Mr Ban acknowledged there was aid "fatigue", but urged countries to help Haiti.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Angry Haitians looted aid trucks as the UN secretary general visited parts of the country hit by Hurricane Matthew, which killed 900 people. Ban Ki-moon said he witnessed a looting incident in Les Cayes, where he promised more aid to Haiti. He also urged countries to donate more.