Categories
World

The cost of recognizing Jerusalem

On Wednesday evening, hours after declaring that the U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, President Trump greeted friends and family who gathered at the White House to mark the start of Hanukkah.

“Well, I know for a fact there are a lot of happy people in this room,” he said to applause. “Jerusalem.” The declaration may have played well in the room, but it flopped everywhere else:

Thousands of Palestinian protestors took to the streets in the West Bank and Gaza; at least two protestors were killed and 98 wounded. (Haaretz)

Israeli forces fired at protestors along the border with Gaza, wounding at least 31 people (Reuters); Israel alleged that rockets were launched from Gaza into Israel. (Washington Post)

Protests took place across Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Turkey, Tunisia and Iran, as well as in Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indian-administered Kashmir and Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country. (BBC)

Fourteen members of the U.N. Security Council have criticized the move. (AP)

The move embarrasses both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, two of the U.S.’s main allies in the Sunni Muslim world. (FT)

The U.N.’s envoy to the Middle East said that the comments by Trump undermined a decades-old consensus. (Guardian)

The status of Jerusalem is among the top sticking points in the peace process.

For Trump the declaration represented payback to a political base that includes pro-Israel Republicans and evangelical Christians. “While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver,” he said. Today, I am delivering.”

To bolster the point, the White House released testimonials from Republicans (and one Democrat).

No nation has an embassy in Jerusalem. The declaration by Trump affirms America’s status as an outlier in a world that is moving on without the U.S. and that presidents of both parties once worked to inspire.

Categories
Law New York City

Building owners in NYC reminded to remove snow from sidewalks

With the start of winter two weeks away, a pair of rulings from a state appeals court in Brooklyn shed light on the obligation of landlords in New York City to keep sidewalks free of ice and snow.

Building owners in the city are required by law to maintain sidewalks adjacent to their properties in a reasonably safe condition, which includes removing snow and ice.

In the first ruling, the court sided with Maria Michalska, who accused the owner of an apartment building in the Coney Island section of Brooklyn with failing to clear the sidewalk outside the premises.

Michalska said she injured herself after slipping on Feb. 4, 2014 at 9:30 p.m. on ice that covered a path that had been shoveled through snow on the sidewalk adjacent to the building. According to Michalska, the sidewalk was slippery when she had used it a night earlier.

A weather report showed that 6.7 inches of snow fell as of 5 p.m. on Feb. 3, about 26.5 hours before Michalska slipped, and that no snow fell on the day of the accident.

Though the building’s superintendent testified that he could not remember whether he removed snow from the sidewalk on either day, the testimony conflicted with an affidavit in which he stated that he personally checked the sidewalk at the end of his shift at 5 p.m. on the day Michalska fell and observed neither snow nor ice.

The evidence “failed to eliminate all… issues… as to whether the [landlord caused or exacerbated the alleged icy condition on the subject sidewalk or had notice of it,” Justice William Mastro wrote on behalf of three of his colleagues in a Nov. 29 ruling that returned the lawsuit to the trial court.

Storm in progress

In a second ruling the same day, the court sided with Toni Maria Pecoraro, who accused the owners of a building in Brooklyn with failing to clear snow that she allegedly slipped on.

The owners cited a rule that relieves an owner of a building from responsibility to remove snow during a storm or for a reasonable time thereafter.

To bolster their claim, the owners presented weather data that they said showed snow falling at the time of the accident, a claim Pecoraro contested.

The court returned the case to the trial court to resolve the differences in their accounts. “The climatological data submitted by [the owners] … contradicted [Pecoraro’s] deposition testimony… as to whether precipitation was falling at or near the time of the accident,” Justice Ruth Balkin wrote on behalf of three of her colleagues.

Categories
Tech

AT&T disregards the end of net neutrality

The U.S. elections of 2016 marked a shift in spending on political advertising as money for ads moved to cable TV and the internet, which allow campaigns to target with precision the audience for their ads and, in the case of the internet. to collect information from supporters.

Spending last year for political ads that appeared on mobile phones, across social networks and in search results grew 789% from 2012, to $1.4 billion, AdAge reported in January. Candidates and their allies spent roughly the same total on cable TV, where spending rose 52% from four years earlier. Purchases of ads on broadcast TV fell 20%, to $4.4 billion, over the same period.

Candidates “are engaging in more internet communications with each passing election, and citizens and civil society organizations are increasingly able to express their views and organize online,” Facebook told the Federal Election Commission in comments filed in November.

The shift points to more than political activity.

The internet is “the common medium,” as Reed Hundt, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, predicted seven years ago that it would become. Forty-three percent of Americans get their news online, up from 38% a year earlier, the Pew Research Center reported in September. The gap between the share of Americans who get their news online as opposed to via TV shrank to seven points in the past year, down from 19 points in 2016.

Thus, the pushback by AT&T against a lawsuit by the Trump administration to block the company’s proposed purchase of Time Warner stands out.

Whatever you think of the merger and regardless (for the moment) of the administration’s motives for opposing it, the consequences for competition will be intensified by developments elsewhere in Washington, where the FCC is moving to scrap rules that prevent internet services providers from blocking or slowing traffic from companies they don’t own.

AT&T is among the world’s largest carriers  of content. Anyone who aims to reach readers, listeners or viewers relies on AT&T, Verizon and other ISPs. The ISPs set the terms of carriage.

Under a proposal likely to be adopted by the FCC this month, ISPs would need only to post their terms of service for all to see. “Individual consumers, not the government, decide what Internet access service best meets their individualized needs,” the FCC says in its proposed order.

But transparency only counts when consumers have a choice. Forty-six million households are served by just one provider of broadband internet, data from the FCC show. (Another 10.6 million households have no broadband service.)

“It’s an ‘open the champagne bottles’ moment for AT&T,” Tim Wu, a professor of law at Columbia who coined the term net neutrality to describe the principle of equal access to the internet, told the Times. “They can just tell people to pony up.”

Pony up is unlikely to be in the public interest, particularly for the internet, which serves all members of society. “Everybody in the internet community was extremely eager to operate under the delusion that government played no role in the growth of the internet,” noted Hundt, who listed some of the ways that government made the internet the common medium that it has become.

The government allowed computers to use the telephone network to connect to the internet for free, he noted. The government did not tax internet commerce and mandated that a portion of revenue from users be redirected to connect all Americans, including those in classrooms and libraries as well as those who live in tribal lands and rural areas.

A common medium is easy to use, reaches all people, fosters economic growth, provides access to the government, is full of news and – in the U.S. at least – needs to be private, Hundt observed.

AT&T is not Netflix, YouTube, Hulu or Facebook, to name several companies that AT&T cites as evidence of competitors who AT&T says are encroaching on its business. We look to those companies for content, but we count on AT&T and its fellow ISPs for connection.

Categories
Law Tech

DOJ endorses net neutrality

The Trump administration is leading a double life when it comes to competition in the market for content that arrives via the internet.

The Department of Justice on Monday sued AT&T and Time Warner to block a proposed merger between the two that the government charges would lessen competition in violation of federal law.

The lawsuit upends a transaction that the companies announced a year ago, when AT&T agreed to pay about $85 billion for Time Warner, which owns CNN, HBO, Turner Sports and other networks.

Jekyll and Hyde?

DOJ contends that the deal, which is riding on regulatory approval, would set back competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.

A day later, the Federal Communications Commission voted to roll back rules that prevent cable companies and other internet service providers from blocking or slowing websites or social networks that do not pay for priority.

“We have one government, but two separate agencies with opposing views,”  Spencer Kurn, an analyst at New Street Research, told the Times. “You’ve got one agency saying that marrying content and distribution results in too much market power, and another agency saying there’s no problem with a distributor favoring their content over someone else’s.”

Net neutrality, as the rules are known, prevents ISPs from prioritizing content from companies they own. The FCC chairman opposes the rules, saying they slow development of broadband networks by lessening the incentive of the companies that own them to add connections.

But the arguments advanced by DOJ in court seem to validate the concerns that net neutrality reflects. A combination of AT&T and Time Warner (the owner of CNN and HBO, among other networks) would give the combined company the ability to throttle programs that someone else owns, leading to higher prices for consumers, DOJ charges.

“After the merger, the merged company would have the power to make its video distributor rivals less competitive by raising their costs, resulting in even higher monthly bills for American families,” the government told the court.

That sounds like a defense of net neutrality.

The rollback at the FCC is a win for AT&T, which is vowing to fight the move by DOJ to block the company’s deal for Time Warner.

Categories
Finance

Volatility highlights stock selection

With stocks in 2017 on track to experience the fewest jitters in 22 years, do the stocks you buy or the industries they represent matter more to performance of a portfolio of so-called low volatility stocks?

In the energy and technology industries, the selection of stocks explained performance more than the ups and downs of the sector generally, at least for the year that ended on Oct. 31, according to a recent analysis by Fei Mei Chan, director of index investment strategy for S&P Dow Jones Indices.

Among the 11 sectors represented in the S&P Low Volatility Index, energy stocks experienced the largest fall in volatility over the year, Chan notes. Yet the weighting of energy stocks in the index has remained the same – about 2% in the latest rebalancing of the index – suggesting stock selection mattered more to the falloff than volatility of energy stocks generally.

Similarly, tech industry stocks experienced greater volatility during the year that ended Oct. 31. Yet the weighting of tech stocks in the index remained unchanged, at 11%.

“This would suggest that there was a wide range of volatility within both sectors, and that stock selection was more meaningful than the sectoral effect,” Chan writes.

Unlike energy and tech, the weights of each of the nine other sectors in the index changed over the relevant period. Thus, volatility in the sectors themselves provided a gauge into the performance of the index.

“As a rule of thumb, sector level volatility usually provides good insight into the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index, even though the index’s methodology is entirely focused at the stock level,” notes Chan. “For the latest rebalance, however, sectoral volatility was only part of the picture.”

Categories
News

Trump cedes US leadership on trade

The leaders of the world’s two largest economies each presented their views in a pair of speeches on Friday that highlight the extent to which the U.S. in the Trump presidency is ceding leadership in trade.

President Xi Jinping of China, the world’s second-largest economy, discussed climate change, globalization, multilateralism and connectivity in an address on Friday to leaders of 21 countries who gathered in Vietnam for the annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Council.

He spoke minutes after President Trump, who talked mostly about America and the indignities he contends it has suffered at the hands of trading partners.

Xi spoke of connection. “This is a new journey toward greater integration with the world and an open economy of higher standards,” he said. “We should uphold multilateralism, pursue shared growth through consultation and collaboration, forge closer partnerships, and build a community with a shared future for mankind.”

Trump listed grievances. He accused China of stealing intellectual property, muscling out private enterprise, hacking into the computer systems of U.S. companies, competing unfairly and failing to open markets for goods and services. “We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore,” Trump told the gathering.

Xi used the words “shared” and “community” eight times apiece. He used the word “open” 18 times, three times more than Trump, who used the word “community” once. Twice Xi mentioned “climate change,” which Trump never uttered.

The stance marked a turnabout from a day earlier in Beijing, where Trump flattered Xi and blamed his American predecessors for the imbalance in trade between the two countries.

Trump tends to talk tough when surrounded by the press. Alone with his fellow leaders, it seems, is another story. After meeting on the sidelines of the summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump told reporters that he believed assurances by Putin that Russia “did not meddle in our election.”

Though Trump later appeared to walk back the suggestion that he placed more stock in the assurances of the former head of the KGB than he does in a determination by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in the election, the exchanges with both Putin and Xi suggest struggles by the self-proclaimed dealmaker to hold his own with counterparts.

Xi talked of China’s Belt and Road initiative, as part of which the country has pledged to spend more $1 trillion to build infrastructure across Asia, Africa and Europe over the next decade. As Anja Manuel, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, noted recently in the Atlantic:

According to the CIA, 92 countries counted China as their largest exports or imports partner in 2015, far more than the United States at 57. What’s most astounding is the speed with which China achieved this. While the country was the world’s largest recipient of World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans in the 1980s and 90s, in recent years, China alone loaned more to developing countries than did the World Bank.

One result: There are now more than 10,000 Chinese firms (most privately owned) operating in Africa, up from 2,500 a decade ago, according to research by McKinsey & Co. Visit South Africa, to name one destination for Chinese investment, and you’ll see the evidence at construction sites and shops all around you.

At APEC, 11 nations, including Australia, Japan, Mexico and Canada, said they had achieved significant progress toward a revised trans-Pacific trade pact, which Trump withdrew from in March. America “has lost its leadership role,” Jayant Menon, an economist at the Asian Development Bank, told the Times. “And China is quickly replacing it.”

Which leaves the question how the smallness of the vision expressed by Trump helps the people who voted for him, particularly those in areas of the Midwest and Northeast that have experienced the trauma of the loss of jobs in manufacturing.

The U.S. imports more goods from China than it exports. The difference stood at $347 billion in 2016, a decrease of 5.5% from a year earlier. But the U.S. exports more services to China than it imports. The difference was $37 billion in 2016, up 12.3% from year earlier.

The surplus in services represents demand in China for such American exports as logistics, software, financial know-how and tickets to movies made in Hollywood. It reflects visits to the U.S. by people from China, and students who come to the U.S. from China to study.

“If our trade deficit for goods is somehow related to unfair trade practices, then how does Trump explain America’s large and growing surpluses for services,” Mark Perry, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, told the South China Morning Post in May.

Trump doesn’t say much about that surplus. Nor does he put forth or embrace efforts to bring college-educated graduates to Rust Belt cities that might benefit from an influx of productivity and capital.

Writing recently in the Harvard Political Review, Henry Sullivan Atkins cited the payoff in Pittsburgh of efforts to transform an economy that once relied on heavy manufacturing.

According to Atkins, “Pittsburgh offers a textbook example of successfully attracting these college-educated adults:  The number of city residents aged twenty-five and older with a college degree skyrocketed by 37.3 percent from 2000 to 2013.

Over roughly the same period, productivity among workers in the Pittsburgh region rose 10 percent, average annual wages increased 9 percent and the overall standard of living rose 13 percent.

“This demographic sea change didn’t occur in a vacuum; rather, it was the result of a series of careful policymaking decisions that came from the city,” Atkins writes. “Firstly, the city invested in providing a top-notch education for its residents, collaborating with Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh to transform Pittsburgh from the Steel City of the 1980s into a STEM juggernaut in fields like computing, robotics and biotechnology.”

In September, Trump directed the Department of Education to invest $200 million toward the teaching of science, technology, engineering and math in public schools. Tech giants, including Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, added $300 million to the push.

“Where that money will be pulled from remains to be seen, but with around just 40 percent of schools currently teaching computer programming, it would be good if this push had some success,” noted Mallory Locklear for Engadget.

Credit Trump for jump-starting a partnership with potential for payoff in the form of college graduates, skills and jobs. Leadership takes a thousand such acts (and the investments that accompany them), but the approach hints at a way forward for the U.S. that has nothing to do with withdrawing from a world that has moved on.

Categories
Law

A case of usury in Queens

Somewhere in Queens about six years ago this month, Rosmarie Roopchand lent Raffeek Mohammed $200,000, which Mohammed agreed to repay within two years at a rate of interest of 50 percent per year.

When Mohammed failed to make payment on the loan (his wife allegedly repaid $15,000 of it on his behalf), Roopchand sued Mohammed, his wife and his company. Mohammed asked the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that the loan violated New York law, which limits the amount of interest on loans from one person to another to 16% per year for loans less than $250,000. (Charge someone more than 25 percent per year and you’ve committed a crime.)

The trial judge sided with Mohammed and Roopchand appealed. The appeals court in Brooklyn affirmed the ruling, finding that Roopchand admitted that the interest on the loan was excessive, and an absence of any evidence suggesting that Mohammed agreed to the rate knowing that it might later allow him to avoid repayment.

“A usurious contract is void and relieves the borrower of the obligation to repay principal and interest thereon,” wrote Judge Mark Dillon on behalf of himself and three colleagues. “Indeed, where usury has occurred, ‘the borrower can simply keep the borrowed funds and walk away from the agreement.’” [citations omitted]

Laws that prohibit lending at exorbitant rates of interest date to England in the 15th century and aim to protect “desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperation,” New York’s Court of Appeals explained in 1977.

By law, a borrower whose loan a court determines to be usurious “can simply keep the borrowed funds and walk away from the agreement,” Chief Judge Judith Kaye wrote on behalf of the court in a 1992 ruling.

Still, the penalty depends on the lender and the amount of the loan. Banks forfeit the interest but not the principal. Corporations cannot allege usury to avoid repaying a loan. Loans between $250,000 and $2.5 million are subject to the prohibition on criminal usury but exempt from the 16% cap. (Loans that exceed $2.5 million are exempt from all usury caps.) Merchants who lend to each other as part of a transaction are exempt from usury laws, so long as the interest does not exceed eight percentage points above the prime rate.

Categories
News Politics

Plea shows Trump campaign knew of Russia ties

Among the evidence cited by Special Counsel Robert Mueller III against George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to President Trump’s campaign who has pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators, is a series of exchanges between Papadopoulos and campaign officials.

Papadopoulos admitted to lying to investigators about his relationship with a professor who claimed to connections with the Russian government and senior officials there who had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”

If nothing else, the correspondence establishes, as the Washington Post wrote on Monday, “that while senior Trump officials at times rebuffed or ignored Papadopoulos, they were well aware of his efforts, which went on for months.”

On April 27, 2016, Papadopoulos wrote to a high-ranking campaign official to discuss Russia’s interest in hosting then-candidate Trump. “Have been receiving a lot of calls over the last month about Putin wanting to host him and the team when the time is right,” Papadopoulos said in an email to the unnamed official, according to a court filing.

Papadopoulos reiterated the message to the official in a message dated May 14, as well as to “another high-ranking campaign official” in a missive dated May 21.

Though Trump and the Russian president did not, as far as we know, meet during the campaign, on August 15, an unnamed campaign supervisor urged Papadopoulos to meet with the Russians off-the-record. “I would encourage you,” the official told Papadopoulos.

“Make the trip, if it is feasible,” Sam Clovis, another foreign policy advisor  who currently serves as a White House liaison to the Department of Agriculture, reportedly replied.

Papadopoulos also reportedly wrote to Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager, and campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was indicted on Monday for tax fraud and money laundering in connection with sums he received for representing the pro-Russian government of Ukraine.

The White House on Monday tried to minimize Papadopoulos and his role, which Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters was “extremely limited; it was a volunteer position.”

Still, Trump touted Papadopoulos as a member of the campaign’s foreign policy team in a meeting in March 2016 with the Washington Post’s editorial board. (“He’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy,” the candidate said.)

The guilty plea provides investigators with a road map for their inquiry into whether Team Trump cooperated with the Russians to influence the outcome of the campaign. Whether Papadopoulos received a paycheck may be besides the point.

Categories
Sports

The Yankees look to the future

With the seventh game of the American League Championship Series scoreless and one out in the bottom of the second inning on Saturday, Houston first baseman Yuli Gurriel hit a fly ball to right field that appeared to be heading over the fence for a home run.

That is, until Aaron Judge, the Yankees’ fielder, leaped and extended his gloved hand over the fence to snare the ball and maintain the tie.

The catch was the second by Judge that preserved the postseason for New York.  In the third game of the AL Division Series, with Cleveland leading two games to none, Judge robbed Francisco Lindor of a likely home run in the sixth inning of a scoreless game that the Yankees won 1-0.

The skill that Judge shows on defense may not earn him the fandom that comes with hitting 52 home runs during the season – his first in the majors – or four in the postseason. But they underscore that Judge brings to the outfield the powers he shows at the plate.

Judge, 25, stands six feet seven and weights 282 pounds. Together with Greg Bird, a first baseman in his second season with the Yankees, and catcher Gary Sanchez, the runner-up for the Rookie of the Year Award last season, he forms a trio that earned the Yankees the moniker Baby Bombers.

Though youth alone could not propel the Yankees past Houston and into the World Series, the team, which battled from a wild card to Game 7 of the ALCS, exceeded expectations.

Judge likely will be the American League’s Rookie of the Year. He also could be named the league’s most valuable player. Or at least runner-up. Either way, the rookie made the Yankees a delight to follow this season.

In the locker room after Saturday’s game, Judge looked to the future. “We have a lot of young guys on this team,” he told reporters. “Getting as far as we did is going to be beneficial down the road for us, getting the taste and the feeling of this. We’re all excited for next year and what it holds for us.”

Categories
Sports

Test cricket to get a makeover

Test cricket is about to be restyled in a move that organizers hope will up the viability of the longest and most esteemed form of the game.

Starting in 2019, nine of the 12 countries eligible to play in test matches will meet in three home and three away series over the two years that count toward the championship, the International Cricket Council announced on Friday.

Organizers said the trial would improve competition and enliven test cricket, which has struggled to engage fans who have turned increasingly to matches that accelerate play.

“The trial is exactly that, a trial, in the same way day-night tests and technology have been trialled,” Dave Richardson, the ICC’s chief executive, told reporters.

Each series will run between two and five matches over five days, with the top two teams to meet in a final scheduled for June 2021. The countries — the trial will exclude Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Ireland at the outset — will play three home and three away series over the two years that count toward the championship.

Starting in 2021, the ICC also will introduce a league comprised of 13 teams that will face off in one-day international matches. The ODI series, which will feature the 12 test nations plus the winner of the current world cricket league championship, will determine which teams qualify for the World Cup in India two years later.

Richardson added that while the concept remains a trial, it should help Ireland and Afghanistan, which earned test status in June, to hone their skills and come up to speed with the other test nations faster.