Category Archives: Economics

“Luring a banker”

The New York Times: A Mar-a-Lago Weekend and an Act of God: Trump’s History With Deutsche Bank.

Link via MetaFilter.

“After Mr. Trump won the election, Deutsche Bank’s board of directors rushed to understand how the bank had become the biggest lender to the president-elect.

A report prepared by the board’s integrity committee concluded that executives in the private-banking division were so determined to win business from big-name clients that they had ignored Mr. Trump’s reputation for demagogy and defaults, according to a person who read the report.

The review also found that Deutsche Bank had produced a number of “exposure reports“ that flagged the growing business with Mr. Trump, but that they had not been adequately reviewed by senior executives.

On Deutsche Bank’s trading floor, managers began warning employees not to use the word “Trump“ in communications with people outside the bank. Salesmen who violated the edict were scolded by compliance officers who said the bank feared stoking public interest in its ties to the new president.

One reason: If Mr. Trump were to default on his loans, Deutsche Bank would have to choose between seizing his assets or cutting him a lucrative break — a situation the bank would rather resolve in private.

Two years after Mr. Trump was sworn in, Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. The chamber’s financial services and intelligence committees opened investigations into Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Mr. Trump. Those inquiries, as well as the New York attorney general’s investigation, come at a perilous time for Deutsche Bank, which is negotiating to merge with another large German lender.

Next month, Deutsche Bank is likely to start handing over extensive internal documents and communications about Mr. Trump to the congressional committees, according to people briefed on the process.”

“I’m not for impeachment… because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

The Washington Post Magazine: Nancy Pelosi on Impeaching Trump: ‘He’s Just Not Worth It’. “In a wide-ranging interview, the country’s most powerful Democrat says Trump is unfit to be president — “ethically,“ “intellectually“ and “curiosity-wise“ — but impeachment would be too divisive.”

“There have been increasing calls, including from some of your members, for impeachment of the president.

I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

A lot of Americans are really anxious about where the country is right now, and some of them feel the nation’s institutions are in a perilous state. Do you share that concern?

No. Here’s why I don’t: Our country is great. It’s a great country. Our founders gave us the strongest foundation. … All the challenges we have faced, we can withstand anything. But maybe not two [Trump] terms. So we have to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

Link via MetaFilter.

Amid climate change, FEMA and Government Aid Widen Wealth Inequality

NPR All things considered: How Federal Disaster Money Favors The Rich.

“isasters are becoming more common in America. In the early and mid-20th century, fewer than 20 percent of U.S. counties experienced a disaster each year. Today, it’s about 50 percent. According to the 2018 National Climate Assessment, climate change is already driving more severe droughts, floods and wildfires in the U.S. And those disasters are expensive. The federal government spends billions of dollars annually helping communities rebuild and prevent future damage. But an NPR investigation has found that across the country, white Americans and those with more wealth often receive more federal dollars after a disaster than do minorities and those with less wealth. Federal aid isn’t necessarily allocated to those who need it most; it’s allocated according to cost-benefit calculations meant to minimize taxpayer risk.

Put another way, after a disaster, rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. And federal disaster spending appears to exacerbate that wealth inequality.”

“Alles begann mit einem Witz”

Deutsche Welle: Wann wird die Zeitumstellung in der EU endlich abgeschafft? “Der EU-Verkehrsausschuss stimmt am Montag (04.03.) über ein mögliches Ende der Zeitumstellung ab, über die seit 200 Jahren gestritten wird. Benjamin Franklin hatte sie 1784 vorgeschlagen – allerdings nur zum Spaß!”

“Zwar stimmt der Verkehrsausschuss im Europaparlament am Montag, 4. März 2019, über ein mögliches Ende der Zeitumstellung ab, aber damit beginnt erst der langwierige Abstimmungsprozess in der EU.

Nach den Ausschüssen berät das Plenum, und nur wenn am Ende alle EU-Mitgliedsstaaten zustimmen, kann die Zeitumstellung in der EU abgeschafft werden. Aber das kann dauern. Als Datum für die letztmalige Zeitumstellung ist das Jahr 2021 im Gespräch. Ein großes Problem ist die bislang fehlende Abstimmung zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten. Gemäß dem Vorschlag der EU-Kommission würde jedes Land für sich entscheiden, in welcher Zeitzone es dauerhaft bleibt.”

“Unheil jetzt abgewendet?”

Deutsche Welle: Kommentar: May vollzieht die Brexit-Wende. “Eine Kabinettsrevolte hat Theresa May zur Korrektur ihres Brexit-Kurses bewegt. Und der Labour-Chef will plötzlich ein neues Referendum. Damit ist der Brexit womöglich abgewendet, meint Barbara Wesel.”

“Jetzt setzt [Oppositionsführer Jeremy Corbyn] sich für ein zweites Referendum ein. Es könnte dafür politisch inzwischen zu spät sein. Außerdem hätte seine Partei nicht so viel Unterstützung und Glaubwürdigkeit verloren, wäre Corbyn schon früher unter dieser Fahne marschiert.

Dabei ist eine erneute Befragung der Bürger eigentlich der beste und logische Ausweg aus der gegenwärtigen Sackgasse. Und das Geschrei der Brexiteers, dass damit der Wille des Volkes missachtet würde, ist nicht ernst zu nehmen. Schließlich dürfen wir auch alle vier Jahre eine neue Regierung wählen. Warum also sollte man nicht rund drei Jahre nach einem Referendum zu einem so wichtigen Thema, noch einmal darüber abstimmen dürfen? Zumal inzwischen alle so viel mehr darüber wissen, was der Brexit wirklich bedeutet.”