Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump, Macron e Merkel. Usa Today liquida tutti in una frase lapidaria.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-27.

Trump, Macron, Merkel 001

Usa Today è una testata ragionevolmente equilibrata, anche se usualmente schierata con i lib dem: si potrebbe dire che non debordi troppo dal comune buon senso.

Mr David Jackson e Mr John Fritze poi scrivono piacevoli articoli, anche usando un ottimo inglese, nei quali l’uso dei termini è molto curato: sono sempre molto appropriati.

Sarebbero da segnalare alcune frasi, affilate come rasoi, tratte da questo articolo:

Trump to tussle with German chancellor Merkel over Iran and trade

«Days after buttering up French President Emmanuel Macron with a state dinner and other ceremonies, President Trump held a shorter and more somber summit Friday with another key European leader, German Chancellor Angela Merkel.»

*

«a short meeting and lunch at the White House»

*

«Look forward to meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany today,” Trump tweeted a few hours before her arrival. “So much to discuss, so little time! It will be good for both of our great countries!»

*

«Like Macron and other European leaders, 

Merkel is expected to implore Trump»

* * * * * * *

Non dovrebbero essere necessari molti commenti.

Vorremo però riportare un certo quale numero di frasi inglesi nelle quali compare il termine “to implore” per consentire di valutarne meglio la portata, il significato.

*

«They implored God, who in Christ has become God-with-us»

*

«Let us implore God’s mercy for the present generation.»

*

«We come before you today to implore your protection.»

*

«Let us implore him that, like her, we may welcome the word of God into our hearts, and carry it out with docility and constancy»

*

«Since a compromise is well within reach, I am imploring the Commission to come up with a fresh proposal in 2007.»

*

Trump, Macron, Merkel 002

Una frase e due fotografie spesso spiegano meglio quello che sta succedendo di quarantotto trattati di politica e di economia.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Angela Senzaterra. Mr Trump adesso riceve anche i barboni della politica.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-27.

Merkel 999

Angela Merkel, la cancelliera «dimezzata» ovvero Angela Senzaterra, è stata ammessa alla presenza di Mr Trump, dopo lunghe suppliche insistenti.

Dopo aver celebrato per tre giorni consecutivi la presenza a Washington di Mr Macron e consorte, il Presidente americano ha aperto le porte della White House anche ai barboni della politica, concedendo alla Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel quasi due ore e mezzo del suo tempo, dei quali solo circa venti minti primi di colloquio reale.

Banchetto ufficiale? Ma che, scherziamo? Una colazione di lavoro con due panini imbottiti con i resti del banchetto per Mr Macron.

Questo è quello che vale l’orgogliosa Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel, quella che un anno fa diceva:

«we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel – NYT]

*

«The Paris deal isn’t just any other deal. It is a key agreement that shapes today’s globalization» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel]

*

«By 2050, the whole German economy will be fully renewable» [Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel]

*

Quasi a farle ulteriore sfregio, è di questi giorni questa notizia:

Baviera. Dal 1° giugno gli uffici pubblici dovranno esporre la Croce.

Gelidi i commenti di Mr Putin.

«“political schizophrenia”» [Mr Putin – Bloomberg]

*

«the Russian leader suggested that the Europeans had “bosses” in Washington whom they couldn’t disobey — not the right note to strike as Europe seeks to bolster its global role.» [Mr Putin – Bloomberg]

* * * * * * *

Per il momento Frau Merkel è ancora Bundeskanzlerin, ma vale meno di uno zerbinotto.

Persino l’articolista del Corriere si toglie il sugo di prendere questa femmina per le terga.


Corriere. 2018-04-27. Merkel a Washington, solo 150 minuti per lei: Trump poco «ospitale»

La cancelliera «dimezzata» vede il presidente alla Casa Bianca: 4 dossier li separano, dall’accordo sul nucleare dell’Iran al rischio di un guerra commerciale

*

Nel marzo 2017, Donald Trump riceveva a Washington il «nuovo leader dell’Occidente». Sovrana e sicura di sé, Angela Merkel incarnava davanti al neopresidente americano, isolazionista e protezionista, la consapevolezza di un’Europa che capiva finalmente di «dovere prendere il destino nelle proprie mani».

È passato un anno, un secolo in politica. E quella che torna questa mattina alla Casa Bianca è una cancelliera dimezzata. Un risultato elettorale disastroso e sei lunghi mesi di paralisi politica l’hanno indebolita sul piano interno, bloccandone anche l’azione internazionale. Mentre la scena europea e globale ha trovato un mattatore in Emmanuel Macron, sempre più a suo agio nel ruolo, vero o percepito fa lo stesso, di nuova guida della comunità transatlantica.

È una visita difficile e densa di rischi, quella in America, per «Angela senza terra», la prima da quando è stata rieletta per la quarta volta alla guida della Germania. Sul piano simbolico e sostanziale. Simbolico perché segue di poco più di 24 ore la trionfale accoglienza riservata da Trump e dal Congresso a Macron, il quale ha confermato tutta l’efficacia di un’impostazione, dove il legame strategico e personale non è necessariamente in contraddizione con la difesa dei principi e degli interessi europei. Sostanziale perché forse mai come adesso i rapporti fra Germania e America sono stati così scadenti.

Trump non perde occasione per additare Berlino come la pecora nera. Si tratti del costruendo gasdotto russo-tedesco North Stream 2, che aumenterebbe la dipendenza energetica dalla Russia; dell’insufficiente spesa militare, una delle più basse della Nato; ma soprattutto del commercio internazionale, nel Trump-pensiero solo una grande truffa ai danni dell’industria americana, la Germania è sul banco degli accusati. Ad aumentare diffidenze e sospetti, l’ultimo episodio in ordine di tempo: il rifiuto di Merkel a partecipare ai raid in Siria.

Le comunicazioni sono ridotte al minimo. Dopo 15 mesi al potere, Trump non ha ancora insediato il suo ambasciatore sulla Sprea. Richard Grenell è stata confermato solo ieri dal Senato Usa. Berlino ha appena cambiato il suo inviato diplomatico. I consiglieri di Merkel cercano di abbassare il livello delle attese. In fondo saranno in tutto 150 minuti di colloqui — un pranzo di lavoro, poi una conferenza stampa alle 19.30 italiane —, un tempo che dice molto dopo le ore dedicate a Macron. Risultati clamorosi, secondo le fonti della cancelleria, non sono da aspettarsi. Sarebbe già qualcosa che la visita serva a cambiar clima, ristabilire linee di comunicazione e, non ultimo, convincere Trump a una ulteriore pausa di riflessione sul tema più urgente: la guerra commerciale che incombe tra Europa e Usa. Le speranze sono al lumicino. Ieri la Sueddeutsche Zeitung ha citato una fonte del governo, secondo cui Berlino considera ormai «probabile» che Trump non prolunghi la clausola di esclusione dell’Europa dai dazi punitivi su alluminio e acciaio, in scadenza il 1 maggio. Sarebbe l’inizio delle ostilità.

Ma i colloqui, che inizieranno con un faccia a faccia per poi allargarsi alle delegazioni, saranno difficili anche sul resto. Sull’Iran, Merkel cercherà di seguire la falsariga di Macron, spiegando a Trump che è nell’interesse anche degli Usa non ritirarsi dall’accordo nucleare. Sulla Nato, il presidente continuerà ad accusare la Germania di non volersi assumere gli oneri concordati. E su questo almeno non ha tutti i torti.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump, Macron e la Siria. L’arte di fare figuracce grame.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-16.

Trump Macron 010

Quello che è accaduto in Siria dovrebbe essere cosa nota, adesso anche nella versione fornita dai russi.

Siria. Versione del Ministero Difesa Russo.

*

Segnaliamo, nella tragicità di un evento bellico, un siparietto che ci lascia sorridere.

«French President Emmanuel Macron asserted that Paris had convinced Trump to stay engaged in Syria “for the long-term.”»

*

«“Ten days ago, President Trump was saying the United States of America had a duty to disengage from Syria,” Macron said during a two-hour grilling on French television, broadcast days after his government joined the US and Britain in launching strikes against alleged Syrian regime chemical weapons facilities»

*

«“I assure you, we have convinced him that it is necessary to stay for the long-term,” Macron told»

* * * * * * *

Riassumendo.

Mr Macron ha annunciato al pubblico che avrebbe convinto Mr Trump a rimanere in Siria per un lungo lasso di tempo. Una gran bella abilità, anche conoscendo il caratterino di Mr Trump.

«President Donald Trump still wants U.S. forces in Syria to return home as soon as possible, the White House said on Sunday»

*

«President Donald Trump wants US troops home “as quickly as possible.”»

* * * * * * *

I russi sono stati taglienti nel loro comunicato:

«Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.»

Sorge spontanea una domanda:

Ma chi mai si crede di essere Mr Macron?


The New York Times. 2018-04-15. White House: Trump Wants U.S. Forces in Syria to Come Home as Quickly as Possible

President Donald Trump still wants U.S. forces in Syria to return home as soon as possible, the White House said on Sunday, after French President Emmanuel Macron said he had convinced Trump to keep a U.S. presence there for “the long term.”

“The U.S. mission has not changed — the president has been clear that he wants U.S. forces to come home as quickly as possible,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

“We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return. In addition we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region,” she said. 


Nst Mes. 2018-04-15. US mission in Syria ‘has not changed,’ forces to return as soon as possible: WH

WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES: American objectives in Syria have not altered, the White House said Sunday, reiterating that President Donald Trump wants US troops home “as quickly as possible.”

“The US mission has not changed – the President has been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible,” press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

“We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return. In addition we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region,” she added.

The statement came hours after French President Emmanuel Macron asserted that Paris had convinced Trump to stay engaged in Syria “for the long-term.”

“Ten days ago, President Trump was saying the United States of America had a duty to disengage from Syria,” Macron said during a two-hour grilling on French television, broadcast days after his government joined the US and Britain in launching strikes against alleged Syrian regime chemical weapons facilities.

The three allies joined forces for the missile strikes a week after a deadly attack on the town of Douma where civilians were hit with chlorine and sarin, according to the Western powers.

“I assure you, we have convinced him that it is necessary to stay for the long-term,” Macron told veteran journalists Jean-Jacques Bourdin and Edwy Plenel.


Reuters. 2018-04-15. White House: Trump wants U.S. forces in Syria to come home as quickly as possible

President Donald Trump still wants U.S. forces in Syria to return home as soon as possible, the White House said on Sunday, after French President Emmanuel Macron said he had convinced Trump to keep a U.S. presence there for “the long term.”

“The U.S. mission has not changed — the president has been clear that he wants U.S. forces to come home as quickly as possible,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

“We are determined to completely crush ISIS and create the conditions that will prevent its return. In addition we expect our regional allies and partners to take greater responsibility both militarily and financially for securing the region,” she said. 

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Ordine Esecutivo per la riduzione della povertà.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-16.

Washington. White House. 001

Anche i grandi paesi industrializzati hanno un pressante problema di miseria.

Cina. Il lavoro forzato e la nuova schiavitù.

Cina. La dottrina economica vincente di Deng Xiaoping.

Forced labour in the UK: ‘There was no escape. I lived every day in fear’

US trafficking report records forced labour in UK and Ireland

21 million people are now victims of forced labour, ILO says

*

America. 44.752 milioni sotto la soglia di povertà.

Lo United States Census Bureau ha recentemente pubblicato una tabella aggiornata e corretta da pregresse minime omissioni:

Number and Percentage of People in Poverty Using the Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2016 and 2015

USA. Reddito delle famiglie per scaglioni. – Census Bureau

Trump ha vinto perché metà America è in miseria. – I dati della Fed.

*

«Nel 2014, le spesa quotidiana annua degli americani si è attestata su 38.600 dollari. Ricordiamo che, oggi, il 51% dei lavoratori americani guadagna meno di 30mila dollari l’anno, mentre il 28% guadagna addirittura meno di 20mila dollari. Dieci anni prima, gli americani che riuscivano a far fronte a tutte le spese potevano mediamente contare su un residuo attivo di 1500 dollari l’anno. Dieci anni dopo, quegli stessi americani si trovano un passivo di 2300 dollari.» [Fonte: CNBC].

*

«La ricchezza della classe media americana è crollata del 20% in dieci anni, tendenza che ha fatto crollare gli USA al 19° posto nella classifica mondiale per ricchezza media. La ricchezza media famigliare era di 137.955 dollari nel 2007, ma oggi si è quasi dimezzata raggiungendo quota 82.725 dollari.» [Fonte]

* * * *

In breve, gli Stati Uniti di America hanno quasi quarantacinque milioni di persone che vivono sotto la soglia della povertà ed il 51% dei lavoratori americani guadagna meno di 30,000 dollari l’anno, cifra da sopravvivenza tene3ndo conto del costo della vita.

Durante i mandati della pregressa Amministrazione Obama il problema è rimasto sempre in secondo piano, e si sono finanziati enti governativi che avrebbero dovuto elargire contributi ai poveri con quello che rimaneva in cassa dopo che i funzionari addetti avevano percepito lo stipendio.

* * * * * * *

«The United States and its Constitution were founded on the principles of freedom and equal opportunity for all.  To ensure that all Americans would be able to realize the benefits of those principles, especially during hard times, the Government established programs to help families with basic unmet needs»

*

«While bipartisan welfare reform enacted in 1996 was a step toward eliminating the economic stagnation and social harm that can result from long-term Government dependence, the welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and is in need of further reform and modernization in order to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility»

*

«In 2017, the Federal Government spent more than $700 billion on low-income assistance.  Since its inception, the welfare system has grown into a large bureaucracy that might be susceptible to measuring success by how many people are enrolled in a program rather than by how many have moved from poverty into financial independence.»

*

«The Federal Government’s role is to clear paths to self-sufficiency, reserving public assistance programs for those who are truly in need»

*

«The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty»

*

«Improve employment outcomes and economic independence»

*

«Promote strong social networks as a way of sustainably escaping poverty (including through work and marriage)»

*

«Reduce the size of bureaucracy and streamline services to promote the effective use of resources»

*

«Reserve benefits for people with low incomes and limited assets»

*

«review current federally funded workforce development programs»

*

«invest in effective workforce development programs»

* * * * * * *

L’Executive Order del Presidente Trump introduce una rivoluzione copernicana nella lotta alla povertà finora condotta dagli Stati Uniti.

La passata Amministrazione spendeva circa 700 miliardi ogni anno per sovvenzionare i poveri tramite un apparato burocratico gigantesco, talmente ipertrofico da assorbire larga parte delle risorse. Non solo, ma i risultati erano valutati in base al numero degli assistiti.

D’ira in poi la lotta alla povertà sarà attuata generando posti di lavoro, così da far emergere le persone in modo stabile dalla miseria e dalla povertà. I risultati saranno valutati sulla riduzione del numero delle persone in fascia misera ed in fascia povera.



The White House. Executive Order Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to promote economic mobility, strong social networks, and accountability to American taxpayers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1Purpose.  The United States and its Constitution were founded on the principles of freedom and equal opportunity for all.  To ensure that all Americans would be able to realize the benefits of those principles, especially during hard times, the Government established programs to help families with basic unmet needs.  Unfortunately, many of the programs designed to help families have instead delayed economic independence, perpetuated poverty, and weakened family bonds.  While bipartisan welfare reform enacted in 1996 was a step toward eliminating the economic stagnation and social harm that can result from long-term Government dependence, the welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and is in need of further reform and modernization in order to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility.

Sec. 2Policy.  (a)  In 2017, the Federal Government spent more than $700 billion on low-income assistance.  Since its inception, the welfare system has grown into a large bureaucracy that might be susceptible to measuring success by how many people are enrolled in a program rather than by how many have moved from poverty into financial independence.  This is not the type of system that was envisioned when welfare programs were instituted in this country.  The Federal Government’s role is to clear paths to self-sufficiency, reserving public assistance programs for those who are truly in need.  The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty.  It must examine Federal policies and programs to ensure that they are consistent with principles that are central to the American spirit — work, free enterprise, and safeguarding human and economic resources.  For those policies or programs that are not succeeding in those respects, it is our duty to either improve or eliminate them.

(b)  It shall be the policy of the Federal Government to reform the welfare system of the United States so that it empowers people in a manner that is consistent with applicable law and the following principles, which shall be known as the Principles of Economic Mobility:

(i)     Improve employment outcomes and economic independence (including by strengthening existing work requirements for work-capable people and introducing new work requirements when legally permissible);

(ii)    Promote strong social networks as a way of sustainably escaping poverty (including through work and marriage);

(iii)   Address the challenges of populations that may particularly struggle to find and maintain employment (including single parents, formerly incarcerated individuals, the homeless, substance abusers, individuals with disabilities, and disconnected youth);

(iv)    Balance flexibility and accountability both to ensure that State, local, and tribal governments, and other institutions, may tailor their public assistance programs to the unique needs of their communities and to ensure that welfare services and administering agencies can be held accountable for achieving outcomes (including by designing and tracking measures that assess whether programs help people escape poverty);

(v)     Reduce the size of bureaucracy and streamline services to promote the effective use of resources;

(vi)    Reserve benefits for people with low incomes and limited assets;

(vii)   Reduce wasteful spending by consolidating or eliminating Federal programs that are duplicative or ineffective;

(viii)  Create a system by which the Federal Government remains updated on State, local, and tribal successes and failures, and facilitates access to that information so that other States and localities can benefit from it; and

(ix)    Empower the private sector, as well as local communities, to develop and apply locally based solutions to poverty.

(c)  As part of our pledge to increase opportunities for those in need, the Federal Government must first enforce work requirements that are required by law.  It must also strengthen requirements that promote obtaining and maintaining employment in order to move people to independence.  To support this focus on employment, the Federal Government should:

(i)   review current federally funded workforce development programs.  If more than one executive department or agency (agency) administers programs that are similar in scope or population served, they should be consolidated, to the extent permitted by law, into the agency that is best equipped to fulfill the expectations of the programs, while ineffective programs should be eliminated; and

(ii)  invest in effective workforce development programs and encourage, to the greatest extent possible, entities that have demonstrated success in equipping participants with skills necessary to obtain employment that enables them to financially support themselves and their families in today’s economy.

(d)  It is imperative to empower State, local, and tribal governments and private-sector entities to effectively administer and manage public assistance programs.  Federal policies should allow local entities to develop and implement programs and strategies that are best for their respective communities.  Specifically, policies should allow the private sector, including community and faith-based organizations, to create solutions that alleviate the need for welfare assistance, promote personal responsibility, and reduce reliance on government intervention and resources.

(i)   To promote the proper scope and functioning of government, the Federal Government must afford State, local, and tribal governments the freedom to design and implement programs that better allocate limited resources to meet different community needs.

(ii)  States and localities can use such flexibility to devise and evaluate innovative programs that serve diverse populations and families.  States and localities can also model their own initiatives on the successful programs of others.  To achieve the right balance, Federal leaders must continue to discuss opportunities to improve public assistance programs with State and local leaders, including our Nation’s governors.

(e)  The Federal Government owes it to Americans to use taxpayer dollars for their intended purposes.  Relevant agencies should establish clear metrics that measure outcomes so that agencies administering public assistance programs can be held accountable.  These metrics should include assessments of whether programs help individuals and families find employment, increase earnings, escape poverty, and avoid long-term dependence.  Whenever possible, agencies should harmonize their metrics to facilitate easier cross-programmatic comparisons and to encourage further integration of service delivery at the local level.  Agencies should also adopt policies to ensure that only eligible persons receive benefits and enforce all relevant laws providing that aliens who are not otherwise qualified and eligible may not receive benefits.

(i)   All entities that receive funds should be required to guarantee the integrity of the programs they administer.  Technology and innovation should drive initiatives that increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the current system.

(ii)  The Federal Government must support State, local, and tribal partners by investing in tools to combat payment errors and verify eligibility for program participants.  It must also work alongside public and private partners to assist recipients of welfare assistance to maximize access to services and benefits that support paths to self-sufficiency.

Sec. 3Review of Regulations and Guidance Documents.  (a)  The Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Education (Secretaries) shall:

(i)    review all regulations and guidance documents of their respective agencies relating to waivers, exemptions, or exceptions for public assistance program eligibility requirements to determine whether such documents are, to the extent permitted by law, consistent with the principles outlined in this order;

(ii)   review any public assistance programs of their respective agencies that do not currently require work for receipt of benefits or services, and determine whether enforcement of a work requirement would be consistent with Federal law and the principles outlined in this order;

(iii)  review any public assistance programs of their respective agencies that do currently require work for receipt of benefits or services, and determine whether the enforcement of such work requirements is consistent with Federal law and the principles outlined in this order;

(iv)   within 90 days of the date of this order, and based on the reviews required by this section, submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy a list of recommended regulatory and policy changes and other actions to accomplish the principles outlined in this order; and

(v)    not later than 90 days after submission of the recommendations required by section 3(a)(iv) of this order, and in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, take steps to implement the recommended administrative actions.

(b)  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries shall each submit a report to the President, through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, that:

(i)    states how their respective agencies are complying with 8 U.S.C. 1611(a), which provides that an alien who is not a “qualified alien” as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1641 is, subject to certain statutorily defined exceptions, not eligible for any Federal public benefit as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1611(c);

(ii)   provides a list of Federal benefit programs that their respective agencies administer that are restricted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1611; and

(iii)  provides a list of Federal benefit programs that their respective agencies administer that are not restricted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1611.

Sec. 4Definitions.  For the purposes of this order:

(a)  the terms “individuals,” “families,” and “persons” mean any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or other lawfully present alien who is qualified to or otherwise may receive public benefits;

(b)  the terms “work” and “workforce” include unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment, job training, apprenticeships, career and technical education training, job searches, basic education, education directly related to current or future employment, and workfare; and(c)  the terms “welfare” and “public assistance” include any program that provides means-tested assistance, or other assistance that provides benefits to people, households, or families that have low incomes (i.e., those making less than twice the Federal poverty level), the unemployed, or those out of the labor force.

Sec. 5General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

April 10, 2018.

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump, Unione Europea

Trump. Macron e Merkel convocati a rapporto a fine aprile.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-12.

Donald Trump photographed at Trump Tower in NYC
Donald Trump photographed at the Trump Tower on 5th Ave. in Manhattan, NYC on Monday, September 21, 2015. (Damon Winter/ The New York Times)

«U.S. President Donald Trump will host French President Emmanuel Macron for a state visit on April 24»

*

«The president and first lady will welcome President and Mrs. Macron of France to the White House on April 24»

*

«This visit will advance American and French cooperation on economic and global issues and deepen the friendship between the two countries»

*

«Angela Merkel is set to visit US president Donald Trump at the end of April»

*

«Merkel’s visit would fall on the same day as South Korean president Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un»

*

«Merkel’s trip, three days after French president Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to the U.S. capital, will come just before the expiry of an exemption for the European Union from U.S. import duties on steel and aluminium»

*

«differences over a nuclear deal with Iran and trade cast a shadow over the transatlantic relationship»

* * * * * * *

Il mondo sta cambiando a velocità impressionante, ma apprezziamo la bontà d’animo del Presidente Trump che ha concesso udienza persino a due dei suoi recalcitranti sudditi.

A nessuno è sfuggita la malizia di aver convocato la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel giusto nella giornata in cui arriverà a Washington il Presidente Sud Koreano Moon Jae-in.

Ma per Frau Merkel sarà sufficiente il concederle di inginocchiarsi e di baciare l’anello. Gli ordini li piglierà dall’uscere.


Reuters. 2018-04-10. Trump to host France’s Macron for state visit on April 24: White House

U.S. President Donald Trump will host French President Emmanuel Macron for a state visit on April 24, the White House said on Monday.

“The president and first lady will welcome President and Mrs. Macron of France to the White House on April 24,” White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters.

“This visit will advance American and French cooperation on economic and global issues and deepen the friendship between the two countries.”

Sanders said it would be the first official state visit since Trump took office.

The French presidency said in a brief statement Macron’s visit would take place on April 23-25 and include a joint news conference, several official ceremonies as well as a state dinner.


The Local. 2018-04-10. Merkel to visit Trump in Washington at end of April: report

Angela Merkel is set to visit US president Donald Trump at the end of April, according to reports in the German media.

The German Chancellor is planning to visit Washington DC on April 27th, Bild reported on Thursday.

Though the visit is yet to be confirmed, Bild claimed that this is to be expected. They point out that Merkel’s last visit to Washington was only confirmed by the Americans days before it happened.

This would be Merkel’s second visit to the White House since Trump’s inauguration.

If it were to take place on April 27th, Merkel’s visit would fall on the same day as South Korean president Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet for historic talks in the peninsula’s Demilitarized Zone.

Merkel’s last visit to Washington, in March last year, was most memorable for Trump’s apparent refusal to shake the Chancellor’s hand during a press event.


Reuters. 2018-04-10. Germany’s Merkel to visit Trump, as trade, Iran deadlines loom

German Chancellor Angela Merkel will visit U.S. President Donald Trump on April 27, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday, as differences over a nuclear deal with Iran and trade cast a shadow over the transatlantic relationship.

Merkel’s trip, three days after French president Emmanuel Macron’s state visit to the U.S. capital, will come just before the expiry of an exemption for the European Union from U.S. import duties on steel and aluminium.

The twin visits would give the European Union’s two leading national leaders the opportunity to lobby for the bloc to be exempted permanently from the steel and aluminium tariffs. The tariffs are suspended for the EU until May 1.

Merkel’s visit to the United States, first reported by mass-selling daily Bild, will also take place shortly before a May 12 deadline that Trump has set to improve an international deal to curb Iran’s nuclear programme.

Her office had no immediate comment on the planned visit.

Merkel, in a telephone call with Trump last week, urged dialogue on trade policy between the EU and the United States, “taking into account the rules-based international trade system”.

Merkel’s relationship with Trump got off to a frosty start after his November 2016 election.

Before a phone conversation on March 1 to discuss the war in Syria and Russian nuclear arms, the two leaders had not spoken to each other for more than five months.

Trump has threatened to withdraw the United States from an accord between Tehran and six world powers, signed in 2015 before he took office, unless France, Britain and Germany help to agree a follow-up pact by that date. Trump does not like the deal’s limited duration, among other things.


Bloomberg. 2018-04-10. Merkel, Trump Reported to Plan Talks in Washington on April 27

– Germany’s Bild newspaper says trip still in planning stages

– Chancellor is intent on avoiding U.S.-Europe trade war

*

German Chancellor Angela Merkel plans to hold talks with President Donald Trump in Washington on April 27, Bild reported.

Details of Merkel’s second official trip to the U.S. during Trump’s presidency are still being worked out , the German newspaper said Thursday, citing officials it didn’t identify. A government spokeswoman declined to comment.

The timing would allow Merkel and Trump to meet days before a U.S. tariff waiver on imports of European steel and aluminum lapses on May 1. Trump also must decide by May 12 whether the U.S. will stand by the Iran nuclear agreement, which Germany and its European Union allies want to preserve.

Disputes over trade, security and energy have marked ties between the U.S. and Europe’s biggest economy since Trump won the 2016 presidential election. Merkel’s governing coalition scoffed at his comment this week that a new natural-gas pipeline would send “billions of dollars” to Russia.

Merkel had an awkward first meeting with Trump in March 2017. Although the two leaders lauded the encounter, it didn’t prevent Trump from slamming Germany’s defense spending and trade surplus soon afterward.

The U.S. president’s signal that he’d withdraw from the Paris climate accord two months later prompted Merkel to declare in May that the countries’ reliable relations established after World War II “are to some extent over.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo

Canada. Doug Ford, un replicante di Trump, potrebbe vincere le elezioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-03-30.

2018-03-26__Canada__001

Il Canada è una monarchia costituzionale a ordinamento federale situata nell’America del Nord, comprendente dieci province e tre territori e delimitata dall’oceano Atlantico a est, dall’oceano Pacifico e lo Stato statunitense dell’Alaska a ovest, dal mar Glaciale Artico a nord e dagli Stati Uniti d’America a sud.

Ha una popolazione di circa trentacinque milioni e fa parte di numerosi organismi internazionali:  il G7, il G8, il G20, la Nato, il Nafta, l’Oecd, la Wto, l’Oac, lApec e l’Onu.

Nal 2017 il pil era 1,640.385 miliardi Usd, il pil ppa 1,763.785 mld, il pil ppa procapite era 48,141 Usd. È sostanzialmente un paese ricco e politicamente influente, anche perché i suoi governanti hanno frequentemente dimostrato molto buon senso.

*

«Il Canada ha avuto un’alternanza tra governi formati da due partiti nel corso del XX secolo: il Partito Conservatore Progressista, di centro-destra, e il Partito Liberale, di centro-sinistra. Fino agli anni ottanta, entrambi i partiti sono stati favorevoli a un significativo intervento dello Stato nell’economia, finché l’elezione di Brian Mulroney, a Primo Ministro ha sancito la svolta dei Conservatori Progressisti a favore di privatizzazioni, meno regolamentazione e meno tasse per le imprese e per i più abbienti. Con il ritiro di Mulroney nel 1993, il suo partito ha però subito un tracollo di voti e di seggi alla Camera dei Comuni, consentendo ai Liberali di tornare al governo, contando soprattutto sulla propria supremazia in Ontario.

Il terzo partito è stato tradizionalmente il Nuovo Partito Democratico, collocato a sinistra dello spettro politico. Negli anni novanta questo partito, così come i conservatori progressisti, hanno subito un’emorragia di voti e seggi a favore dei partiti regionali nati in quel periodo: il Blocco del Québec, favorevole all’indipendenza del Canada francese e collegato al Partito del Québec presente solo nel Parlamento provinciale; e il Partito Riformatore del Canada, con base nel Canada occidentale, conservatore e ostile a concessioni a favore del Québec, che nel 2000 ha assunto il nome di Alleanza Canadese, rispecchiando l’intento di unificare tutto l’elettorato di destra. L’Alleanza Canadese nel 2003 si è fusa con i conservatori progressisti, dando vita al Partito Conservatore del Canada (al governo dal 2006). Il Partito Verde del Canada non ha ottenuto rappresentanza in Parlamento, ma ha comunque raccolto una quota significativa dei voti alle elezioni nazionali.» [Fonte]

*

Attualmente il Canada è governato da Mr Justin Pierre James Trudeau (Ottawa, 25 dicembre 1971), un politico canadese, ventitreesimo Primo ministro del Canada dal 4 novembre 2015 e leader del Partito Liberale del Canada.

Il 21 ottobre 2019 i canadesi torneranno alle urne per eleggere il loro parlamento federale.

L’Angus Reid Institute ha rilasciato il 19 marzo uno studio approfondito sul quadro politico canadese e sulle prospezioni elettorali. I dati sono stati ricavati da 5,423 persone intervistate.

Nel giro di un anno il Primo Ministro Justin Trudeau ha visto la propria popolarità scendere dal 54% del marzo 2017 all’attuale 40%. Discesa compiuta con un trend costante.

In modo similare il partito liberal è sceso da percentuali superiori al 50% agli attuali 30%, mentre i conservatori hanno incrementato nel giro di un anno la propensione al voto dal 31.9% all’attuale 40%.

*

Sarebbe del tutto prematuro azzardare alcunché su quelli che saranno i risultati delle elezioni dell’anno prossimo.

Tuttavia gli andamenti delle prospezioni sembrerebbero indicare un orientamento dell’Elettorato verso una “destra“.

Non solo.

«The spoiled son of a sprawling business dynasty positions himself as an anti-elite populist. During a pivotal campaign, he brushes off a history of crude remarks as political incorrectness to the delight of his base. Then, running against the establishment of his own party and an evidently more qualified female candidate, he loses the popular vote but manages, by way of an arcane voting system, to take power»

*

«No, I’m not rehashing the victory of President Trump»

*

«I’m describing the rise of Canadian politician Doug Ford, who this month was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the right-of-center opposition in the country’s most populous province»

*

«With his party leading in the polls ahead of a June 7 election, Mr. Ford has a strong chance of becoming premier»

* * * * * * *

Il Canada è storicamente uno dei più solidi sistemi democratici al mondo. Che al governo si alternino partiti e persone con differenti visioni di vita, sociali ed economiche, è del tutto naturale e, diciamolo francamente, della massima utilità.

Tuttavia questa svolta verso destra sembrerebbe assumere un carattere nuovo rispetto al pregresso.

«Trumpism, it seems, has migrated north»

Salvo sorprese pur sempre possibili, l’anno prossimo il Canada potrebbe darsi un governo molto vicino alle idee ed alla prassi del Presidente Trump.


The New York Times. 2018-03-22. Will Canada Elect a Tin-Pot Northern Trump?

Toronto — Tell me if you’ve heard this before: The spoiled son of a sprawling business dynasty positions himself as an anti-elite populist. During a pivotal campaign, he brushes off a history of crude remarks as political incorrectness to the delight of his base. Then, running against the establishment of his own party and an evidently more qualified female candidate, he loses the popular vote but manages, by way of an arcane voting system, to take power.

No, I’m not rehashing the victory of President Trump. I’m describing the rise of Canadian politician Doug Ford, who this month was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the right-of-center opposition in the country’s most populous province. With his party leading in the polls ahead of a June 7 election, Mr. Ford has a strong chance of becoming premier.

Trumpism, it seems, has migrated north.

Several years before the 2016 United States presidential campaign, Mr. Ford’s brother, the deceased former mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, more or less invented the politics of boorish, divisive populism the American president has since mastered. Rob Ford figured out as early as 2010 that riding out scandal, while blaming the media and other unspecified “elites,” was a winning political strategy.

Torontonians forgave flaws in his character, appreciated them, even embraced them as signs of authenticity. It didn’t matter to his base that he smoked crack cocaine while in office. The Rob Ford era demonstrated that someone as shameless as Mr. Trump had a shot as a political figure.

Doug Ford is a more serious and self-disciplined version of his bumbling younger brother. He has resisted comparisons between himself and the president, but has also spoken fondly about The Donald. “Absolutely he respects women,” he said of the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. “There’s millions of women that have voted for him. So all those millions of women are dumb? I don’t think so.”

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Ford, while much less addled than his brother was, has also been connected to Toronto’s underbelly, where Rob Ford spent so much of his time as mayor. The Globe and Mail newspaper reported in 2013 that Mr. Ford sold drugs throughout the better part of the 1980s. (He has never been charged and denies the allegations.) Thirty years later, if elected his government would be responsible for implementing Ontario’s new, legal recreational cannabis stores.

Overnight, the election of Mr. Ford crushed the smugness Canadians have been feeling since their prime minister, Justin Trudeau, appointed a cabinet of 50 percent women and became the envy of enlightened progressives the world over. The deep-seated cultural and political alienation at the root of Trump and Brexit is in full force in Canada as well.

Mr. Ford is already a front-runner. One poll has the Progressive Conservatives at 47 percent support and the incumbent Ontario Liberal Party at 26 percent. The latter, having ruled since 2003, has nearly 15 years’ worth of scandal to show for it. Rising inequality across the province, distaste for progressive rhetoric and the sense of a generalized corruption of politics as a whole is fueling, as elsewhere, a populism as inchoate as it is powerful.

And from Italy to the Philippines to Canada, this cannibalizing populism is swallowing traditional Conservatism whole. Mr. Ford snuck through to the leadership on a voting system that ranked ballots. He won neither the popular vote nor the greatest number of constituencies. But the Progressive Conservative machine is behind him already. It operates on inherited loyalties, antipathy against scandal-plagued opponents, time-for-a-change sentiments and basic self-interest.

Ideas were probably always somewhat irrelevant, so it hardly matters that the so-called Conservative parties aren’t conservative anymore. Or rather, Conservatism itself has changed. The Conservatism of law and order, of common decency and of fiscal responsibility has been rendered null and void. After the last provincial election, which the Liberals won handily, Mr. Ford, then a Toronto city councilor, prescribed “an enema from top to bottom” for the caucus he just inherited. The effluent is now lapping at his feet.

They may hope to change him. They won’t. Already, Mr. Ford, who has never held a seat in the Legislature, is boasting about a historically large victory in the offing. His bragging has an all-too familiar ring stateside. To stand with Mr. Ford is to express rage — and this rage will take its customary atavistic forms.

The current premier, Kathleen Wynne, the first lesbian elected to the post, introduced a modernized sex-education curriculum to the province’s public school systems. Just days after his election, Mr. Ford pledged to remove it, a policy that has support among some new immigrant communities, who tend to be more socially conservative.

He’s also running the standard Ford playbook. Elites are people who sip “Champagne with their pinkies in the air.” (His family’s label and packaging company is said to make tens of millions in annual sales.)

His infamous brother, when you get right down to it, was only the mayor of Toronto, which is not a very powerful position. Toronto’s “weak mayor” system ensures that its leader only gets one vote on the city council. In Canada, it’s actually the premier of a province who matters. His or her government regulates the schools and the public health care system. Do the people of Ontario really want a tin-pot northern Trump in charge of things that affect their daily lives? Canada’s Constitution calls for “peace, order and good government”; it is hard to imagine anyone who could fulfill that mandate less.

Mr. Ford’s sweep in as quiet and stable a place as Ontario points to a broader global crisis from which apparently there is no escape. Conservatism is no longer a political ideology in the recognized sense, but a repository of loathing and despair. It’s where people thrust their hatred of modernity — of globalism and multiculturalism and technocratic expertise, but also of the democracy that fostered those systems in the first place. By giving high office to buffoons, by choosing thugs as their representatives and by reveling in nastiness for its own sake, the Conservative brand now is principally a marker of contempt for political order itself.

Conservatism has meant many things to many people around the world. Now, just about everywhere, it looks a lot like a raised middle finger; Ford and friends are the latest to salute.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Sistemi Economici, Stati Uniti, Trump

USA. Effetto Trump sull’economia. Un anno di soddisfazioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-02-04.

2018-02-05__TrumP__Economy__001

Per un uomo politico la più efficiente propaganda elettorale è il lasciar guadagnare la gente, che vuole solo lavorare onestamente senza interferenze statali. Senza dover essere iugulato da tasse massacranti che poi si perdono in rivoli inconsistenti.

Significativi i risultati del questionario Gravis Marketing in Pannsylvania, ove si voterà il 14 marzo. Lì si conteranno i riusultati delle urne.

Per l’uomo della strada, il bilancio del primo anno di Presidenza Trump è più che soddisfacente, anche tenendo conto che gli effetti del calo delle tasse si attueranno nel tempo.

Trump il Grande. La riducendo le tasse aumentano stipendi, pensioni ed investimenti. 2,800 miliardi.

Le società infatti utilizzeranno il surplus ottenuto dalla riduzione della pressione fiscale per remunerare meglio azionisti e dipendenti, incrementando gli investimenti produttivi.

*

«U.S. job growth surged in January and wages increased further, recording their largest annual gain in more than 8-1/2 years»

*

«Nonfarm payrolls jumped by 200,000 jobs last month after rising 160,000 in December»

*

«The unemployment rate was unchanged at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3 percent in January to $26.74, building on December’s solid 0.4 percent gain»

*

«That boosted the year-on-year increase in average hourly earnings to 2.9 percent, the largest rise since June 2009, from 2.7 percent in December»

*

«The acceleration in average hourly earnings growth punches a hole in the narrative that wage growth remains lackluster»

*

«The unemployment rate dropped seven-tenths of a percentage point in 2017 and economists expect it to hit 3.5 percent by the end of the year»

*

«President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans have cast the fiscal stimulus, which includes a reduction in the corporate income tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, as creating jobs and boosting economic growth»

*

«Wages probably also got a lift from the tax cut. Companies like Starbucks Corp and FedEx Corp have said they will use some of the savings from lower taxes to boost wages for workers»

*

«Further gains are expected in February when Walmart raises entry-level wages for hourly employees at its U.S. stores»

*

«Annual wage growth is now close to the 3 percent»

*

«The unemployment rate for African Americans shot up to 7.7 percent from 6.8 percent and is more than double that of whites»

*

«A weak dollar is also providing a boost to manufacturing by making U.S.-made goods more competitive on the international market»

* * * * * * * *

Una precisazione sulla disoccupazione degli afroamericani. Reuters sbaglia.

Black unemployment is at a record low. But there’s a lot more to the story. [Cnn]

«The unemployment rate for African American workers has never been lower — another sign of the strength of the economy.

Still, at 6.8%, black unemployment remains well above the rate for white people, at 3.7%. That disparity is deeply rooted and a continuing cause of concern for economists and advocates.

Take Columbia, Missouri. It has long had one of the lowest overall unemployment rates in the country. It’s now down to 2.5%, but black unemployment is far higher. In 2016, the last year for which such Census Bureau data is available, African American unemployment locally stood at 8%.»

*

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey. Black or African American.

Il tasso di disoccupazione era 7.9% a fine 2016, mentre è del 7.7% al gennaio 2018, dopo aver registrato un 6.8% a fine dicembre 2017.

È in discesa se considerato contro il suo valore un anno fa, in salita se considerato sul mese precedente.

*

«The unemployment rate for African Americans shot up to 7.7 percent from 6.8»

Reuters riporta in modo tendenzioso l’informazione. Essendo tutti i dati riportati anno su anno, non segnala come quello sui disoccupati negri sia confrontato mese su mese: una scorrettezza non da poco.

È diventato il motto di Reuters: una menzogna al giorno toglie Mr Trump di intorno….


Reuters. 2018-02-02. U.S. hiring accelerates; annual wage growth strongest since 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. job growth surged in January and wages increased further, recording their largest annual gain in more than 8-1/2 years, bolstering expectations that inflation will push higher this year as the labor market hits full employment.

Nonfarm payrolls jumped by 200,000 jobs last month after rising 160,000 in December, the Labor Department said on Friday.

The unemployment rate was unchanged at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent. Average hourly earnings rose 0.3 percent in January to $26.74, building on December’s solid 0.4 percent gain.

That boosted the year-on-year increase in average hourly earnings to 2.9 percent, the largest rise since June 2009, from 2.7 percent in December. Workers, however, put in fewer hours last month likely because of bitterly cold weather.

The average workweek fell to 34.3 hours, the shortest in four months, from 34.5 hours in December.

The robust employment report underscored the strong momentum in the economy, raising the possibility that the Federal Reserve could be a bit more aggressive in raising interest rates this year. The U.S. central bank has forecast three rate increases this year after raising borrowing costs three times in 2017.

“The acceleration in average hourly earnings growth punches a hole in the narrative that wage growth remains lackluster,” said Scott Anderson, chief economist at Bank of the West in San Francisco. “The Goldilocks view of inflation is being sorely challenged right now.”

Fed officials on Wednesday expressed optimism that inflation will rise toward the central bank’s target this year. Policymakers, who voted to keep interest rates unchanged, described the labor market as having “continued to strengthen,” and economic activity as “rising at a solid rate.”

U.S. financial markets have priced in a rate hike in March. Prices for U.S. Treasuries fell, with the yield on the benchmark 10-year note hitting a four-year high as investors worried about high inflation. The dollar rose against a basket of currencies on the data while U.S. stocks were trading lower.

The unemployment rate dropped seven-tenths of a percentage point in 2017 and economists expect it to hit 3.5 percent by the end of the year. Economists say job gains are being driven by buoyant domestic and global demand.

Some worry that the Trump administration’s $1.5 billion tax cut package passed by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress in December, in the biggest overhaul of the tax code in 30 years, could cause the economy, already operating near full capacity, to overheat.

President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans have cast the fiscal stimulus, which includes a reduction in the corporate income tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, as creating jobs and boosting economic growth.

“If the labor market is this strong and the tax cuts have yet to kick in, what will it look like when households and businesses actually start spending the money?” said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland Pennsylvania. “No good economy goes unpunished and the punishment may already be starting to be meted out.”

(Graphic: Wage growth in the U.S. accelerates – http://reut.rs/2EAEGey)

JOB GROWTH SEEN SLOWING

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast nonfarm payrolls rising by 180,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.1 percent. January’s jobs gains were above the monthly average of 192,000 over the past three months.

The economy needs to create 75,000 to 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population.

January marked the first full year of employment data under the Trump administration. Job growth averaged 176,000 per month under the current government, compared to 208,300 during last year of the Obama administration.

Job growth is expected to slow this year as the labor market hits full employment. Companies are already reporting difficulties finding qualified workers, which economists say will force some to significantly raise wages as they compete for scarce labor.

Wage growth last month came as increases in the minimum wage came into effect in 18 states in January. Wages probably also got a lift from the tax cut. Companies like Starbucks Corp (NASDAQ:SBUX) and FedEx Corp (NYSE:FDX) have said they will use some of the savings from lower taxes to boost wages for workers.

Further gains are expected in February when Walmart (NYSE:WMT) raises entry-level wages for hourly employees at its U.S. stores. Annual wage growth is now close to the 3 percent that economists say is needed to push inflation towards the Fed’s 2 percent target.

But the road to faster wage growth remains long. The year-on-year rise in average hourly earnings for production and non-supervisory workers was stuck at 2.4 percent in January.

A broader measure of unemployment, which includes people who want to work but have given up searching and those working part time because they cannot find full-time employment, rose one-tenth of a percentage point to 8.2 percent in January.

The unemployment rate for African Americans shot up to 7.7 percent from 6.8 percent and is more than double that of whites.

Manufacturing payrolls increased by 15,000 last month after rising 21,000 in December. The sector is being supported by strong domestic and international demand. A weak dollar is also providing a boost to manufacturing by making U.S.-made goods more competitive on the international market.

Hiring at construction sites picked up last month despite unseasonably cold weather. Construction payrolls increased by 36,000 jobs, adding to December’s 33,000 gain.

Retail employment rebounded and the government added jobs following two straight months of declines.

There were also increases in payrolls for professional and business services, leisure and hospitality as well as healthcare and social assistance.

Pubblicato in: Demografia, Devoluzione socialismo

Europa. Italia. Condanna a morte passata in giudicato.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-01-29.

 Neonato 001

Questo articolo tratta un tema aborrito dai liberal e dai socialisti ideologici. Per di più è scritto con una terminologia aliena dal politicamente corretto ed è corroborato da dati numerici inappugnabili. Gli idiosincrasici si astengano dalla lettura.

* * * * * * *

Il discorso tenuto dal Presidente Trump in occasione della Marcia Pro – Life di Washington ha suscitato un prevedibile coro di ingiuriosi epiteti. Gli diamo atto di aver dimostrato un coraggio del tutto fuori la norma.

«We have tens of thousands of people watching us right down the road — tens of thousands.  So I congratulate you.  And at least we picked a beautiful day.  You can’t get a more beautiful day.»

*

«Today, I’m honored and really proud to be the first President to stand with you here at the White House to address the 45th March for Life.  That’s very, very special — 45th March for Life»

*

«Today, tens of thousands of families, students, and patriots — and, really, just great citizens — gather here in our nation’s capital.  You come from many backgrounds, many places.  But you all come for one beautiful cause: to build a society where life is celebrated, protected, and cherished.»

*

«The March for Life is a movement born out of love.  You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation, and you love every child, born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God»

*

«Because of you, tens of thousands of Americans have been born and reached their full, God-given potential — because of you.»

*

«As you all know, Roe vs. Wade has resulted in some of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world.  For example, in the United States, it’s one of only seven countries to allow elective late-term abortions, along with China, North Korea, and others.»

*

«Americans are more and more pro-life. You see that all the time.  In fact, only 12 percent of Americans support abortion on demand at any time.»

* * * * * * *

In Occidente la Weltanschauung liberal e socialista ideologica ha demolito nel corso di decenni l’istituto giuridico del matrimonio, riducendolo al rango di coabitazione pro tempore, ne ha facilitato e favorito la disgregazione eliminando il reato di abbandono del tetto coniugale, ha reso eventi automatici separazioni e divorzio.

Un gran colpo è stato poi inferto dal femminismo nel momento in cui patrocina l’ideologia di una femmina che si realizza esclusivamente nel lavoro, avendo in uggia famiglia e prole. Il discrimine consta nel termine “esclusivamente”.

Come ciliegina sulla torta è stato introdotto l’uso dell’aborto quale mezzo di controllo delle nascite. Non solo è stato legalizzato un omicidio volontario, ma è stato reso atto amministrativo la cui decisione spetta esclusivamente alla femmina, come se il maschio non fosse intervenuto a determinare la gravidanza. Tutto ciò è infine stato denominato “diritto fondamentale delle femmine“: le femmine hanno ottenuto il diritto di assassinare il feto che portano in grembo. Concetto invero molto strano di diritto, cui tra l’altro non corrisponde dovere alcuno. Etica e morale non sono oggetto di approvazione a maggioranza. Con lo stesso identico metro furono varate le leggi razziali: varia soltanto l’oggetto da mettere a morte.

È stato un peana alla sterilità della mente, del cuore e dell’utero.

Il risultato è semplice.

Nel volgere di alcuni decenni oltre sessanta milione di feti sono stati uccisi: legalmente, ma altrettanto legalmente, obbedendo a leggi ed ordini, gli Ebrei erano soppressi nelle camere a gas.

* * * * * * *

I risultati sono sotto gli occhi di tutti coloro che vogliono vedere.

In Occidente, specie l’Europa, la stirpe autoctona sta andando verso la estinzione per carenza di nascite.

Il tasso di fertilità totale è 1.87 negli Stati Uniti, 1.50 in Spagna, 1.47 in Austria, 1.45 in Germania, 1.44 in Italia, 1.19 ad Hong Kong, e 0.83 a Singapore. Si noti però che il tasso di fertilità totale inerisce l’intera popolazione: nei paesi occidentali tale dato dovrebbe essere ridotto del 25% circa per ottenere il tasso di fertilità delle femmine autoctone.

*

Gli uffici di statistica europei si sono dati un gran bel da fare per inghirlandare questi dati. Istat per esempio, assume che ogni anno entrino in Italia circa 500,000 immigrati, così la curva attesa della popolazione nel tempo resta quasi costante.

Ma adesso che l’immigrazione sta andando ad esaurimento i nodi arrivano al pettine.

«the Italian government and Eurostat expect that by 2080 there will be 53 to 60 million inhabitants in Italy. This can only be true if the indigenous population is replenished with 25 to 30 million first-generation migrants and their offspring from Africa or Asia.»

*

«This can only be true if the indigenous population is replenished with 25 to 30 million first-generation migrants and their offspring from Africa or Asia»

*

«the Italians will be a minority by 2080»

* * * * * * *

Il problema non è soltanto etico e morale.

Confindustria bavarese ha recentemente rilasciato un report corredato da dati severi:

Germania. La demografia che stritola. Mancano tre milioni di lavoratori. – Vbw.

Gli industriali tedeschi hanno dovuto ammettere l’impossibilità di rimpiazzare con un immigrato illetterato professori di scuola inferiore ed universitari, giudici, dipendenti di banca ed istituti finanziari, nonché militari.

«Unsere aktuelle Studie Arbeitslandschaft 2040 zeigt: die Fachkräftesicherung bleibt eine zentrale Herausforderung für unser Land. …. Wenn die Unternehmen ihren Personalbedarf nicht decken können, leidet die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und in der Konsequenz die Wirtschaftskraft Deutschlands …. «Für das Jahr 2040 wird immer noch einen Fachkräftelücke in Höhe von 3,9 Millionen Arbeitskräften erwartet».

Sull’argomento è intervenuto anche Herr Weidmann, Governatore di Bundesbank.

Deutsche Bundesbank. Si moltiplicano i segnali di un disastro annunciato.

«The population in Germany will age in the coming years and fall significantly in the future …. This will also have an impact on the labour market …. the number of people of working age, ie between the ages of 15 and 74, will drop by nearly 2.5 million by 2025 …. the share of the population made up by older people aged between 55 and 74 will increase by 7 percentage points to roughly 40%»

*

«Al 2025, essendo andata in pensione la classe del baby-boom, serviranno circa 900,000 insegnati nelle scuole, 600,000 burocrati dell’amministrazione pubblica, 130,000 addetti alle banche ed alla gestione finanziaria.»

* * * * * * *


Di fronte a questi dati un gran numero di persone fa le spallucce e replica che sono per loro in non cale: tanto muoiono prima e non hanno prole, sono sterili.

Molte altre persone proclamano smargiassate, salvo poi doversi ricredere quando finiscono in un gerontocomio, sempre che ne abbiano i mezzi per permetterselo: ben difficilmente le rette sono inferiori 2,400 euro mensili, quasi trentamila euro l’anno. Quante illusione infrante quando ho portato persone in visita ai gerontocomi! Il personale ti cura “amorevolmente” fino a tanto che non è stato nominato l’amministratore di sostegno: poi inizia sulla terra l’inferno.

Gerontocomi: realtà che nessuno vorrebbe vedere e che si illude che non esistano.

Un’altra quota di persone conclude dicendo che solo l’eutanasia economica sarà un rimedio. Sicuramente le persone la mano delle quali non ha tremato nell’uccidere il proprio figlio non ha certo timore di suicidarsi. Ma questo è un rimedio personale, non certo collettivo.

Infine, ben pochi si rendono conto che se il futuro riserva un cospicuo ridimensionamento della numerosità della popolazione, gli effetti negativi si faranno sentire ben presto. Ne risulterà infatti alterato il fisiologico rapporto tra giovani e vecchi. I vecchi non possono accudire i vecchi: sono i giovani gli unici che possono accudir loro. Senza giovani, i vecchi muoiono di inedia.

Si pensi allora a quale razza di mondo lasciamo in eredità ai nostri giovani e poi meditiamo un po’ se non ce lo siamo meritati. Nella vita tantum dabis, tantum dabo.

In Germania ad oggi circa sette milioni e mezzo di giovani lavorano con contratti di Miniarbeit: ci si illude che muoiano dal desiderio di accudire i vecchi?

* * * * * * *

L’unico modo per uscire da questa cultura della morte è riprendere a fare figli.

Abrogare tutte le leggi che hanno distrutto l’istituto familiare è sicuramente un primo buon passo.

Introdurre un sistema stipendiale che reintroduca gli assegni familiari commensurati alla numerosità della prole sarebbe iniziativa meritoria.

Ma il problema non si estingue nel mero computo economico: è necessaria una mutazione di mentalità.

Deve morire questa Weltanschauung della morte.

Ed in questo una legge di tassazione su celibi e nubili potrebbe essere già un buon incentivo.


Zero Hedge. 2018-01-19. The Incredible Shrinking Population: By 2080, Italians Will Be A Minority In Their Own Nation

Though the official data shows that Italy’s population was growing until 2015 and according to a Eurostat projection it will stabilize within the next decades, the number of indigenous citizens is shrinking with an astonishing pace: every year by a quarter of a million, and this decline will accelerate. That means that the projected demographic growth can only be achieved by mass migration from Africa and Central Asia. Currently most migrants in Italy are from Romania but that number is declining rapidly. There will be less and less migration from other European countries because all European nations are in a dramatic demographic decline and because due to the prolonged Italian economic crisis the country is not a prime destination for people from other European states.

If the official Eurostat forecast is correct, then within 60 years or, taking into consideration the current pace of migration even sooner, 50% of Italy’s inhabitants will be of African or Asian descent. The figures found by our demographic-research team are by far not unique and government statisticians have the same numbers. Not only are the Italian and European authorities fully aware of this, but they seem to be executing a re-population program on such a monumental scale that will dwarf the Swedish mass migration experiment.

The Italian fertility rate (of indigenous and naturalized female citizens), i.e. the number of children per woman, is 1.34, which is far below the replacement level of 2.1. Much the same is true of the whole European continent. In this respect Europe resembles Japan. The difference is that while the Japanese authorities expect the country’s population to decline by a stunning 60% by the end of this century, the European governments predict a population growth. Why is that so? The answer is simple. The European leaders have opted for replenishing their nations with migrants whereas their Japanese counterparts have not. The Tokyo authorities refuse to replace their people with aliens, knowing full well that in the long run such a step would mean that Japan will only continue to exist in name.

To get a better understanding of the demographic development in Europe, the Gefira team has developed software for population simulation, called Cerberus 2.0. The program is fed with millions of records provided by Eurostat and National Statistic Agencies of different European member-states. For Italy, Cerberus 2.0 began its simulation with the 1985 population level, which is the first year for which a complete database concerning death and fertility rates is available. To calculate the population of the subsequent years, Cerberus 2.0 increased the age of all groups. The program uses the age-specific fertility and death rates for each year. The number of newborns can be calculated from the age-specific fertility rate multiplied by the number of women in each year. The program can determine very precisely how many newborns there are and how many people die in each age-group. Demographic prediction without migration is the most precise forecast and leaves us with little uncertainty about the plight of the Italian nation.

Starting with the year 1985, Cerberus 2.0 calculated that in 2016 Italy should have numbered 55 million people. Yet, according to Istat, the Italian National Institute of Statistics, there were 60 million inhabitants, which means that 5 million of them were immigrants. This fact was both admitted by Istat and predicted by our software.

For the predictions after 2016 Cerberus 2.0 uses the fertility and death rates from 2016. This simulation gives a very accurate estimation of the future Italian population.

2018-01-23__Italia_Demegr__001

Without a drastic change in the attitude to family life and reproduction in Western society, the fertility rates of native Europeans will not increase. A relative high number of children per family in some European countries are due to (especially) first generation immigrants. For example the overall (indigenous and immigrant) fertility rate in the Netherlands is 1.67 while the fertility rate of the women born in the Netherlands is a meager 1.5.

Life expectancy will not change significantly the overall demographic picture. The death rate for the cohort of people aged up to 65 in Western countries is so low that improvements in this respect are hardly possible. Life expectancy of seniors can increase a little, but that will not affect the growth of a population in any significant way. Fertility generally ends at the age of 55. Demographers know precisely the future of the western native populations, and yet there is little or no academic debate about their looming extinction.

There is a large group of social scientists who cling to the belief (and that’s the right word for it) that migrants from Morocco, Congo or Zimbabwe will absorb the Italian culture and blend into the Italian nation. The common reply to critics of immigration policies is that ”problems will disappear after the second generation” or that ”it will be like the US” where there are Italian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, African-Americans and so on. In other words, within one or two generations the new black Italians will behave as Italians, and no difference will be noticeable apart from their dark skin colour. A different opinion, based on tangible evidence, is deemed racist and treated accordingly. The discussion in “polite society” is focused on the size and speed of migration and the integration of the arrivals. Like it was in Galileo’s days, the believers have the upper hand over those who adduce observation and facts. The future US is not going to resemble the past US: the present US is already in the process of change. And yet, problems do not ”disappear after two generations”. France, which now has the third generation of third-world immigrants, faced ethnic riots over a decade ago, with the then President Sarkozy labeling the North African rioters ”scum”. Such conflicts can never be ironed out. Cultural clashes between Catholics and Protestant migrant communities in the US weren’t uncommon, yes, but they never evolved into the regular outbreaks of Islamic terrorism we are seeing in Europe today. Immigrants to the US were also never expected to benefit from a developed welfare system equivalent to the ones we have in Europe nowadays Mark Faber, a Swiss investor, was removed from many public functions for his remark that if Africans had founded America, the USA would look like Africa. While this seems a truism for ordinary people, the investor was forced to apologise by the politically correct community, high minded academics and journalists. Any person who believes mass migration from Africa will change the face and soul of the nation is labeled a racist.

With zero immigration and the current birth rate Cerberus 2.0 predicts that in 2080 the Italian population will be reduced to about 27 million people and in 2100 it will be further reduced by 60% to 20 million, which is the same result as the Japanese statisticians predict for Japan. Surely, the renowned economists, policymakers, and trend forecasters are aware of such a drastic change in Western societies or are they?

2018-01-23__Italia_Demegr__002

Despite these data, the Italian government and Eurostat expect that by 2080 there will be 53 to 60 million inhabitants in Italy. This can only be true if the indigenous population is replenished with 25 to 30 million first-generation migrants and their offspring from Africa or Asia. Even if migration does not accelerate, the Italians will be a minority by 2080. If we consider the migration rate of the last five years, this can happen even sooner.While the general public is unaware of its fate, top policy-makers know the numbers. German, Spanish, Norwegian, Irish and Dutch NGOs as well as the European Navy have ferried a shocking 600 thousand non-Western migrants from Libya to Italy since 2014. This has been done with the full complicity of the current Italian authorities. The grand replacement is no accident nor is it intended to be stopped. It is a well designed, devious program without the European natives having a say.

 


The White House. 2018-01-19. Remarks by President Trump to March for Life Participants and Pro-Life Leaders

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  That’s so nice.  Sit, please.  We have tens of thousands of people watching us right down the road — tens of thousands.  So I congratulate you.  And at least we picked a beautiful day.  You can’t get a more beautiful day.

I want to thank our Vice President, Mike Pence, for that wonderful introduction.  I also want to thank you and Karen for being true champions for life.  Thank you, and thank Karen.  (Applause.)

Today, I’m honored and really proud to be the first President to stand with you here at the White House to address the 45th March for Life.  That’s very, very special — 45th March for Life.  (Applause.)

And this is a truly remarkable group.  Today, tens of thousands of families, students, and patriots — and, really, just great citizens — gather here in our nation’s capital.  You come from many backgrounds, many places.  But you all come for one beautiful cause: to build a society where life is celebrated, protected, and cherished.

The March for Life is a movement born out of love.  You love your families, you love your neighbors, you love our nation, and you love every child, born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God.  (Applause.)

We know that life is the greatest miracle of all.  We see it in the eyes of every new mother who cradles that wonderful, innocent, and glorious newborn child in her loving arms.

I want to thank every person here today and all across our country who works with such big hearts and tireless devotion to make sure that parents have the care and support they need to choose life.  Because of you, tens of thousands of Americans have been born and reached their full, God-given potential — because of you.

You’re living witnesses of this year’s March for Life theme.  And that theme is: Love saves lives.  (Applause.)

As you all know, Roe vs. Wade has resulted in some of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world.  For example, in the United States, it’s one of only seven countries to allow elective late-term abortions, along with China, North Korea, and others.

Right now, in a number of states, the laws allow a baby to be born [torn] from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month. It is wrong; it has to change.

Americans are more and more pro-life.  You see that all the time.  In fact, only 12 percent of Americans support abortion on demand at any time.

Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life.  (Applause.)

Tomorrow will mark exactly one year since I took the oath of office.  And I will say, our country is doing really well.  Our economy is perhaps the best it’s ever been.  You look at the job numbers; you look at the companies pouring back into our country; you look at the stock market at an all-time high; unemployment, 17-year low.

Unemployment for African American workers, at the lowest mark in the history of our country.  Unemployment for Hispanic, at a record low in history.  Unemployment for women, think of this, at an 18-year low.  We’re really proud of what we’re doing.

And during my first week in office, I reinstated a policy first put in place by President Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City policy.  (Applause.)

I strongly supported the House of Representative’s Pain-Capable bill, which would end painful, late-term abortions nationwide.   And I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing.  (Applause.)

On the National Day of Prayer, I signed an executive order to protect religious liberty.  (Applause.)  Very proud of that.

Today, I’m announcing that we have just issued a new proposal to protect conscience rights and religious freedoms of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals.  So important.  (Applause.)

I have also just reversed the previous administration’s policy that restricted states’ efforts to direct Medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violate the law.  (Applause.)

We are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society.  But this movement can only succeed with the heart and the soul and the prayer of the people.

Here with us today is Marianne Donadio from Greensboro, North Carolina.  Where is Marianne?  Hello.  Come on up here, Marianne.  Come.  (Applause.)  Nice to see you, Marianne.

Marianne was 17 when she found out she was pregnant.  At first, she felt like she had no place to turn.  But when she told her parents, they responded with total love, total affection, total support.  Great parents?  Great?

DONADIO:  Wonderful parents, yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  I thought you were going to say that.  I had to be careful.  (Laughter.)

Marianne bravely chose life and soon gave birth to her son.  She named him Benedict, which means blessing.

Marianne was so grateful for her parents’ love and support that she felt called to serve those who were not as fortunate as her.  She joined with others in her community to start a maternity home to care for homeless women who were pregnant.  That’s great.  They named it “Room at the Inn.”

Today, Marianne and her husband, Don, are the parents of six beautiful children, and her eldest son Benedict and her daughter Maria join us here today.  Where are they?  (Applause.)  Come on over.  How are you?  That’s great.

Over the last 15 years, Room at the Inn has provided housing, childcare, counseling, education, and job training to more than 400 women.  Even more importantly, it has given them hope.  It has shown each woman that she is not forgotten, that she is not alone, and that she really now has a whole family of people who will help her succeed.

That hope is the true gift of this incredible movement that brings us together today.  It is the gift of friendship, the gift of mentorship, and the gift of encouragement, love, and support.  Those are beautiful words, and those are beautiful gifts.  And most importantly of all, it is the gift of life itself.

That is why we march.  That is why we pray.  And that is why we declare that America’s future will be filled with goodness, peace, joy, dignity, and life for every child of God.

Thank you to the March for Life — special, special people.  And we are with you all the way.  May God bless you and may God bless America.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Washington Post impazzito. Fa gli elogi di Trump.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-01-26.

2018-01-24__Trump__001

Il The Washington Post è da sempre la Linea Maginot dei liberal democratici, il loro Vallo Atlantico. Per i liberal quel giornale equivale ad Alamūt per i Nizariti oppure Masada per per gli Ebrei.

È fucina di idee, elaborazioni concettuali, corifeo del credo ideologico liberal.

Tempio solenne della più moderna disinformacija, ove neppure la data ed il nome della testata sono vere: è il mausoleo alle mezze verità. Posto ove la calunnia da mezzo è diventata fine: scopo di vita.

*

Ne parliamo così bene ed in modo così laudativo perché il cinque gennaio il The Washington Post ha pubblicato una notizia vera, controllata e controllabile.

«Under Trump, there were 1.8 million more people working in December than in January. Under Obama, 4.3 million fewer»

*

«Between January and December of last year, the country added 184,000 manufacturing jobs, the third-most of the presidents for whom data is available after Carter and John Kennedy»

*

«But we’re comparing first years here, and on that metric Trump consistently outperforms Obama»

*

«Unemployment is at a near two-decade low»

* * * * * * *

L’articolo pubblicato dal The Washington Post ha fatto clamore non tanto per il fatto riportato, quanto piuttosto per la fonte.

La eccezionalità dell’evento è testimoniato dal fatto che persino The White House ne ha preso atto, onorando quella testa di un Breve.


The Washington Post. 2018-01-05. Trump’s first-year jobs numbers were very, very good.

«On Friday morning, the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics released employment numbers for December, bookending President Trump’s first year in office. While the number of jobs added was lower than many analysts expected — up 148,000 — it was a continuation of the trend of growth seen over …» [Testo riportato parzialmente causa il copyright]

*


Townhall. 2018-01-05. WaPo: Trump’s First Year Job Numbers Are ‘Very, Very Good’

«Well, the first year jobs report card is in for the Trump administration—and it’s pretty solid. There’s now enough data to compare President Trump to his predecessors on jobs growth and it’s pretty solid. Even The Washington Post wrote that President Trump, who had the best jobs creating year since Bill Clinton, earned high marks with 1.8 million new jobs created. For December, nonfarm payroll jobs rose by 148,000, while private sector employment rose by 250,000; the latter boosted the Dow Jones to close above 25,000 for the first time yesterday.

Now, while The Post gives Trump good marks, they added the recession that hit Obama at the outset of his term impacted his numbers. Still, the publication admits that for year one, Trump outperformed Obama:

On Friday morning, the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics released employment numbers for December, bookending President Trump’s first year in office. While the number of jobs added was lower than many analysts expected — up 148,000 — it was a continuation of the trend of growth seen over the course of 2017.

With those numbers in hand, we can now compare Trump’s first year in office to his predecessors’. And in that comparison, Trump comes out looking pretty good.

[…]

Trump’s immediate predecessor, Barack Obama, saw a surge in the unemployment rate during his first year, a function of the effects of the recession that was just beginning to wind down. Relative to Obama’s first year in office, Trump’s was consistently very good.

For example, in the number of jobs created or lost over the year: Under Trump, there were 1.8 million more people working in December than in January. Under Obama, 4.3 million fewer.

[…]

But we’re comparing first years here, and on that metric Trump consistently outperforms Obama.

[…]

Trump’s consistently celebrated the economic numbers the country has seen during his time in office and the numbers from the BLS certainly give him some reason to do so. The question from this point, though, is how and if that economic growth can be sustained.

Now, that is the question that will be placed under a microscope by the news media. Frankly, it should. This is a fair question. At the same time, I’m confident that the new tax reform package, the most extensive in three decades, will create the job-creating environment to sustain this growth, even increase it. Consumer confidence is at a 17-year high. Unemployment is at a near two-decade low. Fourth quarter economic growth pretty much hit four percent. And over 100 companies did what Democrats thought they wouldn’t do: dole out bonuses to their workers. A lot of crow is being eaten by left-wingers, who decided to vote against the American worker, middle class, and economic growth in order to undercut the president. Taxes will go down for 80 percent of Americans. Oh, and Apple, who has been waiting to repatriate $250+ billion in overseas money, now sees a chance to do so. CEO Tim Cook always thought bringing that money back was good for the country, but added that the current tax rate was just too insane to make a move. Now, with Trump, the door is open.»

*


Cnn. 2018-01-05. Trump’s first-year jobs record was strong.

«Employers added more than 2 million jobs during 2017, making it a very good year for Donald Trump’s first in office. ….

But a good economy in a president’s first year is not guarantee of success.»

*


The White House. 2018-01-05. The Washington Post: “Trump’s first-year jobs numbers were very, very good”

«…we can now compare Trump’s first year in office to his predecessors’. And in that comparison, Trump comes out looking pretty good.»

Trump’s first-year jobs numbers were very, very good

By Philip Bump

The Washington Post

January 5, 2018

On Friday morning, the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics released employment numbers for December, bookending President Trump’s first year in office.

With those numbers in hand, we can now compare Trump’s first year in office to his predecessors’. And in that comparison, Trump comes out looking pretty good.

Relative to the figure from January in each president’s first year in office (excluding those presidents who took office after a death or resignation), Trump saw one of the biggest percentage-point drops in the unemployment rate.

Under Trump, there were 1.8 million more people working in December than in January. Under Obama, 4.3 million fewer.

Between January and December of last year, the country added 184,000 manufacturing jobs, the third-most of the presidents for whom data is available after Carter and John Kennedy.

Trump’s consistently celebrated the economic numbers the country has seen during his time in office and the numbers from the BLS certainly give him some reason to do so.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

EurUsd 1.2343. In marcia verso l’1.5.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-01-24. h 10:20.

2018-01-24__EuroUsd__001

2018-01-24__EuroUsd__002

Un anno fa il cambio Eur/Usd valeva 1.05. Questa mattina vale 1.2343.

Se è vero che l’Eurozona pagherà meno le importazioni è altrettanto vero che il suo export ne sarà ostacolato.

Non solo, ma tutte le attività economiche a livello mondiale, le quali rimettono gli utili ed i dividendi in Eurozona, rimetteranno cifre ridotte di poco meno del 20% rispetto lo scorso anno.

Il 2018 potrebbe essere una graticola per l’euro.

E se il rapporto Eur/Usd salisse a 1.5?