Germany: 8 Years After US Banking Collapse, Implosion of Megabank Poised to Decimate the Global Economy - by Jay Syrmopoulos

Deutsche Bank shares have fallen sharply on the news that German Chancellor Angela Merkel won’t bail-out the struggling bank, with shares falling by as much as six percent in early Monday trading, making it the worst performance since 1992. Since January, the bank’s shares have lost over 52 percent of their value.

Merkel also refused to provide financial assistance to Deutsche Bank in its legal battle with the U.S. Department of Justice. The chancellor made her position clear during talks with Deutsche CEO John Cryan, according to Focus magazine. The German-based lender may be fined up to $14 billion over its mortgage-backed securities business before the 2008 global crisis.

The German Chancellor also noted that Deutsche Bank will not be getting a bailout from the European Central Bank – the lender of last resort for European banks.

So could Germany be considering a bail-in instead of a bailout?

According to Investopedia:

    A bail-in is rescuing a financial institution on the brink of failure by making its creditors and depositors take a loss on their holdings. A bail-in is the opposite of a bail-out, which involves the rescue of a financial institution by external parties, typically governments using taxpayers money. Typically, bail-outs have been far more common than bail-ins, but in recent years after massive bail-outs some governements now require the investors and depositors in the bank to take a loss before taxpayers.

So the question becomes; are millions of Germans about to see their savings stolen by the government to prop up Deutsche Bank?

It’s not at all beyond the realm of possibility, as it has happened before in very recent history. To keep the bank solvent, the Bank of Cyprus took almost 40% of depositor’s funds – leaving customers with essentially nothing they could do about having their money stolen. Assets were frozen and ATM machines were not refilled.

Perhaps this explains why in mid-August Germans were told by their government to stockpile 10 days worth of water, and 5 days worth of food in case of a “national emergency” hitting the country.

Deutsche Bank’s unbelievably risky portfolio and it’s exposure to the derivative markets, which stands at over $40 trillion dollars, would undoubtedly cause exponentially more damage than the Lehman Brothers collapse did back in 2008, which precipitated the Great Recession of 2008.

Read more: 8 Years After US Banking Collapse, Implosion of Megabank Poised to Decimate the Global Economy

EUROZONE-ITALY: Why Issuing Fiscal Money Could Help Exit The Italian Crisis - by Enrico Grazzini

Fiscal Money is the most suitable instrument – and perhaps the only one – to overcome Italy’s serious and enduring crisis. The Fiscal Money project can be implemented both in Italy and other Eurozone countries to exit the liquidity trap by increasing aggregate demand. It can also help tackle the weakness of the Italian banking system which is stuck with a large amount of Non-Performing Loans (of around € 360 billion gross).

But first of all: what is Fiscal Money? This is not legal tender or a parallel currency but a financial instrument. By Fiscal Money we mean a euro-denominated bond issued by the state or a public (or semi-public) institution, covered by its fiscal value (i.e. valid for tax discount), maturing more than one year from issuance, but immediately negotiable on financial markets and so immediately convertible into legal currency. Fiscal Money is a bond fully guaranteed by the state as a tax rebate, even if non-refundable in euro by the state: in this way it does not increase public debt.

This bond is valid “to pay taxes ” only after a reasonable period of time, certainly more than one year from issuance. In fact, if the Fiscal Money were immediately used, then it would be like to a simple tax cut, but that would cause an immediate public deficit. Instead, thanks to its extended maturity of 2-3 years, Fiscal Money can be immediately monetized and can quickly increase spending power. Fiscal Money, as a matter of fact, advances the value of future tax revenues. So it becomes the oxygen required to exit the liquidity trap, to increase income and create new wealth thanks to the Keynesian multiplier.

There are several versions of Fiscal Money. The following are the two most important versions.

    Tax Discount Certificates (TDCs) are bonds for tax credit issued by the state and allocated for free to households and businesses; they are also used by government administrations as a means of payment. Their issue would have a huge economic and political impact. The issuance of these free government bonds would be comparable to a kind of helicopter money (see Milton Friedman, J. M. Keynes, Ben Bernanke). In fact, thanks to the issuance of this bond, the state can immediately increase the spending power of families, businesses and public administrations. It can increase demand and restart the economy, unchaining it from the liquidity trap. In order to increase consumption, this “free money” would be distributed to families in inverse proportion to income; and it would be allocated to firms in proportion to the number of employees so as to reduce the cost of labor and increase business competitiveness. In order to increase employment (and also private investments), the state can use TDCs to pay for new public works. A Mediobanca Securities report asserts that, thanks to TDCs, Italian GDP would grow twice as fast, while preserving the level of the public balance and the balance of trade. The TDCs will be sold by those (businesses and households) who need cash and will be purchased by those (businesses and households) which want to get tax discounts. The TDCs would be converted into euros and quickly spent: so the economy would enjoy new air. Thanks to economic growth, the debt/GDP ratio would decline. The state could increase cash in circulation in the real economy, boost consumption, counter the credit crunch, boost investments and jobs. The challenge is that the Keynesian multiplier will increase GDP insofar as the future fiscal revenues will offset the tax deficit that ceteris paribus will be generated by the issuance of the TDCs (see here).TDCs are not refundable in euro by the state: so, they do not constitute a financial liability for the public purse according to Eurostat criteria. Moreover, we foresee that TDCs will impact the economy in a very positive way, assuming that the fiscal multiplier exceeds one when (as currently in Italy and in the Eurozone) capital and labor resources are greatly underutilized.

    Bonds issued by the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti with the option to be converted into tax rebates. The Italian Cassa Depositi e Prestiti – which is a non-state company from a legal point of view, even if it is 80+ percent owned by the state – could get new resources to develop the Italian economy without increasing government debt. This version of Fiscal Money provides that CDP signs an agreement with the fiscal authorities and issues bonds maturing in the long term (eg. 10-20 years) with the option that in certain time slots they can be converted into tax rebates at their nominal value. The CDP bonds would not worsen the public budget because CDP sits outside the scope of government accounts. The bondholders would be fully guaranteed by the tax value of the CDP bonds, while the state would get credit from CDP for the bonds converted into tax rebates, and thus would not worsen its deficit. Thanks to these convertible bonds, CDP could collect some billion (or some tens of billion) in the financial market at low cost. CDP could use these new resources to implement industrial policies and to backstop the banking system. For instance, CDP could provide guarantees on non-performing loans. Similarly, the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations in France and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau in Germany, with an ownership structure similar to that of the CDP, and other national development banks could issue this type of Fiscal Money to give a boost to the overall domestic economy.

Read more: Why Issuing Fiscal Money Could Help Exit The Italian Crisis

US: Corruption Unchained - by Frank Vogl

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced that it will not seek a new trial of the former Governor of the state of Virginia, Robert McDonnell and his wife, Maureen McDonnell on charges of corruption.

A jury had found them both guilty in 2014 for receiving gifts of over $175,000 from a businessman. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a June 2016 ruling.

Government prosecutors, who could have decided to try the case again, announced on September 7th:

“After carefully considering the Supreme Court’s recent decision and the principles of federal prosecution, we have made the decision not to pursue the case further.”

As a result, prosecuting corruption by U.S. public officials has just become far more difficult.

Lobbyists and politicians can feel more confident that their myriad exchanges and relationships are less likely to lead to corruption prosecutions.

The United States, once an admirable leader on combatting political corruption, has now fallen into line with the lax standards of business-political relationships that pervade many other countries.

While left-wing Democratic politicians, notably Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, rail against corruption in U.S. politics, the mainstream Democratic Party officials at the helm of the Justice Department have accepted an increasingly narrow definition of political corruption.

The Supreme Court concluded that the McDonnells did nothing criminally wrong when Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, Sr., gave them a gold Rolex watch, a Ferrari, $50,000 in financial aid for their beach house and a significant portion of the costs of their daughter’s wedding.

Newspaper readers may be forgiven for believing this is the kind of political corruption found in Third World or former Soviet countries – but it is perfectly legal in the United States today.

Read more: US: Corruption Unchained - The Globalist

Global Competitiveness: 'The Netherlands rises again in global competitiveness ranking'

The Netherlands is the most competitive country within the European Union, the NRC said on Tuesday, quoting the latest Global Competitiveness Index by the World Economic Forum.

The ranking puts the Netherlands in fourth place behind Switzerland, the US and Singapore, a rise of one place over last year’s ranking, the NRC said.

The ranking is not yet available on the forum’s website. Germany was in fourth place last year.

The Netherlands thanks its high ranking to its healthcare, education system, efficient infrastructure, and focus on innovation and technology, the paper quotes the report as saying.

Read more: 'The Netherlands rises again in global competitiveness ranking' - DutchNews.nl

USA: The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War- by Robert Crawford

To start with a quick overview of our present situation. Most of you are familiar with this recent history; yet, it bears repeating. For 15 years now, since 2001, the US has been at war.

The longest single battlefield has been the war in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan Tribal Areas. It has spanned two administrations. The Taliban remains undefeated and is gaining ground and war lords pursue their own political and military agendas.

The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, now almost universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest military mistakes in recent times, has virtually destroyed a country that had been created by the imperial powers during WWI. Warfare between a Shia dominated Iraqi government and the Sunnis—now mostly controlled by ISIS—has become a struggle for territory and cities. This war has been internationalized.

The Syrian civil war, which has become another international war, continues its rising death toll and propels the greatest refugee crisis since WWII.

The U.S., British and French air war on Gadhafi’s Libya in 2011 has resulted in another failed state, ongoing civil war, and more U.S. and allied bombing.

Insurgencies in Yemen, Somalia, northern Nigeria, along with military attempts to suppress them continue to cause huge numbers of civilian casualties and further displacement. These conflicts have also been internationalized.

Since 2006, the Israeli siege of Gaza and the essentially one-sided warfare against Hamas, culminating in the brutal assault of 2014, has caused extraordinary suffering. The government-backed settler land grab in the West Bank makes the prospects of a just peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians more remote. In all these wars, civilians are the primary victims.

As you know, the US is neck deep in this descent into perpetual and proliferating warfare. Historian Andrew Bacevich calls it America’s WWIV. Despite repeated military failures and negative unanticipated consequences, the US still pursues the illusion that it can shape the contemporary Middle East through a combination of drone warfare, bombing, Special Operations and other covert actions. It continues to invest heavily in the militaries of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and other U.S. allies.

American military dominance (which must be distinguished from effectiveness) is the most fundamental fact of today’s international order. The U.S., after all, maintains a projection of global power with hundreds of thousands troops stationed abroad” who occupy or use “some 761 ‘sites’ in 39 countries”—what critic Chalmers Johnson called “an empire of bases.”

Anyone with eyes wide open must come to this topic with more questions than answers—to say nothing about the burden of grief and even despair that many of us carry. I continue to struggle with both the questions and the difficult emotions.

For those of us hoping for a more peaceful world and a more peaceful American foreign policy, the core political question—what is to be done?—is perplexing. As long as American soldiers are not dying in significant numbers, Americans, for the most part, seem uninterested—and certainly uniformed—about US wars and their consequences. The corporate controlled media are no help; instead, they do everything possible to hinder understanding and serious debate. Historical amnesia is a particularly American affliction. Each of these obstacles are serious problems we need to confront.

My topic, here, is the political rhetoric of the 2016 presidential election. Even though it is a small part of the puzzle, the rhetoric of the presidential candidates reveals a great deal about the historical moment and the larger forces that shape this nation’s perpetual wars.

My first contention is that there is an ideology of militarism that dominates our political culture and it is being perpetuated by both the Democratic and Republican nominees for president, despite their significant differences.

We know or should know how militarist ideology exploits our fears of terrorism, and perpetuates the illusion that our safety depends on the worldwide projection and use of military power.

We know or should know that this ideology was developed and honed throughout the Cold War and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the national security establishment had to find a new enemy to justify its continued rule.

We know or should know that militarism is an ideology that denies its own contributions to the continual escalation of violence in the Middle East and to terrorist attacks in the West.

Note EU-Digest: What is probably most amazing, reading the above report, is that the EU member states don't need to be geniuses to figure out that something in the equation related to their US servitude, when it comes to US foreign and military policies, has not only been a complete failure, but also a financial drain on their budgets. Europe, and specially the EU needs to seriously start thinking about developing its own more independent foreign policy and stop supporting US military adventures whereever they may occur.  

Read more: The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War

Brexit: david Cameron and Theresa May not on the same wave-length

David Cameron 'let down' by Theresa May, says former PM aide - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37465452

Insurance Industry: Technology influencing profitability of Insurance Industry

THE INSURTECH REPORT: How financial technology firms are helping — and disrupting — the nearly $5 trillion insurance industry http://flip.it/2vyCNi

Saudi Arabia: Money, not morality speaks in America, specially when it concerns Weapons Industry

US Senate refuses to block Saudi Arabia arms sale http://flip.it/2KqDyH

Religion: Prayer is good - but is often misused by politicians

When a County Board's Prayer Goes Too Far - Bloomberg View http://flip.it/dF0_KJ

Banking industry: the financial and banking industry still requires far more scrutiny

The Wells Fargo CEO's Mea Culpa http://flip.it/MLQ5tR

Global Economic Highlights from a US Perspective

The 10 most important things in the world right now http://flip.it/xyzLR1

USA - green energy from waste in Texas

Waste disposal system in Denton,Texas employing new technique to generate electricity for 1,600 homes in the city. http://aje.io/d5vz

USA: Political corruption out of control

US: Corruption Unchained By Frank Vogl It’s becoming ever harder to go after corrupt politicians and lobbyists in the United States. It’s becoming ever harder to go after corrupt politicians and lobbyists in the United States. ©2015 The Globalist ALL RIGHTS RESERVED You can join the conversation about this story on the original post on theglobalist.com. http://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-political-corruption-lobbyists-supreme-court/#noredirect Powered by Como: http://www.como.com

Turkmenistan: New modern Airport

Turkmenistan opens $2bn bird-shaped international airport http://f24.my/2cEN40x

TTIP:EU-US Trade Negotiations - "EU beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing” - Why the Rush? - by Stephan Richter

Long before the term “transatlantic” became fashionable on the global stage, from 1984 onward I started and chaired the TransAtlantic Futures Forum, a Washington-based discussion forum that convened well over 150 times.

And yet, it is precisely my more than three decades’ worth of living and working experience in the U.S. capital that tells me that Europe should resist the rush-cum-charm-offensive currently laid on by the Obama Administration.

Against ever longer odds, it still wants to get a deal over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) done over the next few months.

As a European, I have the distinct feeling that I have seen this movie before. Remember the disastrous Iraq invasion which supposedly could not wait for another day?

The German and the French governments at the time were very smart and courageous to counsel against the headlong rush into what everybody now recognizes has indeed turned out to be a mega-calamity.

Therefore, a good rule of thumb is this: Whenever the U.S. government is keen to rush the political calendar, be extra careful.

What about the argument raised by TTIP advocates that the world economy is very brittle – and urgently needs a boost? And that such a boost can be delivered via the TTIP?

That certainly sounds very compelling – until you look at the actual numbers. The presumed benefits resulting from a deal, measured in terms of their contribution to U.S., European or global GDP, are much smaller than often advertised.

Moreover, the impression the public is deliberately left with is that the deal would produce economic growth of the stated GDP range each year upon taking effect.

In reality, the projected growth impact would materialize, like a trickle, only over time, and even then probably not for at least another decade.

This is no real surprise. After more than six decades of ever more intense cooperation, the transatlantic trade and investment relationship is already very deep. Any further progress, by definition, must be quite marginal.

As the current legal troubles of two of today’s foremost U.S. corporate icons underscore, U.S. corporations have very little appreciation of the customs of the European market and of European societies.

All these titans of American business actually care about is to take the money they can milk out of European consumers – and run.

Forget all the silly recitations about chickens etc. with which TTIP’s faithful boosters try to belittle European citizens’ very legitimate concerns. The ruthless and callously selfish stance of Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon speak clear enough a language.

In the United States, the privacy rights of citizens, despite all the advertising and grand speechifying on that subject matter, count for very little.

The opposite is the case in Europe, largely due to the twin experiences of Nazism and Communism. Privacy matters a great deal there.

When Mark Zuckerberg wants it to be known that he truly, deeply cares about human relationships, you know you are in deep trouble. Let’s not forget that he founded Facebook because he couldn’t get a date.

These are not companies that care about Europe. What they care about is to carry a big stick – and swing it against anybody who dares to stand in their way.

That is hardly an enticement for any clear-headed European to make common cause with a corporatist democracy à la the United States where corporations, due to the inner workings of the campaign finance system, have the upper hand on all political matters.

Simply put, it is not credible for Europeans to sign a far-reaching transatlantic trade deal until these corporate issues are ironed out.

At this stage, and with the quite sad and disappointing track record the dominant U.S. corporations of our time have built up in Europe, it is a matter of confidence building, not of trusting.

Getting that confidence rebuilt will take a lot of effort – and hence time.

In short, Europeans would be well-advised to take certain actions when true goodwill has been established and when the evidence is in, but not before.

Read more: TTIP: Why the Rush? - The Globali

Global Corporate Takeover: 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined

 69 of top 100 economic entities are corporations not countries

Walmart, Apple, Shell richer than Russia, Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands

British government has been told: stop supporting your corporations, support your people

Corporations have increased their wealth vis-à-vis countries according to new figures released by Global Justice Now.

The campaign group found that 69 of the world’s top economic entities are corporations rather than countries in 2015*. They also discovered that the world’s top 10 corporations – a list that includes Walmart, Shell and Apple – have a combined revenue of more than the 180 ‘poorest’ countries combined in the list which include Ireland, Indonesia, Israel, Colombia, Greece, South Africa, Iraq and Vietnam.  

The figures are worse than last year, when 63 of the top economic entities were corporations. When looking at the top 200 economic entities, the figures are even more extreme, with 153 being corporations.

Global Justice Now released the figures in order to increase pressure on the British government ahead of a UN working group, led by Ecuador, established to draw up a binding treaty to ensure transnational corporations abide by the full range of human rights responsibilities. Campaigners are calling for the treaty to be legally enforceable at a national and global level. Britain doesn’t support the process, and has repeatedly vetoed and opposed such proposal in the past.  

Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said:

“The vast wealth and power of corporations is at the heart of so many of the world’s problems – like inequality and climate change. The drive for short-term profits today seems to trump basic human rights for millions of people on the planet. These figures show the problem is getting worse.

“The UK government has facilitated this rise in corporate power – through tax structures, trade deals and even aid programmes that help big business. Their wholehearted support for the US-EU trade deal TTIP, is just the latest example of government help to big business. Disgracefully it also routinely opposes the call of developing countries to hold corporations to account for their human rights impacts at the UN. That’s why today we’re joining campaigns from across the world to tell the British government to stop blocking this international demand for justice.”

Read more: 10 biggest corporations make more money than most countries in the world combined | Global Justice Now

US Economy: Big Business Is Killing Innovation in the U.S

Botanists define a rheophyte as an aquatic plant that thrives in swift-moving water. Coming from the Greek word rhéos, meaning a flow or stream, the term describes plants with wide roots and flexible stalks, well adapted to strong currents rather than a pond’s or pasture’s stillness. For most of the 20th century, U.S. lawmakers worked to maintain just these sorts of conditions for the U.S. economy—a dynamic system, briskly flowing, that forced firms to adapt to the unpredictable currents of the free market or be washed away.

In the past few decades, however, the economy has come to resemble something more like a stagnant pool. Entrepreneurship, as measured by the rate of new-business formation, has declined in each decade since the 1970s, and adults under 35 (a?k?a Millennials) are on track to be the least entrepreneurial generation on record.

This decline in dynamism has coincided with the rise of extraordinarily large and profitable firms that look discomfortingly like the monopolies and oligopolies of the 19th century. American strip malls and yellow pages used to brim with new small businesses. But today, in a lot where several mom-and-pop shops might once have opened, Walmart spawns another superstore. In almost every sector of the economy—including manufacturing, construction, retail, and the entire service sector—the big companies are getting bigger.

In the US the share of all businesses that are new firms, meanwhile, has fallen by 50 percent since 1978. According to the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank dedicated to advancing the ideals of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, “markets are now more concentrated and less competitive than at any point since the Gilded Age.”

Read more: Big Business Is Killing Innovation in the U.S. - The Atlantic

The end Times: The Simple Act of Pushing a Button

“Since the appearance of visible life on Earth, 380 million years had to elapse in order for a butterfly to learn how to fly, 180 million years to create a rose with no other commitment than to be beautiful, and four geological eras in order for us human beings to be able to sing better than birds, and to be able to die from love. It is not honorable for the human talent, in the golden age of science, to have conceived the way for such an ancient and colossal process to return to the nothingness from which it came through the simple act of pushing a button.”

I recently came across this quotation by the great Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the author of One Hundred Years of Solitude and recipient of the 1982 Nobel Prize for Literature. The quotation is from a 1986 speech by Garcia Marquez entitled “The Cataclysm of Damocles.” In the short quotation, he captures what needs to be said about nuclear weapons succinctly, poetically and beautifully. With a few deft literary brushstrokes, he shows that the journey of life from nothingness to now could be ended with no more than “the simple act of pushing a button.”

The button is a metaphor for setting in motion a nuclear war, which could happen by miscalculation, mistake or malice. Of course, it matters whose finger is on the button, but it matters even more that anyone’s finger is on the button. There are not good fingers and bad fingers resting on the button. No one is stable enough, rational enough, sane enough, or wise enough to trust with deciding to push the nuclear button. It is madness to leave the door open to the possibility of “a return to nothingness.”

On one side of the ledger is everything natural and extraordinary about life with its long evolution bringing us to the present and poised to carry its processes forward into the future. On the other side of the ledger is “the button,” capable of bringing most life on the planet to a screeching halt. Also on this side of the ledger are those people who remain ignorant or apathetic to the nuclear dangers confronting humanity.

We all need to recognize what is at stake and choose a side. Put simply, do you stand with life and the processes of nature that have brought such beauty and diversity to our world, or do you stand with the destructive products of science that have brought us to the precipice of annihilation? We must each make a choice.

I fear too many of us are not awakened to the seriousness and risks of the unfolding situation. We are taken in by the techno-talk that amplifies the messages of national security linked to the button. Nuclear deterrence is no more than a hypothesis about human psychology and behavior. It does not protect people from a nuclear attack. It is unproven and unprovable. Nuclear deterrence may or may not work, but we know that it cannot provide physical protection against a nuclear attack. Those who believe in it, do so at their own peril and at our common peril.

The possibility of “a return to nothingness” is too great a risk to take. We must put down the nuclear-armed gun. We must dismantle the button and the potential annihilation it represents. We must listen to our hearts and end the nuclear insanity by ending the nuclear weapons era. If we fail to act with engaged hearts, we will continue to stand at the precipice of annihilation – the precipice of a world without butterflies or beautiful roses, without birds or humans. The golden age of science will come to an end as a triumph of cataclysmic devastation, which will be humanity’s most enduring failure.

Reading, discussing and understanding the meaning of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s short quotation should be required of every schoolchild, every citizen, and every leader of every country.

The Simple Act of Pushing a Button

Cell Phone Danger: U.S. regulator tells air passengers not to turn on Galaxy Note 7 phones

 Airline passengers should not turn on or charge their Samsung Electronics Co Ltd Galaxy Note 7 smartphones during flights or stow them in checked baggage due to concerns over the phone's fire-prone batteries, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said.

In a statement on Thursday, the FAA said it "strongly advises" passengers to follow its guidance "in light of recent incidents and concerns raised by Samsung about its Galaxy Note 7 devices."

The South Korean manufacturer announced last week it was recalling all Galaxy Note 7 smartphones equipped with batteries it has found to be prone to catch fire.

Delta Air Lines Inc, the No.2 U.S. airline by passenger traffic, said it is still studying the issue.

"Delta is in constant contact with the FAA and other bodies in its run of business as a global airline. We will comply with any directive and are studying this matter. Safety and security is always Delta’s top priority," spokesman Morgan Durrant said in a statement,



Read more: U.S. regulator tells air passengers not to turn on Galaxy Note 7 phones

REFUGEES : UNICEF Report Finds Half of All Refugees Are Now Children - by Alexander Smith

Children now make up nearly half of the world's refugee population, according to a new report from the United Nations children agency.

The report published Wednesday comes not long after the image of a bloodied 5-year-old named Omran Daqneesh refocused international attention on the conflict in Syria, which has created millions of refugees.

"We must not forget that each child, each picture, represents many millions of children in danger at home — and many millions of children who have left their homes," the UNICEF report noted.

Read more: UNICEF Report Finds Half of All Refugees Are Now Children - NBC News

The Netherlands: "Turkish PM Erdogan should first look at messTurkey is in before criticising other nations",says Dutch Citizen from Turkish descent

Turkey gone adrift?

The Turkish Foreign Ministry criticized Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte Tuesday September 5, for his recent remarks about   what he called "Turkish people" living in the Netherlands, saying the prime minister generalized a single incident to reach an overall conclusion.

Turkish foreign minister Tanju Bilgiç, who as a Dutch member of parliament said,"should be better informed", keeps referring in his statements to Turkish people living in the Netherlands", but  they are in fact Dutch Citizens from Turkish descent, some even second and third generation descent.

Unfortunately, if Mr Tanju Bilgiç and Mr. Erdogan like it or not, the people in question are Dutch citizens and automatically fall under Dutch law.

Obviously,  as the Dutch PM Rutte also said, if any Dutch Citizen from foreign descent feels more attracted and loyal to his former country of origin and has difficulty to integrate in his new home country, he is always free to go.

The Turkish Foreign Minister spokesperson Tanju Bilgiç, however, said that the remarks made by the Dutch prime minister on the Dutch TV channel NPO 1, about the Turkish nation and people, are not appropriate for a prime minister to make, adding that Rutte used an isolated incident and turned it into a precedent about "Turkish people" living in Netherlands.

Tanju Bilgiç also noted "in a time where xenophobic statements and attacks are on the rise, these remarks will harm our efforts to help Turkish people participate in the social life of the country they reside".

Several non-demonstrating Dutch citizens of Turkish origin, who were also interviewed afterwards on Dutch TV and Radio stations, said  they could not believe the arrogance of the Turkish government in trying to meddle in not only Dutch government affairs, but also in those of many other EU bations.

One person interviewed noted: ""why doesn't Prime Minister Erdogan look at the mess he created in Turkey before being critical of other countries ? "

In the meantime Dutch police on Monday, September 4, detained a 42-year-old Dutchman of Turkish descent for alleged death threats and hate speech after the failed Turkish coup in July, which has ratcheted up tension among Dutch citizens from Turkish descent in the Netherlands. 

EU-Digest

Retail: A cashless society? Some retailers turn noses up at currency

Stroll into the airy Kit and Ace store on Woodward Avenue in Detroit and you're struck by the minimalist style that highlights the brand's comfortable, street-smart clothing line.

But if you wanted to buy a scarf, maybe one that's on sale for about $50, don't bother paying with cash. The store won't take your Benjamins — or Hamiltons, Jacksons or Grants. 

It's nothing personal. It's a no-cash policy that has been adopted at other Kit and Ace stores, too.

I don't imagine anyone who favors don't-look-like-you're-trying-too-hard fashion is going to  care too much if they can't spend actual cash.  But the oddity of a no-cash policy does make you think. How much closer, really, are we to a cashless society? Are we looking at the beginning of a more minimalist approach to money?

"I think we are sort of on the edge of seeing more and more businesses that don't take cash," said Jay Zagorsky, economist and research scientist at Ohio State University.

Zagorsky has been talking about a transition to a cashless society for some time. He points out that some parking lots on university campuses and elsewhere no longer take cash. Many airlines no longer let you pull out cash to buy snacks or drinks because it's too difficult to make change.

Zagorsky sees a time, maybe in a few years, where more retailers do not accept cash, which could make it harder on poor families who do not have bank accounts.
Quirky brand

Ashiyana Somlai-Maharjan, a rep for Kit and Ace, said the Vancouver, B.C.-based retailer has had a no-cash policy since it opened its doors. She said the policy has not been a detriment to sales.

"Our shops are designed to be a seamless shopping experience. From the strategic layout of our merchandise, to clearly visible hangtags, to no phones on site, and cashless registers," said Somlai-Maharjan.

The retailer does other quirky things: Stores do not list telephone numbers online, and locations often hold "supper club" events for key influencers of the "creative class."

But that no-cash policy? It's still a real outlie

Read more: A cashless society? Some retailers turn noses up at currency

US Economy: Americans' debt problems have evolved - by Russ Wiles

Debt may be an old problem, but what's getting us into hot water has certainly changed since the roaring '20s — and it might not bode well for the growing rich-poor gap our country faces.

Many Americans owe more than they own, and the situation intensified during the recession and its aftermath. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office puts this into perspective. "The share of families in debt ... remained almost unchanged between 1989 and 2007 and then increased 50% between 2007 and 2013," the report said.

Housing and student-loan debts have been the main problem areas. Among U.S. households that had a negative net worth in 2007, 56% had student loan balances, averaging $29,000. Six years later, that jumped to 64%, owing $41,000 on average.

Housing debts have been worse. Only 3% of negative-worth families in 2007 had negative home equity, too, averaging $16,000. But by 2013, 19% owed an average of $45,000 more on their mortgages than their homes were worth.

Yet one type of debt that hasn't plagued low- and moderate-income families is debt tied to stock investing. The CBO report didn't even mention it. This is a notable departure from the 1920s, when reckless borrowing by plenty of mainstream Americans pushed up stock prices to overheated levels, contributing to the crash of 1929 that ushered in the Great Depression.

That was a period when college education and home ownership were off-limits to large segments of the population.

"Ordinary men and women invested growing sums in stocks and bonds," the Federal Reserve recalls in an online history. "Purchasers put down a fraction of the price, typically 10%, and borrowed the rest." When the market boom turned to bust, millions of speculators got crushed.

Nothing like that scenario played out in the recession of 2007-2009. Roughly half of all Americans don't own any stocks. Substantially fewer buy shares with borrowed funds.

Yet stock ownership, or the lack thereof, has contributed to the widening rich-poor divide: Wealthier Americans, who largely stayed in the market, were in a position to profit when stocks recovered. People of moderate means largely stayed on the sidelines and missed out.

Two other reports out recently offer different glimpses into the state of Americans' finances.

Talking money less taboo

Personal wealth remains a socially awkward topic to discuss, but perhaps it's becoming less so.

The deVere Group, polled 830 people with investible assets of $1.3 million or more.  Forty-three percent ranked personal finance as the most  difficult subject to discuss with family, friends and colleagues. That beat out politics (28%), sex (14%), religion (10%) and health (5%).

However, this latest survey marks a notable change from a similar poll two years ago, when 61% of high-net-worth clients cited money as the most touchy topic.

The latest results suggest that feelings of embarrassment or guilt tied to wealth, especially among the affluent, might be eroding. This could reflect the reality that many business leaders, politicians, celebrities, professional athletes and others can't avoid having their finances discussed in the open, said deVere CEO Nigel Green. "The rise of the digital age, and social media in particular, we believe, play an important part in this trend that is responsible for shifting the money taboo," he said.

More relaxed attitudes might be favorable anyway, as increased discussion of personal-finance issues could help people better achieve their goals and get better deals on financial transactions, Green said.

Read more: Americans' debt problems have evolved

USA: Population Census USA

The Rise of the American 'Others' http://flip.it/zOlRLy