| | | | The End of the Road for the Merkel Era? | | | The collapse of coalition talks in Germany is a bad sign for Chancellor Angela Merkel's political future – and for Europe's, too, argues Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. "If, as now seems distinctly possible, the end of the Merkel era is within sight, Europe will be in a new and dangerous situation," Rachman writes. "The EU-optimists in Brussels and Paris will hope that a new German leader might inject some dynamism into the European project, ditching the cautious, incremental approach that Ms Merkel has displayed over the euro. "But, in fact, the opposite is more likely to happen. The current tenor of German politics suggests that a new chancellor in Berlin is far less likely than Ms Merkel to take bold risks for Europe. The spoilers in the current coalition negotiations are the Free Democrats, who are strongly opposed to visionary ideas for deeper European fiscal integration." "Ms Merkel's Germany was the rock of political and economic stability on which the EU hoped to build. If even Germany no longer looks solid and predictable, the whole of the European project will be back in trouble." | | How Trump Is Bringing GOP, Democrats Together: Glasser | | | President Trump vowed in his election victory speech last November to unite America. And at least as far as foreign policy is concerned, he has managed to unite senators from both parties. Just not how he might have hoped, suggests Susan Glasser for Politico EU. "In more than two decades of observing Capitol Hill, I can't remember a comparable moment when the generally staid Foreign Relations panel has been so assertive toward the president, especially given that Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party. To do so, you'd probably have to reach all the way back to the Vietnam era, and the skeptical hearings about the war held by the late, legendary Chairman William Fulbright," Glasser writes. "Some skepticism is certainly in order here. Congress isn't about to wrest control of nukes -- or any other major levers of international power -- away from the commander-in-chief anytime soon. Despite post-Vietnam efforts to rein in the imperial presidency, the executive branch retains nearly all the control over American foreign policy. And many members of Congress are just as happy to punt when it comes to taking responsibility for decisions of war and peace that might prove unpopular with voters…" "But the bipartisan talk of constraining and at times openly contradicting the president is something genuinely different about Trump's Washington, and it already extends to a wide range of issues on the foreign policy front -- a contrast to the fractured politics of such domestic issues as health care and taxes, where consensus is as elusive as the election results would suggest." | | No, Mugabe's Ouster Isn't Really About Change | | | The military takeover in Zimbabwe has raised hopes that the country can turn the page on Robert Mugabe's rule and begin a series of reforms. But the truth is that despite the military's move, it isn't really interested in change – and it certainly didn't try to oust Mugabe for the people's sake, argues Mondli Zondo in South Africa's Mail and Guardian. "This is not about seeking a change in direction from the downward slope Zimbabwe has been on but rather, this is a factional battle of the Zimbabwe African National Union -- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) playing itself out publicly," Zondo writes. "Since [former Vice President Emmerson] Mnangagwa's sacking, his supporters in the ruling party including leaders in the military have been incensed by the purging of those who have fallen out of favour with Mugabe and what we see now is a retaliation. "The military doesn't seek regime change in Zimbabwe they simply want a different leader from the same party. For decades, Mnangagwa has been an ally of the president and his record reveals that he isn't too different from Mugabe. So no, this is not about change." | | How the GOP Tax Plan Double Dings Americans | | | Any sane debate over the analysis being produced on the Republican tax proposal "would have sunk the plan weeks ago," writes Jared Bernstein in the Washington Post. But "the will of wealthy, conservative donors and the perceived need among Republicans to post a win, any win, are thwarting the will of the majority." "Surely, the most remarkable finding is this: According to nonpartisan analysis, by the time it's fully phased in, the Senate plan increases taxes, on average, on most taxpayers, including all households with incomes under $75,000. This is partly because the individual tax cuts for moderate-income folks phase out, while the corporate and estate tax cuts for the wealthy live on," Bernstein writes. "As I argued at the beginning of this debate, the play among cynical conservatives is to use the deficits they're creating to insist on spending cuts later (and 'later' is almost here). So, low- and moderate-income families get hit twice. They get dinged by the plan itself, and then again by the spending cuts it enforces down the road." | | China's Unhealthy Numbers Fixation | | | China's leaders have long had an unhealthy fixation with the country's headline growth figures. It's time for President Xi Jinping to scrap the annual GDP target, writes William Pesek for the Nikkei Asian Review. "This arbitrary goal [currently set at 6.5 percent] is the root of all the excessive credit and debt surging through the world's second-biggest economy. The headlong drive year after year to meet it warps incentives, reduces the urgency for vital structural reforms and adds more froth to a system that prioritizes quantity of growth over quality. It also makes the 'Chinese dream,' Xi's plan to create a 'moderately well-off society,' harder to realize," Pesek writes. "Why does the Communist Party stick with it? Insecurity. Its dominance over 1.4 billion people rests on an unofficial, but unchallenged contract: We, the party, will make you steadily richer so long as you accept our limits on information flows and keep your protest banners out of Tiananmen Square. Holding growth as close to 7% as possible maintains the peace -- and keeps China Inc. in business." | | | Russian President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to host Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday to discuss Syria's future. Seth Frantzman writes for the Jerusalem Post: "Moscow, Turkey and Iran are all sending symbolic messages to Washington that the Americans are out in the cold and the post-ISIS era may well be dictated by regional powers." Honduras holds a general election on Sunday, with President Juan Orlando Hernández up for reelection. "A Hernández win would be not only good for Honduras but also for the region and the United States," writes Daniel Runde for Foreign Policy. "Washington has invested significant money in Central America to help turn the security and economic situation around. Moreover, with bad interlocutors in Guatemala and El Salvador, losing Hernández would be a real setback." Black Friday and Cyber Monday will be big for U.S. shoppers this coming week. But they pale in comparison with the world's biggest shopping day – China's Singles' Day. This year's Singles' Day, which took place on November 11, raked in more than $25 billion, an increase of about 40% on last year. Per Helen Wang in Forbes: "By 2020, China will account for about 60% of global e-commerce. Even as China's economy slows and consumer spending may be at its peak, for consumer products companies, if you win China, you win the world." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment