was on track for a 6.9% return in June, which would represent its best June since a 16.6% gain back in 2000. The S&P 500 on June 20 notched its first record close since April 30, while the Dow is off less than 1% short of its Oct. 3 all-time closing peak.
The rally for equities has been partly supported by the Fed, which concluded its Wednesday rate-setting meeting by signaling a willingness too trim rates as soon as the end of the July 30-31 gathering to curb the effects of tariff clashes between the U.S. and international trade partners, notably China, that have roiled global economies and threaten to disrupt global supply chains. Investors are awaiting a meeting between President Donald Trump and China President Xi Jinping to resolve their testy trade dispute.
Stocks can rise in an environment of falling benchmark interest rates because it translates to comparatively cheaper borrowing costs for individuals and corporations. Still, a rate cut could also signal a more bearish turn in central bankers’ reading of the economic environment which could eventually hurt investor sentiment.
Gains for stocks also come as bond yields across the globe have been mostly rallying, driving their yields which move in the opposite direction, solidly lower. Bond prices don’t usually rise while stocks are climbing because bonds are perceived as assets investors flee to during times of uncertainty while equities rise when appetite for risky assets rises.
Back in 1938, the U.S. economy faced a slump as a recovery from the Great Depression stalled, until Franklin D. Roosevelt in his second term got a $3.75 billion spending program approved by Congress in the spring of that year to help stimulate sluggish expansion, increasing deficit spending.
The move, at least in part, helped to jolt blue chips as fiscal stimulus measures were used to combat unemployment which hit 19% in June of 1938 as manufacturing activity weakened.
This time around, however, U.S. unemployment stands at 3.6% even if the May report, with 75,000 jobs created, fell far short of expectations for a gain of 185,000 on the month.
President Donald Trump says the alternative to a trade pact with China is simple: collect tariffs and do less business with the second-largest economy.
In a wide-ranging interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo Wednesday morning, Trump suggested that he’s happy to receive import duties from China if efforts to reach a detente between the world’s largest economies fails to result in a concrete trade deal.
“My Plan B with China is to take billions and billions a month…and we’ll do less business with them,” Trump said. Wall Street is eagerly waiting for a meeting with Trump and China President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Group of 20 gathering that is set to take place in Osaka, Japan, over the weekend.
The U.S. already has imposed 25% tariffs on some $200 billion of Chinese goods, and Trump has threatened to impose the same levy on over $300 billion of Chinese products.
Trump again spoke glowingly of European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, who last week said more stimulus could be needed.
“We should have Draghi instead of our Fed person,” Trump joked.
The 45th president also said he has the right to demote or fire Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell but hadn’t said that he would: “I have the right to demote him, I have the right to fire him. He has to lower interest rates to help us compete with China,” Trump told Fox.
“What Europe did with Draghi, is they’re forcing money in,” Trump said. “We’re doing the opposite.”
During both the interview with Bartiromo as well as brief discussion with reporters, Trump blasted Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who will be publicly testifying before a House panel in July.
“At what point does it end? It’s a disgrace. No obstruction! No collusion! Now the Democrats want a do over,” said Trump. The Mueller report stated there was no illegal collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, though it said he may have committed obstruction of justice. Attorney General William Barr, and his then deputy Rod Rosenstein, said Trump did not commit obstruction of justice.
Asked what he would discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he also is scheduled to meet during his Japanese trip, Trump replied, “that’s none of your business.”
President Trump said he is willing to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, even if just to “say hello.”
Trump is due to leave a summit of leaders from the Group of 20 nations in Japan on Saturday and travel to South Korea, where he is scheduled to meet South Korean President Moon Jae-in.
In a Twitter post Saturday morning in Japan, Trump made an offer to meet with Kim.
After some very important meetings, including my meeting with President Xi of China, I will be leaving Japan for South Korea (with President Moon). While there, if Chairman Kim of North Korea sees this, I would meet him at the Border/DMZ just to shake his hand and say Hello(?)!
President Donald Trump threatened to slap tariffs on all Mexican imports at the end of May. He later backed down from the threat after signing a trade deal with the country.
But Constellation Brands CEO Bill Newlands said Friday that the brewer of Corona and Modelo would be ready if the tariffs did end up happening.
“If, in fact, something were to happen, we’d always be ready,” he said on CNBC’s “Power Lunch. ” “We’d mitigate it to some degree.”
Investors were concerned about Constellation’s profit if Trump moved forward, sending shares down nearly 6% the trading session after Trump announced the 5% tariff proposal. Analysts at Morgan Stanley and BMO Capital Markets estimated that the company imports at least three-quarters of its beer from Mexico.
And Constellation’s Mexican beers are among the top performers in its portfolio. The brewer attributed the 7% sales growth of its beer segment during its fiscal-first quarter in part to the success of Modelo Especial. While U.S. consumption of beer has declined in recent years, Mexican imported beers outperformed the rest of the industry in 2018, according to industry research firm IWSR.
Newlands said that he believes that the Mexican tariffs are no longer an issue.
“We think this largely behind us. The results on our Mexican portfolio have been excellent,” he said.
Alternative milk, on the other hand, has been quietly revolutionizing the dairy industry for years.
Milk, the kind from cows, was once a staple of the American diet.
But now consumers have their choice between almond milk, rice milk, oat milk, hemp milk, coconut milk and soy milk—you get the idea. Americans are drinking less and less milk now that store shelves are flooded with more and more options.
Paul Ziemnisky, EVP of global innovation at Dairy Management Inc., which represents dairy farmers, told CNBC in a phone interview that fluid milk, however, remains in 94 percent of households. He added that the dairy industry is finding ways to innovate through new flavors and products like Fairlife, a high-protein milk brand distributed by Coca-Cola.
“The plant-based guys like to poke and grab at just one number of a category, but we have strong pockets of growth,” he said, adding that Fairlife has seen strong revenue numbers. “It’s not just white milk anymore — it’s milk with valued-added features.”
Investors should put their money in small- to mid-cap biotech stocks as rhetoric about changing the U.S. health-care system ramps up during the Democratic primary debate season, Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said Friday.
“The big biotechs have to buy the big and small biotechs, and that’s where most [health-care] investors have been playing,” Yee said in an interview on CNBC’s “The Exchange. “
Health care overall has been one of the worst-performing sectors in the stock market this year. This is in part because of concerns about 2020 Democratic proposals for “Medicare for All,” which calls for eliminating private health insurance and replacing it with a universal Medicare plan.
The Health Care Select Sector SPDR Fund, an ETF that tracks the health-care industry’s biggest companies, has risen by just 7% year to date as of Friday’s close, significantly lagging the broader market indexes. The S&P 500 has risen 17% over that same time period.
Meanwhile, biotech stocks are outperforming. The SPDR S&P Biotech ETF is up 22% this year. Pfizer’s deal last week to acquire Array Biopharma for $10.64 billion was seen as a positive sign by investors for more deals.
Still, Yee, like many other Wall Street analysts who cover the health-care sector, doesn’t expect Medicare for All to be implemented.
Actually implementing Medicare for All would be tough even if a candidate like Sen. Bernie Sanders won the 2020 election, analysts say. Democrats would need to hold on to their edge in the House of Representatives and win at least three new Senate seats in the 2020 election to regain control of Congress. Then they would likely need 60 votes in the Senate and two-thirds of the House to overcome any potential filibusters.
Yee instead expects legislative reform around drug prices. “Stocks rally when that happens,” he said.
With the growth in student loans continuing to soar, politicians and borrowers struggling with an issue that’s become both a financial and political problem.
Presidential candidates are proposing to cancel student debt and make public college free, state legislators are cracking down on student-loan companies and, recently, government agencies have offered another approach — teaching students and borrowers more about finances.
‘Is the problem people are making bad financial decisions or is it they simply don’t have enough money?’
These proposals come after years of colleges across the country experimenting with ways to teach their students good financial habits and provide them with more information about their loans. The idea behind these efforts is to help students manage their finances while they’re in school and once they graduate.
Ultimately, it’s a laudable goal to help college students better understand their loans and their finances, but the question of how much to emphasize financial education underpins a broader debate about student debt, its causes, consequences — and possible solutions.
Robert Kelchen, a Seton Hall University professor who studies higher education finance, said lawmakers and experts often ask whether people are making bad financial decisions or if they simply don’t have enough money. “The answer is probably some of both — but it’s hard to tell how much is a literacy issue versus how much is a lack of money issue.”
Is providing students and families with more information enough to curb our nation’s $1.5 trillion student loan problem? So far, the research indicates that it’s probably not.
What we often think of as financial literacy doesn’t match many people’s economic lives
Part of the challenge with using financial education to address the college-affordability and student-loan problem is that broadly, increases in financial literacy do little to change behavior, data show.
That has a lot to do with the disconnect between the curricula in most financial-literacy and education programs and people’s lived experience, said Timothy Ogden, the managing director of the Financial Access Initiative at New York University.
Low-income students with financial constraints may find themselves deciding between a high-interest payday loan or bouncing a check.
Much of what is taught and measured in traditional financial literacy and financial-education courses is how to evaluate relatively good choices through understanding concepts like interest rates or the difference between certain types of investment opportunities, he said.
But the consumers who deal with the most dire consequences from a poor financial decision — low-income Americans with financial constraints — typically aren’t facing these choices. Instead, they may be deciding between a high-interest payday loan or bouncing a check, Ogden said.
Part of the reason why financial education is irrelevant to so many Americans, he says, is because the curricula were developed during a time when most workers could count on a biweekly paycheck at a stable job. These days, more than 40% of Americans regularly see large swings in their income.
Very basic financial education concepts, like compound interest, “are based on a belief about a way income works — it starts low in your 20s and then steadily goes up over time,” Ogden said.
If that’s the economic trajectory of your life, then the typical advice — to stash away as much money as possible in retirement and other investment vehicles — makes sense, he said. But “if your income is bouncing up and down month to month and year to year it’s not clear at all that that’s the best way to manage your money.”
Even when students are provided with financial information that’s relevant to their lives, they’re still constrained by the cost of college
These days, some colleges are adapting to students’ financial realities and working to send them information that’s relevant at a time when it may be most useful.
For example, over the past several years more colleges have started sending student “debt letters,” which provide students with information like how much they’ve already borrowed, their future monthly payments and other personalized information about their loans. But the data on these programs so far indicates that they’re not doing much to change students’ borrowing behavior.
‘Students are making financing decisions based on the prices and the constraints they face.’
“Students are making financing decisions based on the prices and the constraints they face,” said Drew M. Anderson, an associate economist at the RAND Corporation. A lack of information about student debt isn’t necessarily the problem. In fact, Anderson’s research shows that students with loans actually understand them the best.
And for some students, the “right” financial decision is actually to borrow more. It’s not uncommon for students to need loans in order to complete school and/or avoid working so much that it interferes with their progress. In other words, requiring students to learn more about their debt may do little to change the overall balance of outstanding student loans, Anderson said.
“When the federal student-loan borrowing decision is discussed sometimes it’s discussed as you either take on the loan or you don’t — and everything else is the same,” said Lesley Turner, an economist at Vanderbilt University who has studied education financing decisions. “In the current structure of grants and loans and college costs, the trade off is, ‘Do I finance these costs through a federal loan? Or do I finance them with another option?’”
Colleges, the government and companies make the system for paying for college and repaying loans confusing
Trying to determine the cost of a given college and what tools are available to foot the bill can be a formidable challenge for students and families. That’s because financial-aid offer letters — telling prospective students how much they’re expected to pay and whether they qualify for any grants and loans — are often confusing.
In some cases, colleges do little to differentiate between scholarships, loans and work-study in these letters, according to a report released last year by New America, a think tank. In other cases, they describe loans parents can use to finance their children’s education as “awards.” And those are just some of the examples of terminology that could cause confusion, New America found.
Some financial-aid offer letters describe loans parents can use to finance their children’s education as ‘awards.’ That obviously can cause confusion.
How colleges package such information does influence students’ and families’ approach to financing college. Research from Turner and her co-author found that community-college students who received a financial-aid letter where loans were included as part of the package were more likely to borrow than those who received no loan offer in their financial-aid letter, but were told via email other communications that they qualified for student loans.
“The design of the award letter, the way loans are presented, the way the information is delivered right at this point in time can be really important,” Turner said.
What’s more, her research also suggests that more information isn’t always better. Turner and her co-author compared students who received more context surrounding their borrowing decision to those who didn’t. The found that students with more information were more likely to punt on whether and how much to borrow for college.
Federal student-loan borrowers have access to a suite of programs to manage their debt, but the high number of repayment plans can make it arduous.
“It was a cautionary finding for us — you have to be very careful with interventions that are supposed to provide information,” she said. “We think it overwhelmed students.”
Deciding how much to borrow isn’t the only opaque part of the student loan process: Repaying debt can be confusing too. Federal student-loan borrowers have access to a suite of programs that allow them to manage their debt, but the high number of student-loan repayment plans can make it difficult for borrowers to determine their best option.
In addition, because borrowers have to re-certify their income from year-to-year to stay enrolled, they’re regularly at risk of being kicked out of their payment plan and bumped to a higher monthly payment amount.
“A different way to approach it would be to make the income-based repayment system simpler so people need less financial education up front,” Anderson said.
Company malfeasance is a factor in students’ and borrowers’ challenges
Consumer advocates have complained for years that the student-loan companies hired by the government to work with borrowers are making it more difficult than necessary for borrowers to access the debt-management tools they’re entitled to under the law. No amount of budgeting advice or tools comparing college costs is enough to help borrowers overcome those challenges, these advocates say.
When Seth Frotman read complaints from student-loan borrowers during his time as the student-loan ombudsman at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he said he observed said most students were responsible and took accountability for their debt: “This wasn’t people who had made bad decisions, it wasn’t people who were trying to walk away from their loans.”
Students are at risk of signing up for colleges run as for-profit businesses that research has indicated have poor graduation and job placement outcomes.
In fact, some complaints came from borrowers who were trying to be responsible and put more than the minimum payment towards their student loan and struggling to convince their student loan company to apply the extra money in the way that was most favorable to them.
“These were tens of thousands of people who were desperately trying to pay their debt stymied at every opportunity by private sector companies,” Frotman said.
In addition, when students are deciding where to attend, they’re at risk of signing up for colleges run as for-profit businesses that research has indicated have poor graduation and job placement outcomes and often require students to borrow more than average.
Banning these schools from the federal financial-aid program would be a major step in the right direction for those concerned about the challenge of student debt, Ogden said.
“You’re going to get massively more benefit from just that one regulatory decision than investing $3 billion for financial education,” he said.
Information can be helpful, but mandatory financial-literacy classes may not be the right answer
There are other, broader benefits to providing students with personalized financial guidance at the right time.
“Part of the experience in college is to help these people — that are going to get these degrees and graduate — become good citizens of the world,” said Phil Schuman, the senior director of financial literacy at Indiana University. “This is just another one of those life skills that they have access to.”
The school and peer counselors can be a better source of information for students looking to manage their finances than, say, parents or other mentors.
At Indiana University, Schuman has been pioneering this type of programming. IU began sending students a debt letter in 2012. In addition, the school has a robust peer counseling program around finances and launched an online tool in 2017 that students can use to determine the impact of different financial decisions, such as the frequency of vacations or trips home or bringing a car to campus.
These programs are part of a broader initiative at the school called Affordability at IU, which also includes efforts to make tuition more standardized and predictable and guarantees that — if students follow an outlined degree path can’t access a required course to complete their degree on time — they’re entitled to that course for free in a future semester. These efforts have reduced students’ overall debt burden by 19% since 2012, according to Indiana University.
Schuman said he thinks of these initiatives as part of a two-way street of financial responsibility in college. On the one hand, colleges need to do what they can to drive down costs, he said. At the same time, students should be gathering as much information as they can about how to make the experience affordable for them.
‘The reality is those part-time jobs, they don’t pay for school anymore, they pay for part of it.’
In addition, the school and more specifically peer counselors, can sometimes be a better source of information for students looking to manage their finances, than say parents or other mentors, because they have a more accurate understanding of the financial constraints today’s students face, Schuman said.
“We hear it on repeat all the time, all of these older generations say, ‘When I was in college, I had a part-time job and worked my way through school,’” Schuman said. “The reality is those part-time jobs, they don’t pay for school anymore, they pay for part of it.”
It’s hard to argue that these types of efforts to arm students with more information about how to manage their finances in college and beyond are a bad idea. But making financial education mandatory comes with a cost — particularly if it can hold students up from making progress towards their degree, Anderson said.
“The college student population is a really broad swath of Americans who aren’t just people right out of high school — they have other things on their plate often times,” he said. “Researchers and practitioners and educators want to find good ways to inform students, but there’s just so many ways it can go wrong.”
Do you want to end up in the C-suite? If you’re a woman, you’ll have your work cut out for you.
Many working women hoping to reach feeder positions for CEO still aren’t sure how to advance in their careers, don’t realize the importance of networking and mentorship, have too few role models in senior positions, and too seldom work at companies that actually prioritize advancing women, according to quantitative and qualitative research from the Working Mother Research Institute.
Women now make up a record-high number of CEOs at top-grossing companies, according to Fortune — but that “high” is still only a meager 6.6%, with women comprising 33 of all Fortune 500 CEOs. Some 25% of chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief information or technology officer, chief marketing officer and chief human resources officer positions are held by women, according to a 2019 analysis by Korn Ferry, up two percentage points from 2018.
Men, who continue to hold most of the leadership positions in corporate America, tend to network with other men, studies have found.
Many women are less likely to have a clear sense of how to get ahead compared to their male colleagues, the Working Mother Research Institute study found. They lack access to information about career trajectories that would pave their way to the executive suite and aren’t as aware of available career-advancement and mentorship programs, it said.
The study zeroes in on the kind of experience that gives people access to roles involving a company’s bottom line. This “profit and loss” (P&L) experience can give CEO candidates a critical boost — but just 15% of women said their company offers detailed information about career paths to P&L jobs, versus 48% of men. And only 11% of women said their company offers P&L training programs for women, compared to 42% of men who said the same.
The researchers conducted a nationally representative survey in October of 3,038 workers across 24 industries — three quarters of whom were women — followed by eight focus groups, six executive interviews and four one-on-one interviews with C-suite execs. Co-sponsors of the research included Aon
In the #MeToo era, six in 10 male managers say they’re uncomfortable mentoring, socializing with or working solo alongside female colleagues.
Women are also less likely than men to acknowledge the career-related advantages of mentorship, sponsorship and networking, the study found. They’re less likely to have been encouraged to consider jobs with P&L responsibility (14% versus 46%), gotten advice on how to get ahead (31% versus 54%), discussed their career with a sponsor or mentor (39% versus 54%) or attended a round table with senior executives (39% versus 63%).
The Working Mother researchers also found a gender gap in career aspiration and risk taking: While nearly six in 10 men said their highest career aspiration was CEO, a C-suite executive or senior-level manager, only four in 10 women said the same. (Minority women on average were more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have the corner office in their sights, the authors noted.) Some were reluctant to pursue “stretch assignments” for which they weren’t 100% qualified, they added.
Women sometimes miss out on promotions and/or raises as they cut back hours or take leave from work after having children.
What’s more, majorities of women in the Working Mother study who’d never held a P&L job cited a male-dominated culture (64%) and gender bias (54%) as obstacles to their advancement. The most-cited barriers included lack of training, lack of understanding about the career path and lack of information about open jobs.
“Women really often feel that the trade-offs for a senior-level C-suite job are not worth the burden when it comes to work-life choices,” added Ripa Rashid, the managing director of Culture@Work, a division of Working Mother Media, who served as a research advisor on the report.
The challenge in formulating solutions is the “chicken-and-the-egg” dilemma of what women can do versus the extent to which culture must change, said Laura Segal, the SVP of communications and external affairs for the American Association of University Women.
‘Seeking advocacy and relationships based on your merit and track record is a part of your job — and that’s how you become more impactful.’
“A lot of it has to happen where you have policies, culture [and] corporate change, as well as women learning how to empower themselves and having everybody’s support, with male allies as well,” Segal told MarketWatch.
The report’s authors lay out a number of recommendations for closing these gender gaps, including having transparency in senior-level succession planning, creating P&L exposure opportunities for folks who work in other parts of the company, boosting mentorship and sponsorship opportunities for women, and mandating that “diverse slates of qualified women candidates” be considered for P&L and feeder job openings.
As for what women can do on an individual level while they wait for organizational and societal change, here are seven tips from Rashid and Segal:
1. Seek out opportunities to learn about budgeting and financial management, as such skills can be a prerequisite for senior management roles. “Money matters in a company,” Segal said. “You need to show you can support and understand a bottom line.” Take advantage of any relevant career training your employer might offer, she said, and look for external programs as well.
2. Promote yourself. “That means not shying away from speaking engagements or being the person in the room to present a proposal,” Segal said. “Appropriately” take credit for your ideas, she added, and document your accomplishments.
3. Inquire about your available career options in conversations with mentors and sponsors, Rashid said, even if you’re not in a P&L role. Find out whether your company has a rotational program, she added, which could give you exposure to a revenue-generating role.
4. Stretch yourself. Don’t pass up a great opportunity just because you don’t feel 100% qualified for it, Rashid said — after all, job descriptions are rarely perfect. If you think you have the skills and the capability, she said, “don’t look for the 100% resume fit. It’s OK to stretch.” Play up your analytical skills and financial skills, which are prized in profit-and-loss roles, she said.
5. Put a premium on advocacy and mentorship. “We often hear from women that they focus a lot more on the actual work they’re doing, and think of relationships and advocacy networks as the icing on top,” Rashid said. “Seeking advocacy and relationships based on your merit and track record is a part of your job — and that’s how you become more impactful.” You can do the best work in the world, she pointed out, but that won’t help your career if others can’t advocate on your behalf.
6. Look for ways to stay in the C-suite pipeline rather than forgoing opportunities. As many women head into their second, third or fourth jobs, Segal said, they sometimes don’t seek out that next promotion because it doesn’t align with their life plans or child-care demands. “If you shy away from those pathways or they’re not offered to you … then you are falling off those tracks” while your coworkers forge ahead, she said. Seek out benefits like flexibility and paid time off, Segal said, and advocate for them within your company.
“You can look at your individual circumstances, and how to advance yourself, and really thoughtfully not take yourself out of the game,” she said.
7. Keep in mind the perks of senior leadership roles. The C-suite isn’t all punishing hours and poor work-life balance — it also brings with it greater impact, agency and autonomy, Rashid said. That means having clout in setting your own schedule, she said, and having the money to fund causes you care about. Don’t overlook “the joys of power,” she added. “We’re not celebrating any of that enough.”
And after 11,000 whoppers from the incumbent in two-plus years, that’s a huge change. One change upon which all the other changes that they propose — some good, some not so well considered — depend.
Not lying is the first step in rebuilding Americans’ ability to trust their leaders again — not just their integrity, but their basic ability to accurately judge reality.
That, at least, is what you get from reading over professional fact checkers’ assessment of the two debates. They found slight exaggerations and spin, sure. They disputed the candidates’ characterizations, for example, of whether Trump’s tax cuts favored corporations as much as Beto O’Rourke said they did. They found cases where candidates left out a crucial fact while saying something otherwise true.
But there was no one claiming Mexicans are all rapists, that crime has skyrocketed because of immigration when it has actually fallen sharply for years, or claiming that renewable energy will leave you sitting in the dark with a skyrocketing electric bill and a nasty case of cancer caused by wind turbines.
No one was arguing, as did Trump’s nominee to run the Immigration and Customs Service earlier this year, that he can look at a young brown child and know if they are going to grow up to be a gangster.
No one said the other side’s president is a traitor (it wasn’t Trump who said that about Barrack Obama during the 2016’s debates — that was Sen. Marco Rubio in an odious, entirely characteristic and actually oft-repeated moment). No one was claiming that steel plants are being built, or that Mexico’s paying for a border wall — lies Trump has told dozens of times.
For example, CNN evaluated 19 claims made in Thursday’s night debate featuring California Sen. Kamala Harris (the winner, according to pundits at least), and front runners Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Fourteen of the claims were judged to be true.
Entrepreneur-turned-candidate Andrew Yang’s claim that Amazon.com
doesn’t pay taxes left out the fact that the giant retailer pays state taxes, and has paid federal taxes some years in the past, but didn’t pay 2017 federal corporate taxes, CNN reported.
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper said liberals’ Green New Deal program would guarantee everyone a government job, when it only calls for guaranteeing a job for everyone, on either a public or private payroll, thanks to government funding. (Not much of a distinction).
Sanders got dinged for claiming the top 1% of earners get 83% of the benefit from 2017’s tax cut, but that won’t be true until the middle-class tax relief provisions in the new law expire in 2027.
Biden came in for some nitpicking about school busing in the 1970s and for leaving out some context about his role in U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq in 2011.
Typically, CNN badgered Pete Buttigieg for claiming that Trump’s China tariffs cost an average household $800 a year, when the study he was relying on says it’s $831.
Doesn’t everyone know Mexico paid us back the other 31 bucks?
Why does this matter?
Let’s start with health care.
The core lie that Trump told about his failed 2017 health-care bill was that it wouldn’t cause tens of millions of people to lose their insurance. That Americans knew he was lying about this — not only did experts predict it, but the bill pulled funding that was paying for the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion — made them conclude that there was no plan for any other coverage to pick up the slack.
Trump can complain about the late Sen. John McCain’s no vote that killed the bill all he wants — even gracelessly suggesting this week that McCain is in hell because he didn’t take insurance from millions of poor people. But mistrust — not just McCain — killed the Republican health-care bill.
The lies Trump tells nearly every day about energy would, if taken seriously, cause us to double down on coal, a dirty, expensive fuel that is a leading contributor to climate change, and abandon carbon-free, cheaper electricity sources like wind and solar that will forestall it.
It’s beyond discussion that climate change is already occurring, is expected to get much worse, and is already behind an increase in local flooding in Miami, where the debates happened.
If we listened to Trump, we’d be in for generations of coastal flooding that would cost many billions of dollars. On the bright side, it would likely flood out Trump’s coastal Mar-a-Lago retreat eventually.
There are lots of examples. We could do this all day.
2020 will be a “change” election, all agree.
But the first change we need is the most important — that our government depend on reality, accurately described. And in two nights of debates, you saw that one side will actually deliver that.
Deutsche Bank is considering cutting 15,000 to 20,000 jobs, or more than one in six full-time positions globally, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the discussions.
The layoffs would probably take place over more than a year and would spread across regions and businesses, the Journal said.
Top-level talks about the restructuring took place on Thursday and Friday, but no final decisions have been made, a source close to the matter told Reuters.
Deutsche Bank is completing a plan that may eliminate hundreds of positions in equities trading and research, as well as derivatives trading, as part of a broad restructuring, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing sources.
Sources told Reuters last week that the bank plans to cut the size of its U.S. equities business, leaving only a skeleton operation in place to service corporate and high-net-worth clients.
Members of Deutsche’s supervisory board discussed those plans on a call earlier this month and agreed that large-scale cuts were necessary in the bank’s U.S. equities and rates trading businesses, Reuters reported, citing the sources.
Chief Executive Officer Christian Sewing is trying to convince investors he can turn around Germany’s biggest bank, whose shares hit a record low this month. He told investors at the annual meeting last month that Deutsche was prepared to make “tough cutbacks” at its investment bank.