SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:05:27 PM
From: sylvester801 Recommendation

Recommended By
pocotrader

  Respond to of 1575984
 
OOPS! Newly Released Emails Show Fallout From LIAR Trump’s False Claims About Hurricane Dorian
huffpost.com
02/01/2020 08:25 pm ET
Newly Released Emails Show Fallout From Trump’s False Claims About Hurricane Dorian
A top National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official called the president’s behavior “crazy.”

Lynn Berry and Jill Colvin

WASHINGTON (AP) — A flurry of newly released emails from scientists and top officials at the federal agency responsible for weather forecasting clearly illustrates the consternation and outright alarm caused by President Donald Trump’s false claim that Hurricane Dorian could hit Alabama.

A top National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official even called the president’s behavior “crazy.”

What the scientists and officials found even more troubling was a statement later issued by an unnamed NOAA spokesman that supported Trump’s claim and repudiated the agency’s own forecasters.

The emails, released late Friday in response to Freedom of Information Act requests from The Associated Press and others, give an inside picture of the scramble to respond to the president and the turmoil it caused inside the federal agency.

“What’s next? Climate science is a hoax?” Craig McLean, NOAA’s acting chief scientist, wrote in an email sent to the agency’s top officials. “Flabbergasted to leave our forecasters hanging in the political wind.”

In a more formal letter, McLean wrote that what concerned him most was that the Trump administration “is eroding the public trust in NOAA for an apparent political recovery from an ill timed and imprecise comment from the President.”

As Dorian headed for the southeastern U.S. in early September, Trump tweeted that Alabama was “most likely to be hit (much) harder than anticipated.” The National Weather Service in Birmingham corrected him, tweeting that “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian.”

But Trump remained adamant, and NOAA came to his defense with the unsigned statement, which claimed some data provided to the president had indicated that Alabama could be hit by the hurricane and scolded the Birmingham office. The statement was issued after the White House and Commerce Department intervened, the AP and others reported at the time.

It provoked angry emails from within the agency and from the public.

Gary Shigenaka, a NOAA scientist, wrote to the agency’s acting administrator, Neil Jacobs, asking him to “reassure those of us who serve the public ... that we are not mere pawns in an absurd game.”

In response, Jacobs defended the forecasters and said, “You have no idea how hard I’m fighting to keep politics out of science.”

The whole incident is perhaps best remembered for what became known as Sharpie-gate. In defending himself in the Oval Office, Trump displayed an NOAA map that was altered using a black marker to extend the hurricane’s projected path.

“Apparently the President is convinced that Alabama was in the path of Dorian and someone altered a NOAA map (with a sharpie) to convince folks,” NOAA official Makeda Okolo wrote in an email to chief operating officer Benjamin Friedman and others.

Friedman replied: “Yep, crazy.”



To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:07:20 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575984
 
OOPS! As the COVER-UP Senate Rejects Witnesses, House Considers A Subpoena For John Bolton
huffpost.com
01/31/2020 06:23 pm ET Updated 1 day ago
As Senate Rejects Witnesses, House Considers A Subpoena For John Bolton
GOP senators refused to do their job. Will House Democrats do it for them?
By Matt Fuller


WIN MCNAMEE VIA GETTY IMAGESFormer Trump adviser John Bolton practically begged for the chance to tell his story as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial.

WASHINGTON ? With the Republican-controlled Senate poised to acquit President Donald Trump on two articles of impeachment without calling a single witness, the Democratic-controlled House may take another look at subpoenaing additional Trump administration officials ? chief among them, former national security adviser John Bolton.

Bolton has practically been begging to be a witness in the Senate trial. He said at the beginning of January that he would testify if the Senate called him, and the explosive claims in his forthcoming book have demonstrated the need to hear him under oath.

Bolton’s manuscript states that he has firsthand knowledge of Trump’s scheme to withhold security aid to Ukraine until leaders of that country agreed to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Bolton claims that Trump explicitly told him he wouldn’t release the aid until Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced an investigation into the Bidens. In other words, his book says the president confirmed the quid pro quo.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been cagey about whether the House would subpoena Bolton. But she said Thursday that, while she hoped and prayed senators would listen to other witnesses ? specifically name-checking Bolton ? she also believed there’s “more truth for the American people to know.”

“We’ll see what happens after,” Pelosi said, at that point waiting for the Senate to decide whether to allow witnesses.

Since the Senate blocked a motion to call witnesses on Friday evening, subpoenaing Bolton is about to become a key priority of many House Democrats.

All week, Democratic lawmakers made it clear that if the Senate didn’t call Bolton to testify, then the House should.

“The speaker has not ruled that out, but it’s absurd if the Senate doesn’t call him,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) told HuffPost earlier this week.

“I know others have been looking into it,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said of subpoenaing Bolton in the House.

And Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was emphatic: “Oh, we absolutely should subpoena Bolton if they don’t. Yeah, no question. I mean, if we have to wait for a book to come out, that’s a pretty pathetic way for Congress to deal with this.”

Rather than a question of whether the House will subpoena Bolton, the real issue may be whether he will abide by the order to testify.

Bolton’s initial refusal to testify in the House impeachment investigation scared off Democrats from entering into a potentially long court battle to force him to appear. While the courts have previously ruled that other officials ? like former White House Counsel Don McGahn ? must comply with congressional subpoenas, Bolton’s lawyers indicated that a subpoena for him would require a separate court case because of the classified and national security implications of his testimony.

It’s unclear if Bolton would now agree to speak under oath to the House or if he’d still fight a subpoena.

House Democrats have thus far avoided calling outright for a Bolton subpoena because they wanted to keep the pressure on the Senate. They didn’t want to give GOP senators the excuse to claim they didn’t need to hear Bolton testify because the House would.

“We shouldn’t be going to the ifs,” Progressive Caucus co-chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told HuffPost. “Because, well, sure, the House can do that, just like we can wait for Bolton’s book to come forward. But the responsibility is with the Senate to actually call him as a witness, and nobody should allow them to get away with shifting the attention to anybody else.”

With the Senate voting down witnesses, however, and the impeachment trial nearing its expected end, that dynamic in the House will shift significantly.

Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened,” is scheduled to be released on March 17, and it should provide some clarity on what he would testify. But Democrats argue that it’s important for Bolton to speak to Congress under oath, given that President Trump has disputed his account.

“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Trump tweeted earlier this week. “In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination.”

Trump claimed that Bolton was only providing this account “to sell a book” and that the rough transcript of his call with Zelensky was all the proof he needed to refute it.

According to notes from that July 2019 call, Trump asked Zelensky for a favor: look into alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election (a debunked conspiracy theory) and look into the alleged corruption of the Bidens.

At the same time, Trump was withholding aid to Ukraine. U.S. officials later conveyed to the Ukrainians that it was their understanding the aid would not be released and there would not be a White House meeting with Zelensky if he didn’t announce those investigations.



To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:09:59 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575984
 
CORONAVIRUS ESCALATES: More than 300 dead from coronavirus with 14,300 cases confirmed.
edition.cnn.com




To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:11:11 PM
From: sylvester80  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575984
 
CORONAVIRUS ESCALATES: Philippines Reports First Death Outside China as Toll Passes 300.
nytimes.com



To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:11:49 PM
From: sylvester801 Recommendation

Recommended By
pocotrader

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575984
 
OOPS! Republican Senate 'coverup' prompts backlash.
theguardian.com
Trump impeachment: Republican Senate 'coverup' prompts backlash
Liberal groups target November elections for paybackSenators seek to explain votes with constitutional contortions
Republicans march over the impeachment cliff
David Smith in Des Moines, Iowa
@smithinamerica
Sat 1 Feb 2020 15.38 ESTFirst published on Sat 1 Feb 2020 12.51 EST

Outraged by what they see as a coverup in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, grassroots activists are planning a massive “payback project” designed to punish Republican senators at the ballot box.

By denying witnesses, Republicans made clear even a smoking gun would not be enough

Even as key Republican senators acknowledged Trump’s guilt on charges of abusing power and obstructing Congress, they defied public opinion on Friday by voting to block witnesses and documents, paving the way for the president to be acquitted and claim exoneration.

Republican fealty to Trump has long wearied liberals but the senators’ move appeared to cause a new level of anger. The Indivisible Project, a progressive group, announced it would target nine senators, among them majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Trump loyalist Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, in November’s elections.

Indivisible said it would next week call out one of the “nine Payback Project senators for their participating in a coverup by placing a full page newspaper ad in one of their biggest state papers”. In an appeal to activists, it said “rage is good for recruiting. Hello. Are you pissed about impeachment too?”

Trump was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives in December, for seeking to coerce a foreign government for his own personal political gain. Two articles of impeachment – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – were transferred to the Senate for trial.

But on Friday the Senate failed to allow documents and new witnesses including the former national security adviser John Bolton, who in an upcoming book accuses the president of making military aid to Ukraine conditional on an investigation into his rival Joe Biden.

Every impeachment trial in US history, including the two that featured presidents, allowed documents and witnesses. But only two Republicans voted in favour: Susan Collins of Maine and Mitt Romney of Utah.

Some said they did not think Trump did anything wrong. Others went through extraordinary contortions. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Rob Portman of Ohio reasoned that Trump’s actions were wrong but not impeachable.

In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press due to be broadcast on Sunday, Alexander said: “If you have eight witnesses who say someone left the scene of an accident, why do you need nine? I mean, the question for me was: do I need more evidence to conclude that the president did what he did? And I concluded no.”


The latest major Trump resignations and firings


Read more

Alexander told the New York Times why that was not enough to require Trump’s removal: “The Senate reflects the country, and the country is as divided as it has been for a long time. For the Senate to tear up the ballots in this election and say President Trump couldn’t be on it, the country probably wouldn’t accept that. It would just pour gasoline on cultural fires that are burning out there.”

In a stunning Medium post, Marco Rubio of Florida, humiliated by Trump in the 2016 primary, went even further, arguing that impeachment would be too divisive even if a president engaged in clearly impeachable conduct.

“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office,” he wrote.

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a moderate who Democrats courted, said the case was rushed and flawed. She told reporters she was “angry at all sides” and the prospect of a tie vote on witnesses weighed on her decision. She also said she knew how she would vote on the charges but: “Will I share it with you tonight? I’ve had so much drama today, I’m just going to chill. How’s that? Was that fair?”

Trump’s takeover of the Republican party appears complete. On Saturday the widely read Politico Playbook commented: “Here’s the truth: Republicans are not comfortable with the president’s behavior. They say it privately, some say it publicly on their way out.

“But they have no incentive to say this aloud no matter how egregious they believe the president’s behavior to be. To win as a Republican in any seat that’s at all marginal, you need to appeal to Republicans to vote.”

Republicans who break from Trump can face a bitter backlash. Matt Schlapp, the chair of the American Conservative Union, announced on Twitter that Romney was “formally NOT invited” to the influential Conservative Political Action Conference.



FacebookTwitterPinterest
Lamar Alexander leaves the Trump impeachment trial. Photograph: Brendan McDermid/ReutersDemocrats will seek to make Republicans pay in November, as they did in the 2018 midterms when victory in the House made impeachment possible. Under the headline, “How impeachment could flip the Senate”, Rahm Emanuel, a former White House chief of staff, wrote in the Washington Post that “impeachment is likely to have an outsize impact” and every Republican senator will “own Trump’s emboldened rhetoric of being exonerated”.


Republicans clear final hurdle to acquittal, and other takeaways from impeachment today


Read more

He added: “Some 63% of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina look unfavourably on the Senate’s decision … to disallow witnesses and hide documents... That may partly explain why the five Republican senators are ‘underwater’, meaning more constituents view them negatively than positively.”

The trial will resume on Monday for final arguments. That evening, Trump is sure to cruise to victory in the Iowa caucuses while Democrats battle for the right to challenge him. The president will deliver his state of the union address on Tuesday and is set to be acquitted by the Senate on the following day.

As he did after special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, Trump is expected to falsely claim “total exoneration” and that Democrats seek to overturn the last election. In turn, Democrats will warn that the president will solicit foreign interference again.

David Axelrod, a former chief strategist for Barack Obama, suggested the trial could inflict lasting damage.

“For Trump, this trial is going to end swiftly, as he hoped,” he tweeted. “But it’s not ending well. Far from vindication, even some who oppose his removal, acknowledge his guilt. And the conspicuous avoidance of material witnesses like Bolton casts an inescapable shadow.”



To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:14:19 PM
From: sylvester80  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575984
 
OOPS! Republicans march over the impeachment cliff – taking their self-respect with them
Richard Wolffe
How can Republicans pretend to the world that their vision of America – where a president can happily use military aid to coerce a foreign government to smear his political rival in an election – is the model for democracy?
@richardwolffedc
Fri 31 Jan 2020 18.07 ESTLast modified on Fri 31 Jan 2020 18.08 EST
theguardian.com


‘For his rapier-like ability to capture the zeitgeist, there’s no one quite like the young slumlord Jared Kushner to tell it like it really is.’ Photograph: Denis Balibouse/Reuters
Jared Kushner is a genius. It’s all too easy to overlook the sheer brilliance of Donald Trump’s son-in-law, not least when he rolls out a Middle East peace plan that destroys the concepts of both the Israeli and Palestinian states.

But for his rapier-like ability to capture the zeitgeist, there’s no one quite like the young slumlord to tell it like it really is. Speaking to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Kushner talked dramatically about this week as a time for leaders to step up.

Think fake news isn't a real problem? Look at Senator John Kennedy
Richard Wolffe




Read more

“What we’ve done is create an opportunity for their leadership to either seize or not,” he explained. “If they screw up this opportunity – which again, they have a perfect track record of missing opportunities – if they screw this up, I think they will have a very hard time looking the international community in the face, saying they are the victims, saying they have rights.”

Kushner thought he was talking about the Palestinians, in a gloriously brazen blend of racism and gold-leafed ignorance.

But he was in fact describing perfectly the entire caucus of Senate Republicans as they screwed up their last golden opportunity for personal redemption and liberal democracy in the impeachment trial of Donald J Trump.

How will the nation’s Republican senators look anyone in the face and say they have any rights to keep in check a corrupt and criminal president? How can they pretend to be Trump’s victims when they marched themselves off a constitutional cliff?

And how on earth can they pretend to the world that their vision of America – where a president can happily use military aid to coerce a foreign government to smear his political rival in an election – is the model for democracy?

Let’s be honest. There was little drama or suspense in Trump’s impeachment trial, save for the bat-excrement quality of crazy that tumbled out of Alan Dershowitz’s mouth. According to Harvard’s emeritus law professor, presidents are unimpeachable as long as they think they are acting in the national interest when they use their power to corrupt their own election.

This could have been valuable analysis for Richard Nixon, but it also serves to question the value of a Harvard law professor. Perhaps it’s only the detritus who become emeritus.

Dershowitz claimed he said no such thing, but our eyes and ears suggested otherwise. He also said he supported Nixon’s almost-impeachment, naturally. Which is to say: the Harvard man is the perfect specimen of what Trump has propagated through the body politic: a contagious coronavirus of chronic lying, cowardly ambition and plain old corruption.

For all the fake angst about calling witnesses – did Mitch McConnell wobble on the votes to stop them or is he actually manipulating the media every day? – the searing testimony of John Bolton would have done nothing, zippo, nada, to change the final vote.

The facts of Trump’s corruption were never in dispute. The notion that this doesn’t rise to impeachable crimes has always been a joke.

We could play the age-old parlor game of asking how our esteemed Republican senators would have responded to Barack Obama asking the French government to investigate Mitt Romney’s missionary exploits ahead of the 2012 election. But what’s the point?

Today’s Republican party elected to remove their spinal cords three years ago, along with much of their frontal lobe and their self-respect. They wring their hands in private and lament their lampoon-worthy leader whose shoes they must lick on a daily basis.

But they should know they are following in a fine tradition of the world’s puppet legislators, like the People’s Council of Syria and the Russian Duma under the expert guidance of one Vladimir Putin.

We should in some ways be grateful for the honesty of our pseudo-senators. “There is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven,” said Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee senator who was supposedly considering Bolton as a witness.

Having decided the facts against Trump, Alexander then decided to trivialize his criminal acts of withholding congressionally mandated foreign aid and demanding foreign interference in his own election. According to Alexander, such stuff was simply “inappropriate” – much like wearing brogues to the Grand Ole Opry or asking for the fish at Top’s Bar-B-Q.

Faced with so many profiles in courage, our reality TV star of a commander-in-chief will carry on regardless, seeking out fellow grifters, foreign strongmen and domestic weaklings

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did,” said the senator, elected to make decisions for the American people in one of three co-equal branches of government.

Faced with so many profiles in courage, our reality TV star of a commander-in-chief will carry on regardless, seeking out fellow grifters, foreign strongmen and domestic weaklings. Will he feel liberated by the failure of the Senate trial to seek out more foreign interference in this year’s election? The answer may be similar to the one about bears dumping in forests.

Short of removal from office or federal indictment, there are no constraints on Trump’s conduct. He can hire another goon like Rudy Giuliani to work with sketchy foreigners running businesses called something like Fraud Guarantee. Then he can shovel any amount of sketchy cash on to Facebook’s mountain of money to beguile the gullible about the guaranteed fraud. Because a president can’t be impeached for inappropriate crimes. And because political free speech is untouchable in the fantasy world where Mark Zuckerberg thinks he’s helping humanity.

This has been a historic week for self-destructive politics. Like turkeys voting for Christmas, the British government celebrated its withdrawal from its biggest trading relationships just as Republican senators celebrated their own castration.

Both sets of magnificent morons claimed they were acting for their imaginary friends in the future: a future where Britain will once again bestride the ocean, and presidents will once again lead the free world feeling free from the fear of partisan impeachment.

“The Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats keep chanting ‘fairness’, when they put on the most unfair Witch Hunt in the history of the U.S. Congress,” tweeted the victim-in-chief sitting in the Oval Office, probably watching Fox News. “They had 17 Witnesses, we were allowed ZERO, and no lawyers. They didn’t do their job, had no case. The Dems are scamming America!”

Donald Trump doesn’t know much about history, foreign policy or politics. He can’t tell the difference between his own lawyers and no lawyers; between lots of witnesses and no witnesses at all. But he does know a lot about scams, and he can’t wait to share them with you.



To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:15:51 PM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 1575984
 
CORONAVIRUS ESCALATES: Fears of global economic slowdown as virus follows trade war.
theguardian.com
China, and the world, were already burdened by tariffs. Now, some say the coronavirus could undermine fragile growth
Phillip Inman
@phillipinman
Sat 1 Feb 2020 11.00 EST

A woman shopping in a street market in the Thai capital, Bangkok, aimed at attracting the lucrative Chinese tourist trade. Photograph: Gemunu Amarasinghe/AP
With tens of millions of Chinese people quarantined inside their cities and thousands of factories closed, it is already clear that the coronavirus is about to sideswipe the global economy.

Last year’s tit-for-tat trade war between China and the US, which involved both sides slapping import tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods, knocked China’s already ailing GDP growth rate down to 6% in 2019 and helped depress global growth: it fell from 3.6% in 2018 to 3% last year.

A Chinese official warned last week that the spread of the virus from its beginnings in Wuhan to about 10,000 victims across the country would add to the damage from the trade war, and possibly cause more economic harm than the Sars epidemic, almost two decades ago. And with eight key regions and two cities in China subject to closure of non-essential business until at least 9 February, the significance of the epidemic is beyond doubt.

Zhang Ming, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (part of Beijing’s state council), predicted that China’s annual growth rate could drop below an annualised 5% in the January-March 2020 quarter. That would be a sharp slowdown compared with 6% annualised growth in the previous quarter.

Goldman Sachs believes the fast-spreading coronavirus will knock 0.4 percentage points from annualised growth in the US over the first quarter of 2020, as Chinese tourism to the US dips and exports of American goods to China take a hit. Its central forecast is for a partial rebound in US growth in the second quarter, but the risks are “skewed towards a larger hit”.

It is clear that unless a cure and a vaccination are found rapidly, the fragile recovery that we predict is at risk

CEBR“A change in the news flow could lead to increased domestic risk-aversion behaviour or a sustained tightening in financial conditions. A larger outbreak of the virus in the US or the fear thereof could lead to a decline in domestic travel, commuting and shopping,” Goldman notes.

In 2002, Sars spread virtually unchecked to 37 countries, causing global panic, infecting more than 8,000 people and killing about 750. The coronavirus is spreading at a faster rate.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) says that because those who contract it are infectious before experiencing symptoms, the coronavirus could be much worse. Quarantine measures will largely be “a matter of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, unless they apply well beyond those who are currently infected,” it says.

The Chinese authorities were praised last week by the World Health Organization (WHO) after it declared the coronavirus to be a public health emergency of international concern. But both the communist-run government in Beijing and the WHO have faced severe criticism for reacting slowly given what is known about the rapid spread of the virus.

It is not easy to estimate the extent of the economic damage the virus is likely to inflict, but it is possible to use the Sars epidemic as a guide. Pantheon Macroeconomics estimates that Sars dragged China’s quarterly growth rate down to 1.8% in April-June 2003, from an average of 2.8%. The CEBR says the knock-on effect to world GDP was a fall in 2003 of between $30bn and $100bn, which was equal to between 0.08% and 0.25% of global GDP.

“Our worst-case calculation assumes that the coronavirus has a six times multiple effect on the Chinese economy. As the Chinese economy is nearly four times larger relative to the world economy [than in 2002], scaling up for this as well would create a world GDP negative impact of 1.8% to 6% based on the retrospective estimates of the impact of Sars,” the CEBR says.

“With world GDP set to grow by 2.9% this year before the coronavirus impact became apparent, it is clear that unless a cure and a vaccination are found rapidly, the fragile recovery that we predict is at risk.”

Britain and the rest of Europe have already had people return from China with confirmed or suspected cases of the virus, leading many airlines to suspend flights to China and in some cases Hong Kong, though not Macau so far. The US and Canada have also seen their first cases and warned citizens not to travel to China.



FacebookTwitterPinterest
A man in a protective facemask walking through what would normally be a busy shopping area in Beijing last week. Photograph: Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesThe economic impact, though, will be most keenly felt across south-east Asia, where China is not only a major trading partner but a source of vital revenue from tourism.

Prakash Sakpal, an economist at ING, illustrates the point in a report on Thailand, where the local currency dropped by 3.7% in value against the US dollar in January, partially reversing an 8.6% appreciation last year. Tourism makes up a fifth of the Thai economy and visitors from China alone account for about a quarter of total tourism receipts.

Sakpal says a sharp fall in tourism spending will put a big dent in the country’s current account surplus, which is a measure of the money coming into the country versus the funds leaving to be spent elsewhere. This surplus has been the main reason behind the Thai baht’s appreciation in recent years, he says.

A decline in tourism spending has already hit the main cruise lines. US operator Royal Caribbean Cruises has cancelled three trips scheduled in February, which will hit 2020 earnings by about 10 cents per share, the company said. A ship owned by the Carnival Corporation, which is listed in New York and London, was briefly put in quarantine in the Italian port of Civitavecchia, trapping 66 Britons and 6,000 other passengers.

Shares in Norwegian Cruise Line Holding, Royal Caribbean and Carnival were all at least 5% lower on the New York stock exchange following the Italian incident before recovering some of their losses on Friday.

The consultancy S&P Global Market Intelligence says the decision of regional governments to extend factory closures beyond 2 February to control the virus’s spread will be a major blow to China’s GDP.

International companies are beginning to find ways of circumventing Chinese companies to obtain electronics parts, though US commerce secretary Wilbur Ross made it clear he thought most firms were unlikely to question strategic business relationships as a result of the outbreak.

That said, Apple, General Motors, Ikea and Starbucks have closed much of their Chinese operations, as have many other foreign companies.

Chris Rogers of S&P says commitments to buy $33.4bn of US agricultural exports this year, made by Beijing as part of a truce in the trade war, might be difficult to meet. But he believes there will be an opportunity later in the year to make up for lost time. The expectation is that the coronavirus will soon be under control and the overall effect, even on the Chinese mainland, will be limited.

The consultancy Oxford Economics has cut its forecast for global growth this year from 2.5% to 2.3%, which would be the lowest since the 2008 financial crash. “Considering the affected areas account for just over 50% of total Chinese output, we think this could lead China’s annual GDP growth to slow to just 4% in the first quarter from our previous forecast of 6%,” it said.

Writing in Caijing magazine, Zhang Ming said the coronavirus’s economic impact could be “significantly bigger” than Sars, based on a forecast that the outbreak would peak in mid-February and end by April.

That must be the hope of governments across the world; but with the virus already thought to be in thousands of people who have no idea they are infected, the fear must be that it claims more victims, ruins more businesses and depresses global growth by much more than so far estimated.



To: locogringo who wrote (1198070)2/2/2020 2:23:17 PM
From: bruwin1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575984
 
I see that you got 7 "REPLIES" from that FELINE AR*EHOLE NAMED AFTER A CARTOON CAT !!!!

I can just imagine the level of PURE, UNADULTERATED SHIT THAT "IT" CAME UP WITH !!!!

No doubt "IT" has reached a new level of "IMBECILITY" since I switched "IT" off !!!!

RAOTFLMAO !!!!!