Cryptocurrency Margin Trading 101 Guide - Bitcoin Philippines

McDo PH: no full recovery before 2022, fast food forever changed (Tuesday, Aug 11)

Happy Tuesday, Barkada --

The PSE closed up 85 points to 5931 ▲1.45%.

Thank you to microrama, LemonDoping, and xtiankahoy for the words of support and encouragement, and to Michael for his email question about my non-inclusion of the Consunji clan into the MB Family Showdown. I didn't exclude that family on purpose, they just don't really figure prominently in my investing "life", so I haven't had reason to deep dive into their holdings yet. Though, I will fix that this weekend!
Also, shout outs to PabloCesar2189, hadalaboforlyf, and dimaandal for wishing me and my baby well. She's not so "new" anymore, but still it's incredible how a baby can entirely re-write all the household bylaws and customs overnight. She's the best, but because she was born at Makati Med on the night of Koko Pimentel's Great Big COVID Adventure, it's been a white-knuckled, wild ride of self-isolation, quarantine, and Viber pedia checkups. I'm thankful, though, because both mother and daughter are happy and healthy and that's been my only goal.

Daily meme | Join MB | Today's email

COVID Update

WW: 20017017 PH: 129680 

Top 3 MB indices:

 D30 Targets ▲3.16% POGO Prop. ▲2.63% 2020 IPOs ▲2.13% 

Bottom 3 MB indices:

 MiddleClass ▼1.30% Power Gen. ▼0.67% Cement ▼0.63% 

Main stories covered:

MB is posted to /PHinvest every Monday and Wednesday, but my newsletter goes out daily. To stay in the loop for daily email delivery, please join the barkada by signing up for the newsletter, or follow me on Twitter.

Join our Barkada here

Read today's full email here

submitted by DuncnIdahosBandurria to phinvest [link] [comments]

/r/neoliberal elects the American Presidents - Part 34, Hoover v Smith in 1928

Previous editions:
(All strawpoll results counted as of the next post made)
Part 1, Adams v Jefferson in 1796 - Adams wins with 68% of the vote
Part 2, Adams v Jefferson in 1800 - Jefferson wins with 58% of the vote
Part 3, Jefferson v Pinckney in 1804 - Jefferson wins with 57% of the vote
Part 4, Madison v Pinckney (with George Clinton protest) in 1808 - Pinckney wins with 45% of the vote
Part 5, Madison v (DeWitt) Clinton in 1812 - Clinton wins with 80% of the vote
Part 6, Monroe v King in 1816 - Monroe wins with 51% of the vote
Part 7, Monroe and an Era of Meta Feelings in 1820 - Monroe wins with 100% of the vote
Part 8, Democratic-Republican Thunderdome in 1824 - Adams wins with 55% of the vote
Part 9, Adams v Jackson in 1828 - Adams wins with 94% of the vote
Part 10, Jackson v Clay (v Wirt) in 1832 - Clay wins with 53% of the vote
Part 11, Van Buren v The Whigs in 1836 - Whigs win with 87% of the vote, Webster elected
Part 12, Van Buren v Harrison in 1840 - Harrison wins with 90% of the vote
Part 13, Polk v Clay in 1844 - Polk wins with 59% of the vote
Part 14, Taylor v Cass in 1848 - Taylor wins with 44% of the vote (see special rules)
Part 15, Pierce v Scott in 1852 - Scott wins with 78% of the vote
Part 16, Buchanan v Frémont v Fillmore in 1856 - Frémont wins with 95% of the vote
Part 17, Peculiar Thunderdome in 1860 - Lincoln wins with 90% of the vote.
Part 18, Lincoln v McClellan in 1864 - Lincoln wins with 97% of the vote.
Part 19, Grant v Seymour in 1868 - Grant wins with 97% of the vote.
Part 20, Grant v Greeley in 1872 - Grant wins with 96% of the vote.
Part 21, Hayes v Tilden in 1876 - Hayes wins with 87% of the vote.
Part 22, Garfield v Hancock in 1880 - Garfield wins with 67% of the vote.
Part 23, Cleveland v Blaine in 1884 - Cleveland wins with 53% of the vote.
Part 24, Cleveland v Harrison in 1888 - Harrison wins with 64% of the vote.
Part 25, Cleveland v Harrison v Weaver in 1892 - Harrison wins with 57% of the vote
Part 26, McKinley v Bryan in 1896 - McKinley wins with 71% of the vote
Part 27, McKinley v Bryan in 1900 - Bryan wins with 55% of the vote
Part 28, Roosevelt v Parker in 1904 - Roosevelt wins with 71% of the vote
Part 29, Taft v Bryan in 1908 - Taft wins with 64% of the vote
Part 30, Taft v Wilson v Roosevelt in 1912 - Roosevelt wins with 81% of the vote
Part 31, Wilson v Hughes in 1916 - Hughes wins with 62% of the vote
Part 32, Harding v Cox in 1920 - Cox wins with 68% of the vote
Part 33, Coolidge v Davis v La Follette in 1924 - Davis wins with 47% of the vote
Welcome back to the thirty-fourth edition of /neoliberal elects the American presidents!
This will be a fairly consistent weekly thing - every week, a new election, until we run out.
I highly encourage you - at least in terms of the vote you cast - to try to think from the perspective of the year the election was held, without knowing the future or how the next administration would go. I'm not going to be trying to enforce that, but feel free to remind fellow commenters of this distinction.
If you're really feeling hardcore, feel free to even speak in the present tense as if the election is truly upcoming!
Whether third and fourth candidates are considered "major" enough to include in the strawpoll will be largely at my discretion and depend on things like whether they were actually intending to run for President, and whether they wound up actually pulling in a meaningful amount of the popular vote and even electoral votes. I may also invoke special rules in how the results will be interpreted in certain elections to better approximate historical reality.
While I will always give some brief background info to spur the discussion, please don't hesitate to bring your own research and knowledge into the mix! There's no way I'll cover everything!
Herbert Hoover v Alfred Smith
Profiles
  • Herbert Hoover is the 54-year-old Republican candidate and the Secretary of Commerce. His running mate is US Senator from Kansas Charles Curtis.
  • Al Smith is the 55-year-old Democratic candidate and the Governor of New York. His running mate is US Senator from Arkansas Joseph Robinson.
Issues
  • A bit less than 10 years ago, the 18th Amendment was ratified, quickly followed by the Volstead Act which implemented the nationwide prohibition on the production, importation, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages that we are all familiar with today. For years, the parties have largely successfully kept Prohibition from becoming a major presidential election issue. Now, that has changed.
    • Herbert Hoover has never been one of Prohibition's most enthusiastic advocates, but he does support it and has gone along with his party's platform which calls for a vigorous enforcement of Prohibition.
    • While he has promised to enforce the laws so long as they exist, Al Smith opposes Prohibition. Specifically, he says he favors "changes" in the current law and even the Constitutional amendment. He states that he believes in temperance, but points out that too much of the public believes the conduct in question to be innocent for it to be adequately prosecuted. Thus, his main reason for opposing prohibition is that "disregard of the prohibition laws is insidiously sapping respect for all law." One immediate reform that Smith supports is "an amendment to the Volstead Law giving a scientific definition of the alcoholic content of an intoxicating beverage."
  • Aside from some brief periods of transitional industrial declines, the economy continues to largely be booming. Republicans are quick to take credit for this prosperity given their control of the executive branch post-Wilson and their control of both houses of Congress for even longer (as a side note, some Democrats have sharply criticized some of the circumstances that have allowed Republicans to maintain their power in Congress.) Hoover has praised income tax reductions and protective tariffs, attributing the current prosperity to policies like these. And his economic ambitions go further - he has proclaimed that "we are nearer today to the ideal of the abolition of poverty" than ever before. That Hoover served for 7 years as Secretary of Commerce gives him a unique opportunity to take credit for the accomplishments of the recent administrations. Republicans praise Hoover as an engineer of governance and a technocrat who can bring a unique efficiency and intelligence to government, and also highlight his humanitarian work.
  • Takeover of the Democratic Party? Smith represents the victory of a different kind of Democrat in securing the nomination. Post-Wilson, tension has been on the rise between the Democratic Party of the rural south, the west, prohibition supporters, and KKK-sympathizers versus the Democratic Party of eastern cities, Tammany Hall, prohibition skeptics, and Catholic & Jewish immigrant communities. In the last election, Davis represented a compromise between the two factions. But this time, the latter faction won outright at the top of the ticket - with the caveat that the vice-presidential nominee to some extent represents the former faction.
    • This elevation of a newer faction of the Democratic Party is a major development - but also comes with risks. Smith is associated with a diverse urban culture that is foreign to vast swaths of the country. As one radio preacher argued, Al Smith is to be associated with "card playing, cocktail drinking, poodle dogs, divorces, novels, stuffy rooms, dancing, evolution, Clarence Darrow, nude art, prize-fighting, actors, greyhound racing, and modernism."
    • Al Smith has had to combat abundant questions and criticisms related to his Catholic faith. Protestant ministers have involved themselves in political commentary surrounding this election at an unprecedented level, spreading unfounded claims to their congregants that Smith will take orders from the Pope. The Ku Klux Klan has engaged in active opposition to Smith, burning crosses outside his rallies and distributing unsupported literature arguing Smith will annul Protestant marriages.
    • Al Smith has also received criticism for his association with Tammany Hall. While the political organization has in many ways attempted to reinvent itself, many Americans still associate it with its history of corruption.
  • On economic policy, the differences between Republicans and Democrats have become particularly nuanced, marginal, and difficult to identify. On tariffs for example, once a major anchor issue distinguishing the parties, the Democrats have become more open to protectionism and moved towards the traditional Republican position. Both parties call for tax reductions broadly. Democrats have distinguished themselves somewhat with a call for public works programs during times of high unemployment, but this is not to say that Republicans are known to oppose such programs.
  • Alice Paul's National Women's Party has endorsed Herbert Hoover because of his selection of a running mate. That running mate, Senator Charles Curtis, introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in Congress. Smith opposes the ERA, but largely because of his support for protective laws. Some women's rights organizations, for example the Women's Joint Congressional Committee, share Smith's stance.
Platforms
Read the full 1928 Republican platform here. Highlights include:
General
  • Strong endorsement of Coolidge Administration
  • Statement that "under Republican inspiration and largely under Republican executive direction the continent has been bound with steel rails, the oceans and great rivers have been joined by canals, waterways have been deepened and widened for ocean commerce, and with all a high American standard of wage and living has been established"
Economy, Trade
  • Statement that the "citizen and taxpayer has a natural right to be protected from unnecessary and wasteful expenditures"
  • Statement that the "Republican Party will continue to reduce our National debt as rapidly as possible"
  • Pledge for "further reduction of the tax burden as the condition of the Treasury may from time to time permit"
  • Reaffirmation of "our belief in the protective tariff as a fundamental and essential principle of the economic life of this nation"
  • Statement that "contrary to the prophesies of its critics, the present tariff law has not hampered the natural growth in the exportation of the products of American agriculture, industry, and mining, nor has it restricted the importation of foreign commodities which this country can utilize without jeopardizing its economic structure"
  • Statement that the "Republican Party believes that in the interest of both native and foreign-born wage-earners, it is necessary to restrict immigration" but that in cases where "the law works undue hardships by depriving the immigrant of the comfort and society of those bound by close family ties, such modification should be adopted as will afford relief"
  • Support for "freedom in wage contracts [and] the right of collective bargaining by free and responsible agents of their own choosing"
Foreign Policy
  • Endorsement of "a multilateral treaty proposed to the principal powers of the world and open to the signatures of all nations, to renounce war as an instrument of national policy"
  • Statement that the "object and the aim of the United States is to further the cause of peace, of strict justice between nations with due regard for the rights of others in all international dealings"
  • Opposition to US membership in the League of Nations or "to assume any obligations under the covenant of the League"
  • Endorsement of cooperating "in the humanitarian and technical work undertaken by the League"
  • Statement that "the Republican Party pledges itself to aid and assist in the perfection of principles of international law and the settlement of international disputes"
Other Issues
  • Pledge for "the observance and vigorous enforcement" of "the Eighteenth Amendment"
  • Statement that the "Republican Party, which from the first has sought to bring this development about, accepts wholeheartedly equality on the part of women, and in the public service it can present a record of appointments of women in the legal, diplomatic, judicial, treasury and other governmental departments"
  • Support for "the creation of a Commission to be appointed by the President including one or more Indian citizens to investigate and report to Congress upon the existing system of the administration of Indian affairs and to report any inconsistencies that may be found to exist between that system and the rights of the Indian citizens of the United States"
  • Renewal of "our recommendation that the Congress enact at the earliest possible date a Federal Anti-Lynching Law so that the full influence of the Federal Government may be wielded to exterminate this hideous crime"
Read the full 1928 Democratic platform here. Highlights include:
General
  • Statement "that government must function not to centralize our wealth but to preserve equal opportunity so that all may share in our priceless resources"
  • Reaffirmation of "our devotion to the principles of Democratic government formulated by Jefferson and enforced by a long and illustrious line of Democratic Presidents"
  • Demand that "the constitutional rights and powers of the states shall be preserved in their full vigor and virtue" and that these rights and powers "constitute a bulwark against centralization and the destructive tendencies of the Republican Party"
  • Demand for "a revival of the spirit of local self-government, without which free institutions cannot be preserved"
Economy, Trade, Immigration
  • Pledge for "business-like reorganization of all the departments of the government" and "substitution of modern business-like methods for existing obsolete and antiquated conditions"
  • Statement that the "Federal Reserve system, created and inaugurated under Democratic auspices, is the greatest legislative contribution to constructive business ever adopted"
  • Support for "a further reduction of the internal taxes of the people"
  • Support for tariffs "that will permit effective competition, insure against monopoly and at the same time produce a fair revenue for the support of government"
  • Statement that the "actual difference between the cost of production at home and abroad, with adequate safeguard for the wage of the American laborer must be the extreme measure of every tariff rate"
  • Support for "a Democratic tariff based on justice to all"
  • Support for "the principle of collective bargaining"
  • Support for "a scientific plan whereby during periods of unemployment appropriations shall be made available for the construction of necessary public works and the lessening, as far as consistent with public interests, of government construction work when labor is generally and satisfactorily employed in private enterprise"
  • Statement that "laws which limit immigration must be preserved in full force and effect, but the provisions contained in these laws that separate husbands from wives and parents from infant children are inhuman and not essential to the purpose or the efficacy of such laws"
Foreign Policy
  • Statement that the "Republican administration has no foreign policy; it has drifted without plan"
  • Statement that the United States "can not afford to play [only] a minor role in world politics"
  • Support for a foreign policy based on principles of "an abhorrence of militarism, conquest and imperialism" as well as "freedom from entangling political alliances" and "full, free and open cooperation with all other nations for the promotion of peace and justice throughout the world"
  • Support for immediate independence for the Philippines
Other Issues
  • Support "for equality of women with men in all political and governmental matters"
  • Support for "an equal wage for equal service; and likewise favor adequate appropriations for the women's and children's bureau"
  • Pledge of "the party and its nominees to an honest effort to enforce the eighteenth amendment and all other provisions of the federal Constitution and all laws enacted pursuant thereto"
  • Pledge "to enlarge the existing Bureau of Public Health and to do all things possible to stamp out communicable and contagious diseases, and to ascertain preventive means and remedies for these diseases, such as cancer, infantile paralysis and others which heretofore have largely defied the skill of physicians"
Audiovisual Material
40-minute Pro-Hoover silent campaign film, 1928 (Video)
Hoover urging voters to the polls, 1928 (Video & Audio)
Hoover speaking at the Republican convention, 1928 (Video & Audio)
Smith accepting the nomination, 1928 (Audio)
For more audio clips, go to this Library of Congress link and search the name of one of the candidates.
Strawpoll
>>>VOTE HERE<<<
submitted by John_Charles_Fremont to neoliberal [link] [comments]

Following up with and grading every last pick in NBA history from 2019-1947.

I tried for a solid three and a half minutes to find a database of every last pick in every NBA draft since 1947, but my searches yielded mostly unhelpful results. So, instead of ranking a bunch of nobodies, I decided to grade them based upon very hasty research and what I know about them. Feel free to add on to these anecdotes. A “C” grade will be average in this case, an average last pick in an NBA draft usually doesn’t play so there will be other factors to consider, like how cool their name is or whether or not I’ve even heard of the country they’re from.
Now, somewhat of an important disclaimer: I used data from NBA.com to find out the name of the last pick in every NBA Draft, but apparently NBA.com isn’t 100% accurate with this kind of stuff. Apparently, in some of the older drafts, some of the last picks shown weren’t actually the last pick in the draft due to weird extra rounds and other hijinks that I guess NBA.com doesn’t care about. That being said, I still think the list is mainly accurate and most of these guys seem to fit the bill anyway.
2019: Vanja Marinkovic, Sacramento Kings (KK Partizan Serbia)
Yep, I’ve heard of that country before. Don’t know anything about Vanja but maybe he’s the next Nikola Jokic.
Grade: C+
2018: Kostas Antetokounmpo, Philadelphia 76ers (Dayton)
The brother of an athletic freak who has a 1/500 chance of turning into him? And a 1/100 chance of influencing said athletic freak to come play for your team? What more could you want from a last pick?
Grade: A
2017: Alpha Kaba, Atlanta Hawks (KK Mega Leks Serbia)
Alpha has a cool ass name but is already playing overseas in France. Hawks took a very reasonable risk.
Grade: C+
2016: Tyrone Wallace, Utah Jazz (Cal)
Somebody I’ve actually heard of! He’s in the G-League now for the Clippers, but to still be in the league after four years? That’s a win.
Grade: B+
2015: Luka Mitrovic, Philadelphia 76ers (Red Star Belgrade Serbia) We’ve only gone back five seasons and already we’re at our 3rd Serbian. Somebody in the front office scouting circles knows something that we all don’t about Serbia, clearly. I have to assume automatically that this is a good pick. Even if he didn’t pant out. And he didn’t.
Grade: C+
2014: Cory Jefferson, San Antonio Spurs (Baylor)
Cory doesn’t play in the league anymore but he looks intimidating and I vaguely remember him in college.
Grade: C
2013: Janis Timma, Memphis Grizzlies (BK Ventspils Latvia)
I know nothing about this guy but there’s a ⅓ chance he’s better than Anthony Bennett. He looks more like a surfer than a basketball player.
Grade: C-
2012: Robert Sacre, Los Angeles Lakers (Gonzaga)
If you’re a Lakers fan or are familiar with the word “upside” then you probably remember bench god Robert Sacre, who survived on the Lakers’ roster until 2015.
Grade: B+
2011: Isaiah Thomas, Sacramento Kings (Washington)
The best last pick of all time. Only the Kings could follow this massive success with a massive fuckup after they gave IT up for nothing, allowing him to get traded by the Suns and become an MVP candidate. I’m tempted to grade this an F because of the emotional trauma that Kings inflicted upon their fans by hyping them up only to crush their spirits. But I just can’t. It is very, very unlikely that a player of IT’s calibre ever falls to the last pick of the draft ever again.
Grade: A+
Dwayne Collins, Phoenix Suns (Miami FL) Lol imagine not being Isaiah Thomas, what a loser.
Grade: F
2009: Robert Dozier, Miami Heat, (Memphis)
I don’t know if this guy even made it to the NBA but Wikipedia tells me that the last team he played for was called the “Phoenix Pulse Fuel Masters” of the Philippine Basketball Association. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Grade: D-
2008: Semih Erden, Boston Celtics (Fenerbahce Turkey)
Averaged 3.8 ppg in the NBA for multiple teams. Can’t really complain.
Grade: C
2007: Milokan Rakovic, Dallas Mavericks (KK Mega Leks Serbia)
Serbian count is up to 4. They are the Duke or Kentucky of the international NBA draft scene, this is ridiculous. Absolute powerhouse.
Grade: C+
2006: Will Blalock, Detroit Pistons (Iowa State)
This guy last played for the Saint John Mill Rats of Canada. I think the Mill Rats could take the Fuel Masters in 7, so I like the pick here.
Grade: C
2005: Alex Acker, Detroit Pistons (Pepperdine)
They shot Zoey 101 on Pepperdine’s campus, which is amazingly beautiful. Don’t know anything about this guy, really. Played in Italy for a bit.
Grade: C
2004: Rashad Wright, Indiana Pacers (Georgia)
He never played a minute for the Pacers and played his entire career overseas. Not good, dude probably should have played football.
Grade: D+
2003: Andreas Glyniadakis, Detroit Pistons (Greece)
There’s a 1/25 chance this guy met LeBron at some point but there’s also like a ½ chance this guy has talked to Darko a well so we can’t have that.
Grade: D
2002: Corsley Edwards, Sacramento Kings (Cent. Connecticut State)
This guy probably has the 2nd best teeth in the game.
Grade: C
2001: Bryan Bracey, San Antonio Spurs (Oregon)
Dude had some nice cornrows
Grade: C+
2000: Pete Mickeal, Dallas Mavericks (Cincinnati)
This guy is actually a scout for the Timberwolves right now, so that’s pretty cool. Not sure if that’s a good thing, though, i’m not sure if the Twolves have had any good draft moves outside of Okogie.
Grade: D+
1999: Eddie Lucas, Utah Jazz (Virginia Tech)
I googled this guy and he’s currently a construction worker. This is a massive advancement in the “MJ played against construction workers” campaign that many on twitter keep pushing.
Grade: F+
1998: Maceo Baston, Chicago Bulls (Michigan)
Finally, a cool name, it’s been awhile. Too bad MJ probably robbed this guy’s signing bonus blind in a game of poker or something then bullied him into an early retirement. Even though he, himself, was already retired. That’s how good he was.
Grade: C-
1997: Roberto Duenas, Chicago Bulls (Spain)
Okay, maybe MJ didn’t get Maceo Baston but he definitely got this guy. Definitely.
Grade: D
1996: Darnell Robinson, Dallas Mavericks (Arkansas)
He won an NCAA title in ‘94 which is actually incredible because I had no idea Arkansas even had a basketball team let alone a winner. Good for them, even though the Razorback fans were probably too busy paying attention to football season already to care.
Grade: B-
1995: Don Reid, Detroit Pistons (Georgetown)
We’re getting to the point where google is becoming really unhelpful with the searches, the last two names i’ve googled have had their searches hijacked by singers. Not sure what to make of that.
Grade: D
1994: Zeljko Rebraca, Seattle Supersonics (KK Partizan Serbia)
Another draft, another Serbian picked last. I think it’s officially time we look into an anti-Serbian agenda the NBA has taken on.
Grade: C+
1993: Byron Wilson, Phoenix Suns (Utah)
This guy had a super long career overseas, for what that’s worth. He hung em up in 2010. Good for him. Never played a minute in the association, though.
Grade: C+
1992: Brett Roberts, Sacramento Kings (Morehead State)
Brett led the NCAA in scoring for a season. That’s about it.
Grade: C+
1991: Marcus Kennedy, Portland Trailblazers (Eastern Michigan)
After flunking out of the NBA he won rookie of the year in the CBA, which is the Continental Basketball Association, obviously. Only idiots don’t know that.
Grade: C-
1990: Sean Higgins, San Antonio Spurs (Michigan)
Higgins stayed in the league until ‘98 and won a title in college. Probably pretty funny and cracked a few jokes in the locker room.
Grade: B-
1989: Toney Mack, Philadelphia 76ers (Georgia)
If you’re still reading this, I applaud your effort, because this player is neither interesting nor talented. Like most of these last picks. I’m sure Toney was really good at basketball up until a point where he wasn’t and it was really tragic for him. Perhaps it has haunted him ever since, the allure of what could have been, the mystery of lost talent.
Grade: F
1988: Archie Marshall, San Antonio Spurs (Kansas)
There’s a 1/10 chance this guy has met Pop.
Grade: C
1987: Chris Dudley, Cleveland Cavaliers (Yale)
Obviously the Cavs tried to go with the big brain guy here to back up Mark Price and Brad Daugherty. Did it work? Well, yeah, actually it did. Dudley stayed in the NBA all the way up until 2003, which is actually kind of remarkable. Not to mention he was the last pick in a draft that had 4 rounds.
Grade: A
1986: Dan Bingenheimer, Golden State Warriors (Missouri)
Cool name alert, finally. Who knows what kinds of nicknames this guy probably had. He probably allowed his teammates’ brains to get stimulated with nicknames and insults alike because Dan was a bum and never did anything in the NBA. Sorry, but it’s the truth.
Grade: D+
1985: Alex Stivrins, Seattle Supersonics (Colorado)
We’re starting to reach automatic white guy territory, but before we do, let’s admire how Stivrins played 5 years in the french league after getting drafted before coming back to the league. I’m sure American fans were eager to receive his skills.
Grade: C+
1984: Marc Glass, Los Angeles Clippers (Montana)
This one kind of creeped me out because there’s a point guard in one of my 2k leagues that's randomly generated and who has the same name that also plays for the Clippers. Besides that his name is so boring that google barely knows who he is, actually requiring me to scroll down to find him, which I definitely did not do.
Grade: D 1983: Ron Crevier, Chicago Bulls (Boston College)
This guy sounds like a background character in Ratatouille.
Grade: C-
1982: Norm Anchrum, New York Knicks (UAB)
A decent name. He won the price is right once, scored a package worth $6400. So that proves that he was probably decently smart.
Grade: C+
1981: Kevin Figaro, Atlanta Hawks (UL-Lafayette)
Figaro, Figaro.
Grade: C
1980: Rory Sparrow, New Jersey Nets (Villanova)
Rory actually had a decent career, putting up 12/5 in his best year with the Heat. Retired in ‘92, he’s done pretty well for a last pick.
Grade: A
1979: Ron Ripley, Golden State Warriors (UWGB)
Ron Ripley is a husband and father surviving in New England, a place which seems to be getting colder every day. He grew up across from a disturbingly large cemetery where he managed to scare himself every night before going to bed
Grade: F
1978: Jeff Covington, New Orleans Jazz (Youngstown State)
Jeff got to be apart of the Jazz before they moved to Utah and their team name ceased to make sense. That’s a plus.
Grade: C+
1977: Larry Williams, Kansas City Kings (Texas Southern)
I wrote about Larry Williams in this post.
Larry Williams deserves a grade so low that no letter or number could quantify it.
Grade: Bad
1976: Tom Lockhart, Milwaukee Bucks (Manhatten)
This guy waa from Manhatten so he was probably shell-shocked when he was traded to Milwaukee and the bodegas and hot dog carts turned into bars and brat shacks. It probably sent him into hysterics, if i had a guess. Not sure why the Bucks would do this.
Grade: D-
1975: Wilbur Holland, Atlanta Hawks (New Orleans)
This guy was only 6 foot flat. He probably got called Wilbur the pig at some point in his life, which means there’s an increased chance that he’s suffered a great amount of emotional trauma that has stuck with him throughout his basketball career.
Grade: D-
1974: Gary Novak, Cleveland Cavaliers (Notre Dame)
Gary never played in the NBA. He played four years at Notre Dame so he probably won’t shut up about that.
Grade: D
1973: Gary Rhoades, Houston Rockets (Colorado State)
So now i’d say we’re officially in the automatic white guy territory, ushered in by Gary here who never played in the league. His draft featured five rounds so it makes sense. The game was rigged from the start.
Grade: D+
1972: Rudy Benjamin, Houston Rockets (Michigan State)
It’s starting to get grim. Rudy never played in the NBA either. This is a long streak at this point. How do we know the NBA isn’t just making these guys up? Perhaps the entire country of Serbia is made up, invented by the NBA to get more players into the NBA draft. I’m just asking questions.
Grade: D
1970: Wayne Sokolowski, Cleveland Cavaliers (Ashland)
Wayne Sokolwoski? More like Wayne sucks at basketballowski.
Grade: D
1969: Larry Jeffries, Detroit Pistons (Trinity TX)
Google tells me Larry is one of the best players in Southland conference history. Nice.
Grade: C+
1968: Phil Wagner, St. Louis Hawks (Georgia Tech)
Phil probably existed.
Grade: C+
1967: Sonny Bustion, San Francisco Warriors (Colorado State)
What do you really want me to tell you about Sonny Bustion?
Grade: C
1966: John Wetzel, Los Angeles Lakers (Virginia Tech)
This guy was taken in the 8th round. 8th. Not even the damn NFL draft has 8 rounds. This guy must be really, really bad.
Grade: F+
1965: Wayne Molis, New York Knicks (Lewis)
He played two seasons and then a knee injury ended his career, drawing comparisons to Derrick Rose. Back in 1969 everyone was wondering what could have been with the Mole Man.
Grade: B
1964: Camden Wail, San Francisco Warriors (Cal)
Now we’re talkin’, a cool name to invigorate this list.
Grade: C+
1963: Carl Ritter, St. Louis Hawks (SEMS) Carl Ritter was a German geographer. Along with Alexander von Humboldt, he is considered one of the founders of modern geography. From 1825 until his death, he occupied the first chair in geography at the University of Berlin.
Grade: F
1962: Chris Jones, Cincinnati Royals (Carson-Newman)
If you’ve scrolled down this far, it’s honestly an amazing feat. I don’t know anything about Chris Jones at all and his name is so generic that I don’t even want to test Google. I’ve never even heard of Carson-Newman. Not once.
Grade: C
1961: Gene Veloff, St. Louis Hawks (Doane)
What the fuck is a Doane?
Grade: F
1960: Dennis Moore, Cincinnati Royals (Regis CO)
Dennis Moore
Grade: F
1959: Jack Evans, Minneapolis Lakers (Lake Superior State)
Jack was drafted in the 11th round, which is just utterly ridiculous.
Grade: D-
1958: Frank Tartaton, Cincinnati Royals (Xavier)
Now, this is not a mis-spelling of NFL legend Fran Tarkenton. This guy was probably way less talented.
Grade: C-
1957: Jack Butcher, Boston Celtics (Memphis)
What a fucking name.This guy is likely the unsung hero of the Celtics’ entire franchise, what fear he must have struck into the hearts of his opponents.
Grade: B+
1956: Robert Hodgson, Minneapolis Lakers (Wichita State)
Nobody knows anything about this guy so let’s all pretend he would have been the GOAT if it wasn’t for some rare injury or something. Tragic.
Grade: A+
1955: Dick Welsh, St. Louis Hawks (USC)
Dick. Welsh.
Grade: C
1954: Vince Leta, Philadelphia Warriors (Lycoming)
Apparently Lycoming is a liberal arts college in Pennsylvania, not a mis-spelling of Wyoming. Sort of a weird move to go to e liberal arts college and then go pro in the NBA but hey Vince good for you man.
Grade: C
1953: Will Bales, Rochester Royals (Eastern Kentucky)
I looked up this guy and both Will Barton and Will Bynum came up ahead of him, despite googling his exact game. Very tough scene for Bales and i’m not sure if he’s even alive to care. Probably not.
Grade: C
1952: Burr Carlson, Philadelphia Warriors (Uconn)
What a pompous ass name.
Grade: F
1951: Hugo Kappler, Boston Celtics (NC State)
At this point not even the first overall picks from these drafts are doing shit in the NBA. The guy who was taken first overall in this draft didn’t play a single minute in the NBA, and you expect this guy to do shit? We’re so far down the line at this point that I could just start making up names and 99.99% of the people reading wouldn’t know. Is Hugo Kappler real or just a figment of my imagination? You’ll have to put in the effort to find out, I guess.
Grade: ?
1950: Earl Lloyd, Washington Capitols (West Virginia State)
This guy got drafted by a hockey team in the NBA draft. We’ve gone so far back that we have transcended sports.
Grade: G
1949: George Kaftan, Boston Celtics (Holy Cross)
There is a 100% chance that this guy was involved in a point shaving scandal at Holy Cross.
Grade: C
1948: Joe Holland, Baltimore Bullets (Kentucky)
This guy played under Aldoph Rupp and Kentucky and won a title. That i do know.
Grade: B+
1947: Ed Koffenberger, Philadelphia Warriors (Duke)
Here we are. The first last pick in NBA history, and it’s a Dukie. Disgusting. To boot, his name sounds more like a dentist’s name than a professional basketball player. Apparently he also played lacrosse at Duke. There’s a very good chance Coach K pai this guy under the table, despite being older than K by a very wide margin. You just can’t rule it out.
Well, there you have it. Some very bad picks in this list, and one good one. Just goes to show you how improbable IT’s career has been after being picked out of that last spot.
submitted by santaisjewish to nba [link] [comments]

The World This Week – 24th July 2020 to 31st July 2020

Indian Equity Summary-
· SØ&P BSE Sensex and Nifty 50 fell by 1.4% and 1% respectively on a WoW basis, and the six-week positive trend in Indian equities came to a pause as negative feelings prevailed among market participants, on the back of rising Covid-19 cases as well as a decline in US GDP at an annualized rate of 32.9% in 2Q 2020. Healthcare and IT were the best-performing sectors, while oil & gas and banks were the worst-performing ones on a weekly basis.
· Going forward, global factors like development on the US -China relationship front , and domestic factors like the outcome of the RBI MPCØ meeting ( we expect a pause in Repo rate cut in the August RBI MPC meeting) and the monsoon trajectory ; will continue to dictate the trend of the domestic equity market. We expect the trading range for Nifty between 10700-11,100 in the near term.
Indian Debt Market-
· Government bond prices fell marginally as the yield of the 10-year benchmark 5.79% 2030 paper settled at 5.84% on July 31 as against 5.82% onØ July 24 .
· India’s fiscal deficit during the first quarter of this fiscal widened to Rs 6.62 lakh crore or 83.2% of the budget estimates, mainly on account of poorØ tax collections due to the lockdown; fiscal deficit during the corresponding period of last year was 61.4% of the budget estimates.
· RBI introduced new 5.77% GS 2030 last week.Ø
· We expect the 10 year benchmark yield to trade between 5.80-6.05% in near term.Ø
Domestic News
· Deposit growth in the banking system continued to grow at 10.1 percent on a year-on-year basis, even though banks have reduced their depositØ rates sharply in the absence of credit growth and liquidity induced by RBI due to Covid-19.
· India’s factory slump deepened in July as renewed lockdown measures to contain surging coronavirus cases weighed on demand and output,Ø raising the chances of a sharper economic contraction, a private business survey showed on Monday.
· Indian power plants used the most gas in at least 3-1/2 years in the June quarter, as operators along the west coast snapped up cheap liquefiedØ natural gas (LNG) imports that have become competitive against coal, government data showed.
International News
· US real gross domestic product plummeted at a record annual rate of 32.9% in the second quarter of 2020 following a 5% decline in the firstØ quarter
· U.S. manufacturing activity accelerated to its highest level in nearly 1-1/2 years in July as orders increased despite a resurgence in new COVID-Ø 19 infections
· Tens of millions of people in and around the Philippine capital will go back to a strict lockdown from Tuesday, threatening incomes and hopesØ for reviving a once dynamic economy as authorities take drastic measures to halt surging virus cases.
Link - http://www.karvywealth.com/data/sites/1/skins/karvywealth/Download_media_report.aspx?FileName=C008C18F-7DA4-4A92-A64F-50DE73ECD819|5248508
%֩���:
submitted by wealthadvisor22 to u/wealthadvisor22 [link] [comments]

Bottom of Pyramid Microinsurance: Hungry for Innovation

Bottom of Pyramid Microinsurance: Hungry for Innovation

Credit: www.theguardian.com
A large majority of poor in developing nations work in informal sectors, with no access to insurance. They cannot afford to buy insurance nor can they access social protection (in health, disability or unemployment cover) provided by employers or co-financed by governments. Across socioeconomic clusters, this group is most vulnerable to financial shocks, and unsurprisingly least protected.
Microinsurance offers solutions to fill these gaps and deliver insurance that is affordable to match the needs of the poor. It protects them against specific risks in exchange for regular premium payments as per insurance principles. The risks commonly encompass illness, accidental injury, death and property or crop loss. Started off as community based and mutual insurance schemes, these are now increasingly offered by traditional insurance.
A number of players form part of the microinsurance supply chain. Ranging from insurance regulators to carriers, administrators, it comprises delivery channels, technology platform and service providers (such as health facilities or funeral organizations).

https://preview.redd.it/aqnyq503c6h51.png?width=667&format=png&auto=webp&s=27cdbcc2f139ed1e575efdfe22348117a6a75cdc
The opportunity for micro-insurance varies from region to region. The potential market has been estimated to be 3-4 billion policies generating $30 - $50 billion in annual revenue.
The popularity of products is also region dependent, basis the risks which affect the region the most - such as earthquakes in Chile or drought in Kenya. Microinsurers have been most successful in APAC, where two-thirds of the poor are to be found. India and Bangladesh are fastest growing, followed by China and Philippines. The countries in the right side of the below chart have favorable regulatory and business environment, both being vital enabling factors.
https://preview.redd.it/nbsdomamc6h51.png?width=804&format=png&auto=webp&s=3ae94962e03bb410c44ce6e298af414e73bda4c7
Microinsurance does not have any single definition as such. In South Africa, for instance, it is considered as a max benefit of R50k per insured life, while in Philippines, its the amount of premium that's less than10 percent of current daily minimum wage rate for non-agri workers.
Differences from traditional insurance are:
  • Presumes low awareness of insurance as a concept.
  • Assumes poorly educated customers, so communication must be straightforward.
  • Executed as conveniently and simply as possible, including eligiblity requirements, exclusions, payments anc and claims.
  • Relies on group pricing, due to lack of personal data
  • Links premiums to other payments, such as loan repayments.
History of Microinsurance
Microinsurance is likened to be an outgrowth of microfinancing projects developed by Bangladeshi Nobel Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus, that helped millions of low-income individuals set up businesses, buy houses.
American International Group Inc. (AIG) was one of the first carriers to offer microinsurance and sell policies in Uganda in 1997. It was soon joined by other large insurers including Swiss Re, Munich Re, Allianz and Zurich Financial Services. Today many innovative microinsurance products have been developed to protect the working poor against the financial impact of losses.
The growth of microinsurance
Despite almost 2 decades of focus on the under and uninsured, microinsurance is estimated to reach just under 300 million people across the developing world, ~10% of the potential market.
Partnership is one of the pillars of an effective microinsurance business model, but it is not an easy endeavour. Partners rarely have identical priorities and work with competing constraints which need to be overcome for a successul model.
Four business models prevalent as distribution channels are a)partner agent model provider driven model c)charitable insurance model d)mutual/cooperative insurance model
The partner-agent is the most common and includes MFIs, NGOs, cooperatives and retailers. It piggybacks on the partners infrastructure and trust, thus helping reduce costs and speeden time to market, facilitating scale. For this model to succeed, partner's staff need to be educated in insurance. Since the partner owns the client interface, the partnership requires intensive management. A good example is Hollard in South Africa that sells inexpensive funeral insurance through budget clothing retail chain Pep Stores.
The below chart of distribution mix in four growing microinsurance markets shows finance institutions are among most favorable distribution partners, particularly for MFI partners in India, Indonesia and Philippines. Agents and brokers are also a popular distribution network for microinsurance, followed by retail and commercial networks.
https://preview.redd.it/ac53kyd6f6h51.png?width=756&format=png&auto=webp&s=1d2ad3367805f7d38a07700be26982715a18bd7c
A key challenge facing microinsurers are availability of products designed to meet customer needs while meeting the carrier's operational and cost requirements. While simpler products are easier to market and administer, they also provide limited benefits. Trade-offs are inevitable and innovation is invaluable.
The below figure highlights the prevalence of credit life and life products, understandable as partnership with microfinance institutions is commonly a distribution medium. The high proportion of life insurance signifies the relative simplicity to develop this product. For the market to evolve, however, there is a need to move towards more complex products such as health and agricultural insurance.
https://preview.redd.it/eg6m2sgne6h51.png?width=784&format=png&auto=webp&s=eb12edaac6a6282a0bb30c79b0ad24eff8d7f54a
Challenges And Need For Innovation
When it comes to microinsurance, innovation is more than a response to customer demand for more convenient service - it is usually an operational imperative. Insurers leverage technology with the aim of offering simple, affordable products to mostly illiterate customers in locations difficult to reach.
We look below at few examples of carriers and their innovations that helped them overcome challenges.
Easy availability of mobile technology has been a major enabling factor in most markets. UAP Insurance in Kenya enables farmers to buy crop insurance by using their mobile phone to send in a photograph of the barcode on a bag of fertilizer or seed, and to pay premiums using M-Pesa mobile banking system.
Similarly, real-time connectivity with the carriers' system is an important factor to enable bulk processing and servicing of low-premium policies with minimal user invovlement and at lowest cost. An exmple is IFMR Trust Holdings that works with HDFC Ergo GIC in India to use radio-frequency identification tags on insured cattle to minimize claims fraud.
Pay-as-you-go insurance platforms that use cloud technology are a necessary means to achieve an adaptable and extendable microinsurance operating model. Max New York Life in India has extended their virtual network by distributing scratch cards through small retailers. Customers pay premiums by buying a card and texting the concealed code to the insurer.
Despite the strides being made by carriers, the operational challenges that continue to derail the best of efforts include:
  • Lack of information on consumers
  • Consumers beyond current reach
  • Different and new consumer needs
  • Consumers inexperienced with formal financial services
  • Constrained business models
Adoption of sophisticated technology can have a powerful impact, but managing the significant inhibitors effectively is undoubtedly imperative to succeed in this market.
Among common innovative solutions driven by insurers are index-based insurance, grants from governments and/or donors to develop infrastructure, partnering with weather stations to collect meteorological data, risk-spreading to multinational insurers and reinsurers, and technology to manage fraud.
Additionally, new technology enabled partnerships increase the distribution reach of insurance. Peer to peer insurance enables new operational models and product categories. Demand based insurance charges premium per use. Alternative and digital data allow for improved customer knowledge. For example, online consumer retail purchase history can better inform about a potential consumer's risk profile and premium pricing.
Leveraging digital infrastructure reduces marginal cost of insurance delivery. e.g. Saldo in Mexico uses blockchain to verify transactions to reduce fraud. Afrisure in Zimbabwe uses satellite data to enable provision of agricultural insurance at scale.
Sustainable Profitability
Profitability has not been easy to achieve in microinsurance, being a sophisticated offering to most consumers, who mistrust it and cannot easily understand. It is also an emerging area for insurers, who have limited knowledge to underwrite accurately. Over time, these are expected to smoothen out, insurers will learn from early mistakes and build more efficient distribution channels.
The key to profitability might just lie in the business model. In order to be profitable, a low margin/high volume philosophy will be the preferred path. Microinsurers will have a compelling need to price products accurately with low margins, and then sell large volumes. The challenges will manifest in that voluntary insurance products sold on an individual basis will be more expensive to distribute and service than mandatory group polices linked to loans. Nevertheless, as carriers manage to maintain growth in revenue greater than growth in incremental costs, they will derive profitability through scale.
submitted by riseofinsurtech to u/riseofinsurtech [link] [comments]

ABS-CBN Franchise Renewal Voting

Franchise Committee Resolution to DENY the ABS-CBN Franchise Renewal

YES (70) DENY RENEWAL

NCR (National Capital Region) 1. MALAPITAN, Dale "Along" R. (Caloocan City, 1st District)* 2. VILLAR, Camille A. (Las Piñas City, Lone District)^ 3. VALERIANO, Rolando M. (Manila, 2nd District)* 4. NIETO, John Marvin "Yul Servo" C. (Manila, 3rd District)* 5. BAGATSING, Cristal L. (Manila, 5th District)^ 6. FERNANDO, Bayani F. (Marikina City, 1st District)^ 7. CALIXTO, Antonino G. (Pasay City, Lone District) 8. CRISOLOGO, Anthony Peter "Onyx" D (Quezon City, 1st District)* 9. CASTELO, Precious Hipolito (Quezon City, 2nd District)* 10. GATCHALIAN, Weslie (Valenzuela City, 1st District)* 11. MARTINEZ, Eric M. (Valenzuela City, 2nd District)*
I (Ilocos Region) 12. FARIÑAS, Ria Christina G. (Ilocos Norte, 1st District)^ 13. SAVELLANO, Deogracias Victor "DV" B. (Ilocos Sur, 1st District)^
II (Cagayan Valley) 14. ALFONSO, Samantha Louise Vargas (Cagayan, 2nd District)* 15. ALBANO, Antonio "Tonypet" T. (Isabela, 1st District)* 16. DY, Ian Paul L. (Isabela, 3rd District)* 17. TAN, Alyssa Sheena P. (Isabela, 4th District)* 18. DY, Faustino Michael Carlos III T. (Isabela, 5th District)* 19. DY, Faustino V (Isabela, 6th District)*
III (Central Luzon) 20. SY-ALVARADO, "Kuya" Jose Antonio R. (Bulacan, 1st District)* 21. ARROYO, Juan Miguel Macapagal (Pampanga, 2nd District)^ 22. BONDOC, Juan Pablo "Rimpy" P. (Pampanga, 4th District)^
IV-A (CALABARZON) 23. ABU, Raneo "Ranie" E. (Batangas, 2nd District)^ 24. COLLANTES, Ma. Theresa V. (Batangas, 3rd District)^ 25. CHIPECO, Joaquin Jr. M. (Calamba City, Lone District)* 26. REVILLA, Strike B. (Cavite, 2nd District)* 27. BARZAGA, Elpidio Jr. F. (Cavite, 4th District) 28. FERRER, Luis IV "Jon-Jon" A. (Cavite, 6th District)* 29. REMULLA, Jesus Crispin C. (Cavite, 7th District)^ 30. TOLENTINO, Abraham "Bambol" N. (Cavite, 8th District)*^ 31. FERNANDEZ, Dan S. (Laguna, 1st District)^ 32. NOGRALES, Juan Fidel Felipe F. (Rizal, 2nd District)
IV-B (MIMAROPA) 33. ABUEG-ZALDIVAR, Cyrille "Beng" F. (Palawan, 2nd District)* 34. ACOSTA, Gil "Kabarangay Jr." A. (Palawan, 3rd District)* 35. MADRONA, Eleandro Jesus F. (Romblon, Lone District)*
V (Bicol Region) 36. VILLAFUERTE, Luis Raymund Jr. "LRay" F. (Camarines Sur, 2nd District)^
VI (Western Visayas) 37. GARIN, Janette L. (Iloilo, 1st District)* 38. BARONDA, Julienne "Jam" L. (Iloilo City, Lone District)*^
VII (Central Visayas) 39. GULLAS, Eduardo "Eddie" R. (Cebu, 1st District)* 40. GARCIA, Pablo John F. (Cebu, 3rd District)^ 41. TEVES, Arnolfo Jr. "Arnie" A. (Negros Oriental, 3rd District)*
VIII (Eastern Visayas) 42. ROMUALDEZ, Ferdinand Martin G. (Leyte, 1st District)^ 43. TAN, Sharee Ann T. (Samar, 2nd District)^ 44. MERCADO, Roger G. (Southern Leyte, Lone District)^
IX (Zamboanga Peninsula) 45. YU, Divina Grace C. (Zamboanga del Sur, 1st District)* 46. PALMA, Wilter "Sharky" II Wee (Zamboanga Sibugay, 1st District)^ 47. HOFER, Ann K. (Zamboanga Sibugay, 2nd District)*
X (Northern Mindanao) 48. ROMUALDO, Xavier Jesus D. (Camiguin, Lone District)^ 49. SIAO, Frederick W. (Iligan City, Lone District)* 50. OAMINAL, Henry S. (Misamis Occidental, 2nd District)^ 51. UNABIA, Christian S. (Misamis Oriental, 1st District)*
XI (Davao Region) 52. DUTERTE, Paolo Z. (Davao City, 1st District)^
BARMM (Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) 53. MANGUDADATU, Esmael G. (Maguindanao, 2nd District)*
CARAGA (Caraga Administrative Region) 54. MATUGAS, Francisco Jose II "Bingo" F. (Surigao del Norte, 1st District)
Party-list representatives 55. YAP, Eric Go - Anti-Crime and Terrorism Community Involvement and Support (ACT-CIS)* 56. PINEDA, Enrico - One Patriotic Coalition of Marginalized Nationals (1PACMAN)* 57. GONZALEZ, Carlo Lisandro - Marino Samahan ng mga Seaman, Inc. (MARINO) 58. SINGSON, Jose Jr. - Probinsyano Ako^ 59. DATOL, Francisco Jr. - Coalition of Associations of Senior Citizens in the Philippines (SENIOR CITIZENS) 60. ROMUALDEZ, Yedda Marie - Tingog Sinirangan* 61. ESTRELLA, Conrado III – Abono^ 62. NOGRALES, Jericho Jonas - Puwersa ng Bayaning Atleta (PBA)* 63. HERRERA-DY, Bernadette - Bagong Henerasyon (BH)^ 64. PADUANO, Joseph Stephen - Abang Lingkod^ 65. MARCOLETA, Rodante - Social Amelioration and Genuine Intervention on Poverty (SAGIP)^ 66. MENDOZA, Raymond Democrito - Trade Union Congress Party (TUCP)* 67. DEFENSOR, Mike - Alagaan Natin Ating Kalusugan (ANAKALUSUGAN) 68. GARIN, Sharon - Ang Asosasyon Sang Mangunguma Nga Bisaya Owa Mangunguma (AAMBIS-OWA)* 69. BAUTISTA, Claudine Diana - Dumper Philippines Taxi Drivers Association, Inc (Dumper-PTDA)* 70. TY, Allan U. - LPG Marketers Association, Inc (LPGMA)

NO (11)

NCR (National Capital Region) 1. Maceda, Edward Vera Perez (Manila, 4th District)* 2. Abante, Bienvenido Jr. M. (Manila, 6th District)^ 3. QUIMBO, Stella Luz A. (Marikina City, 2nd District)*
I (Ilocos Region) 4. DE VENECIA, Christopher V.P. (Pangasinan, 4th District)^
IV-A (CALABARZON) 5. BOLILIA, Lianda B. (Batangas, 4th District)^ 6. SANTOS-RECTO, Vilma (Batangas, 6th District)^ 7. ARAGONES, Sol (Laguna, 3rd District)*
V (Bicol Region) 8. BORDADO, Gabriel Jr. H. (Camarines Sur, 3rd District)*
XII (SOCCSKSARGEN) 9. TEJADA, Jose "Ping-Ping" I. (North Cotabato, 3rd District)*
BARMM (Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) 10. HATAMAN, Mujiv S. (Basilan, Lone District)^
Party-list representatives 11. ZARATE, Carlos Isagani - Bayan Muna^

INHIBITED

VARGAS, Alfred D. (Quezon City, 5th District)* VIOLAGO, Micaela S. (Nueva Ecija, 2nd District)*

ABSTAIN

GARBIN, Alfredo Jr. - Ako Bicol Political Party (AKO BICOL)*

*Legislative Franchises ^House Leaders (ex-officio)

Can someone explain why these ex-officio and legislative franchises members did not vote (also why 8 non ex-officio and members were allowed to vote):
NCR (National Capital Region) LACSON-NOEL, Josephine Veronique R. (Malabon City, Lone District)^ GONZALES, Neptali II M. (Mandaluyong City, Lone District)^ BELMONTE, Jose Christopher Y. (Quezon City, 6th District)^ CAYETANO, Alan Peter "Compañero" S. (Taguig City-Pateros, 1st District)^
I (Ilocos Region) ARENAS, Rose Marie "Baby" J. (Pangasinan, 3rd District)^
III (Central Luzon) GONZALES, Aurelio Jr. "Dong" D. (Pampanga, 3rd District)^
IV-A (CALABARZON) PUNO, Roberto V. (Antipolo City, 1st District)^ ALONTE, Marlyn "Len" B. (Biñan City, Lone District)^
IV-B (MIMAROPA) Alvarez, Franz "Chicoy" E. (Palawan, 1st District)*
V (Bicol Region) ESCUDERO, Evelina G. (Sorsogon, 1st District)^
VI (Western Visayas) LEGARDA, Loren (Antique, Lone District)^
XII (SOCCSKSARGEN) HERNANDEZ, Ferdinand L. (South Cotabato, 2nd District)^
CARAGA (Caraga Administrative Region) PICHAY, Prospero Jr. A. (Surigao del Sur, 1st District)^ PIMENTEL, Johnny Ty (Surigao del Sur, 2nd District)^
Party-list representatives VILLANUEVA, Eduardo - Citizens' Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC)^ ROMERO, Michael - One Patriotic Coalition of Marginalized Nationals (1PACMAN)^

Signatories to last ditch appeal in favor of ABS-CBN: (10 were not eligible to vote)
TAMBUNTING, Joy Myra S. (Parañaque City, 2nd District) RAMIREZ-SATO, Josephine (Occidental Mindoro, Lone District) RODRIGUEZ, Rufus B. (Cagayan de Oro City, 2nd District) GO, Mark O. (Baguio City, Lone District) FORTUN, Lawrence "Law" H. (Agusan del Norte, 1st District) GAITE, Ferdinand - Bayan Muna CULLAMAT, Eufemia - Bayan Muna BROSAS, Arlene - Gabriela Women's Party (GABRIELA) CASTRO, Francisca - Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT TEACHERS) ELAGO, Sarah Jane - Kabataan
ARENAS, Rose Marie "Baby" J. (Pangasinan, 3rd District)^ (did not vote) VIOLAGO, Micaela S. (Nueva Ecija, 2nd District)* (inhibited) SANTOS-RECTO, Vilma (Batangas, 6th District)^ (deny-NO) ARAGONES, Sol (Laguna, 3rd District)* (deny-NO) LEGARDA, Loren (Antique, Lone District)^ (did not vote) ZARATE, Carlos Isagani - Bayan Muna^ (deny-NO)
Other reps who passed bills IN FAVOR of renewal:
LAGMAN, Edcel C. (Albay,1st District) CABOCHAN, Manuel - Magdalo Para sa Pilipino (MAGDALO)
submitted by fifteenthrateideas to Philippines [link] [comments]

Project #2 Done

Hello Everyone,
I'm currently taking Front end Fundamentals in Pirple, and i wanna share with you guys my last project . I really enjoy learning in this site, and if you wanna try this course, go and enroll now on Pirple.com.
HTML code      Apple     

Choose another country or region to see content specific to your location and shop online

X

Evaluate COVID-19 symptoms and understand next steps >

Shop online and get free, no contact delivery, Specialist help, and more.
1. Trade In: Trade‑in values vary. iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro promotional pricing is after trade‑in of iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X in good condition. iPhone SE promotional pricing is after trade-in of iPhone 8 in good condition. Additional trade‑in values require purchase of a new iPhone, subject to availability and limits. Must be at least 18. Apple or its trade-in partners reserve the right to refuse or limit any Trade In transaction for any reason. In‑store trade‑in requires presentation of a valid, government-issued photo ID (local law may require saving this information). Sales tax may be assessed on full value of new iPhone. Additional terms from Apple or Apple’s trade-in partners may apply. Monthly pricing: Available to qualified customers and requires 0% APR, 24-month installment loan with Citizens One or Apple Card Monthly Installments and iPhone activation with AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon. Taxes and shipping not included. Additional Apple Card Monthly Installments terms are in the Customer Agreement. Additional iPhone Payments terms are here.
2. Subscription required.
3. Apple Card Monthly Installments is available for certain Apple products and is subject to credit approval and credit limit. See https://support.apple.com/kb/HT211204 for more information about eligible products. iPhone activation required on iPhone purchases made at an Apple Store with one of these national carriers: AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, or T-Mobile. Variable APRs for Apple Card other than Apple Card Monthly Installments range from 10.99% to 21.99% based on creditworthiness. Rates as of April 1, 2020. Taxes and shipping are not included in Apple Card Monthly Installments and are subject to your standard purchase APR. See the Apple Card customer agreement for more information.
Magic Keyboard sold separately.
Apple TV+ is $4.99/month after free trial. One subscription per Family Sharing group. Offer good for 3 months after eligible device activation. Plan automatically renews until cancelled. Restrictions and other terms apply.
CSS Code
body { margin:0px; } .header-head{ background-color: #444444; display: flex; } .text-country { color: #E6E6E6; font-family: "SF Pro Text","Myriad Set Pro",system-ui,-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI","SF Pro Icons","Apple Legacy Icons","Helvetica Neue","Helvetica","Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: 400; padding-right: 2%; padding-left: 4%; margin-left: 10%; padding-top: .9%; padding-bottom: .4%; } #browser { background-color: #575757; height: 37px; width: 23%; margin-top: 1% ; border-radius: 4px; box-sizing: border-box; border-color: #707070; line-height: 35px; border-width: 0px; margin-right: 2%; } header button { background-color: #3A98E2; border-width: 0px; border-radius: 4px; margin-top: 1% ; margin-bottom: 1% ; width: 7%; color: white; font-size: 1em; white-space: nowrap; font-family:"SF Pro Text","Myriad Set Pro",system-ui,-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI","SF Pro Icons","Apple Legacy Icons","Helvetica Neue","Helvetica","Arial",sans-serif ; } .class-x { color: #989898; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 20px; margin-left: 2%; margin-top: 2%; } .second-header { background-color: #1B1B1B; position: absolute; right: 0px; left: 0px;
} .unlisted { list-style: none; display: flex; text-size-adjust: 100%; color: #E6E6E6;
} li img { width: 20px; margin-right: 20px; margin-left: 20px; } #apple{ margin-left: 90px; width: 30px; } ul li { margin-right: 50px; margin-left: 30px; font-family: "SF Pro Text","Myriad Set Pro",system-ui,-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI","SF Pro Icons","Apple Legacy Icons","Helvetica Neue","Helvetica","Arial",sans-serif; } .covid { background-color: #0071E3; position: absolute; top: 110px; right: 0px; left: 0px; color:#E6E6E6; padding-top: 15px; padding-bottom: 15px; font-family: "SF Pro Text","Myriad Set Pro",system-ui,-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI","SF Pro Icons","Apple Legacy Icons","Helvetica Neue","Helvetica","Arial",sans-serif; text-align: center; } .fourth-header{ background-color: whitesmoke; position: absolute; top: 175px; right: 0px; left: 0px; color:black; padding-top: 15px; padding-bottom: 15px; font-family: "SF Pro Text","Myriad Set Pro",system-ui,-apple-system,BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI","SF Pro Icons","Apple Legacy Icons","Helvetica Neue","Helvetica","Arial",sans-serif; text-align: center; } .first-image { position:absolute; top: 226px; right: 0px; left: 0px; } .second-image { position: absolute; top: 890px; right: 0px; left: 0px; } .third-image { position:absolute; top: 1580px; right: 0px; left: 0px; } .fourth-image { position:absolute; top: 2400px; right: 0px; left: 0px; text-align: center; } .fifth-image { position:absolute; top: 2900px; right: 0px; left: 0px; text-align: center; } .sixth-image { position:absolute; top: 3500px; right: 0px; left: 0px; text-align: center; } footer { margin-top: 4240px; background-color: #f5f5f7; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 170px; padding-left: 170px; font-family: "SF Pro Text","Myriad Set Pro","SF Pro Icons","Apple Legacy Chevron","Helvetica Neue","Helvetica","Arial",sans-serif; font-size: 12px; color: #1d1d1f; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: -.01em; } * { box-sizing: border-box; }
/\ Create four equal columns that floats next to each other */* .column { float: left; width: 19%; padding: .1px; height: 300px; /\ Should be removed. Only for demonstration */* margin:.5%; }
/\ Clear floats after the columns */* .row:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .column-row{ list-style: none; margin-left: -70px; } .nav-p { margin-top: 7%; } span { color:blue; } .nav-ul { list-style: none; display: flex; padding:0px; } .ul-li { margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 3px; } .li-li { margin-right: 1px; }
submitted by eloy0611 to u/eloy0611 [link] [comments]

/r/neoliberal elects the American Presidents - Part 29, Taft v Bryan in 1908

Previous editions:
(All strawpoll results counted as of the next post made)
Part 1, Adams v Jefferson in 1796 - Adams wins with 68% of the vote
Part 2, Adams v Jefferson in 1800 - Jefferson wins with 58% of the vote
Part 3, Jefferson v Pinckney in 1804 - Jefferson wins with 57% of the vote
Part 4, Madison v Pinckney (with George Clinton protest) in 1808 - Pinckney wins with 45% of the vote
Part 5, Madison v (DeWitt) Clinton in 1812 - Clinton wins with 80% of the vote
Part 6, Monroe v King in 1816 - Monroe wins with 51% of the vote
Part 7, Monroe and an Era of Meta Feelings in 1820 - Monroe wins with 100% of the vote
Part 8, Democratic-Republican Thunderdome in 1824 - Adams wins with 55% of the vote
Part 9, Adams v Jackson in 1828 - Adams wins with 94% of the vote
Part 10, Jackson v Clay (v Wirt) in 1832 - Clay wins with 53% of the vote
Part 11, Van Buren v The Whigs in 1836 - Whigs win with 87% of the vote, Webster elected
Part 12, Van Buren v Harrison in 1840 - Harrison wins with 90% of the vote
Part 13, Polk v Clay in 1844 - Polk wins with 59% of the vote
Part 14, Taylor v Cass in 1848 - Taylor wins with 44% of the vote (see special rules)
Part 15, Pierce v Scott in 1852 - Scott wins with 78% of the vote
Part 16, Buchanan v Frémont v Fillmore in 1856 - Frémont wins with 95% of the vote
Part 17, Peculiar Thunderdome in 1860 - Lincoln wins with 90% of the vote.
Part 18, Lincoln v McClellan in 1864 - Lincoln wins with 97% of the vote.
Part 19, Grant v Seymour in 1868 - Grant wins with 97% of the vote.
Part 20, Grant v Greeley in 1872 - Grant wins with 96% of the vote.
Part 21, Hayes v Tilden in 1876 - Hayes wins with 87% of the vote.
Part 22, Garfield v Hancock in 1880 - Garfield wins with 67% of the vote.
Part 23, Cleveland v Blaine in 1884 - Cleveland wins with 53% of the vote.
Part 24, Cleveland v Harrison in 1888 - Harrison wins with 64% of the vote.
Part 25, Cleveland v Harrison v Weaver in 1892 - Harrison wins with 57% of the vote
Part 26, McKinley v Bryan in 1896 - McKinley wins with 71% of the vote
Part 27, McKinley v Bryan in 1900 - Bryan wins with 55% of the vote
Part 28, Roosevelt v Parker in 1904 - Roosevelt wins with 71% of the vote
Welcome back to the twenty-ninth edition of /neoliberal elects the American presidents!
This will be a fairly consistent weekly thing - every week, a new election, until we run out.
I highly encourage you - at least in terms of the vote you cast - to try to think from the perspective of the year the election was held, without knowing the future or how the next administration would go. I'm not going to be trying to enforce that, but feel free to remind fellow commenters of this distinction.
If you're really feeling hardcore, feel free to even speak in the present tense as if the election is truly upcoming!
Whether third and fourth candidates are considered "major" enough to include in the strawpoll will be largely at my discretion and depend on things like whether they were actually intending to run for President, and whether they wound up actually pulling in a meaningful amount of the popular vote and even electoral votes. I may also invoke special rules in how the results will be interpreted in certain elections to better approximate historical reality.
While I will always give some brief background info to spur the discussion, please don't hesitate to bring your own research and knowledge into the mix! There's no way I'll cover everything!
William Howard Taft v William Jennings Bryan, 1908
Profiles
  • William Howard Taft is the 51-year-old Republican candidate and the current Secretary of War. His running mate is US Representative from New York James Sherman.
  • William Jennings Bryan is the 48-year-old Democratic candidate and a former US Representative from Nebraska. His running mate is former Indiana State Senator John Kern.
Issues
  • Panic! The economy remains disrupted after the financial panic last year and the subsequent crises that followed. Democrats, as the opposition party, have condemned Republicans for letting a crisis of speculation harm the broader economy so severely, and have condemned some of the interventions endorsed by the Republicans as supporting the bankers while not supporting ordinary people. William Jennings Bryan in particular has used this crisis to emphasize his criticisms of the nation's business elite. Across both parties, there is the recognition of a need for monetary policy reform. The Independent Treasury had insufficient ability to save the financial system, and so the recovery instead depended on the intervention of JP Morgan and other wealthy financiers. Republicans are generally more open to a large role for the national banks in a new monetary system post-reform, while Democrats have emphasized the need for the federal government to be at the center of any such system.
  • Both parties are relatively united in this cycle. Taft is Roosevelt's chosen successor, someone with similar ideas to him who Roosevelt has on many occasions placed much trust in. After nominating a conservative Democrat last election and losing extremely badly, Democrats have united and turned back towards Bryan - because while he has also lost twice to Republicans in a general election, it was only by a margin of 4-6 points in the popular vote rather than nearly 20.
  • Issues from recent elections have faded. Even William Jennings Bryan is not spending so much time talking about silver, the situations in the territories turned over from Spain in the recent war have calmed, and the Republicans have shown some signs of moderating on tariffs.
  • The Republican campaign has focused on support for continuing Roosevelt's policies, and branding Taft as a "new kind of politician" who doesn't go negative. Democrats have campaigned on the slogan "Shall the people rule?" and attacked the business elite and monopolies while accusing the Republican Party - with some amount of valid evidence - of being heavily tied to that business elite. While Republicans have endorsed regulation in many areas, Democrats have often one-upped those proposals with calls for stricter regulation.
Platforms
Read the full 1908 Republican platform here. Highlights include:
  • Support for protectionism but pledge to review and revise existing tariffs
  • Support for replacing the current tariff system with a system of maximum and minimum rates, and some amount of discretion given to the President
  • Support for the interventions of Congress and the Roosevelt Administration in responding to the Panic of 1907, and endorsement of the Aldrich-Vreeland Act with recognition of the need for permanent monetary policy reform
  • Support for "the establishment of a postal savings bank system"
  • Support for strengthening the Sherman Antitrust Act
  • Support for strict regulation of the railroads
  • Declaration of support "once more, and without reservation, for the enforcement in letter and spirit of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution which were designed for the protection and advancement of the negro" and condemnation of "disfranchisement for reasons of color alone, as unfair, un-American and repugnant to the Supreme law of the land"
  • Statement that in the Philippines, "the policies of McKinley and Roosevelt are leading the inhabitants step by step to an ever-increasing measure of home rule"
  • The following argument for what the differences between the two parties are:
    In history, the difference between Democracy and Republicanism is that the one stood for debased currency, the other for honest currency; the one for free silver, the other for sound money; the one for free trade, the other for protection; the one for the contraction of American influence, the other for its expansion; the one has been forced to abandon every position taken on the great issues before the people, the other has held and vindicated all.
  • Statement that "the trend of [the Democratic Party] is toward socialism, while the Republican party stands for a wise and regulated individualism"
  • Statement that "the Democratic party of today believes in Government ownership, while the Republican party believes in Government regulation"
Read the full 1908 Democratic platform here. Highlights include:
  • Statement that "'Shall the people rule?' is the overshadowing issue which manifests itself in all the questions now under discussion"
  • Denunciation of increases in government spending and "this great and growing increase in the number of office-holders"
  • Pledge to reduce the power of the Speaker of the House relative to the whole of the House's members
  • Demand for "Federal legislation forever terminating the partnership which has existed between corporations of the country and the Republican party under the expressed or implied agreement that in return for the contribution of great sums of money wherewith to purchase elections, they should be allowed to continue substantially unmolested in their efforts to encroach upon the rights of the people"
  • Support for "the enactment of a law prohibiting any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund and any individual from contributing an amount above a reasonable maximum"
  • Support for the immediate reduction of tariffs
  • Support for "the immediate repeal of the tariff on wood pulp, print paper, lumber, timber and logs" as this is effectively a tax on "the spread of knowledge"
  • Support for "legislation as may be necessary to make it impossible for a private monopoly to exist in the United States"
  • Support for the "enlargement of the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission as may be necessary to enable it to compel railroads to perform their duties as common carriers and prevent discrimination and extortion"
  • Statement that "insofar as the needs of commerce require an emergency currency, such currency should be issued and controlled by the Federal Government"
  • Support for legislation "under which the national banks shall be required to establish a guarantee fund for the prompt payment of the depositors of any insolvent national bank"
  • Support for a constitutional amendment to allow an income tax to be levied on individuals and corporations
  • Support for "the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people"
  • Support for the regulation of "the rates and services of telegraph and telephone companies"
  • Demand for "internal development and for the conservation of our natural resources ... the enforcement of which Mr. Roosevelt has vainly sought from a reluctant party"
  • Condemnation of "the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder which has involved us in enormous expense, brought us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of abandoning a fundamental doctrine of self-government"
  • Support for "an immediate declaration of the nation's purpose to recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as soon as a stable government can be established"
  • Opposition "to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population"
  • Statement that "the Democratic party stands for Democracy; the Republican party has drawn to itself all that is aristocratic and plutocratic"
Audiovisual Material
Bryan on Religion, 1908 (Audio)
Bryan on the Republic, 1908 (Audio)
Bryan on Tariffs, 1908 (Audio)
Taft on Postal Savings Banks, 1908 (Audio)
Taft on Republican Accomplishments, 1908 (Audio)
For more audio clips, go to this Library of Congress link and search the name of one of the candidates.
Library of Congress Collection of 1908 Election Primary Documents
Strawpoll
>>>VOTE HERE<<<
submitted by John_Charles_Fremont to neoliberal [link] [comments]

America joins the central powers: part one

the pod is 1895. IRL Venezuela and Britain had a border dispute and America intervened on Britain's side which led to the warming of relations between the two. this timeline America intervene on the side of Venezuela pissing Britain off. the Spanish American war still happens just this time Britain seizes Puerto Rico before the Americans get it. this raises tensions between the two. during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, British and American tensions continue to rise to get close to war several times. Taft attempts and fails to cool down tensions with Britain. due to that failure, the republican party loses a lot more votes to the progressive party. Wilson still becomes president by narrower margins and attempts to remain at peace with the entente though favoring the germans. America begins loaning out money to Germany and selling them guns. this leads to many incidents where Britain starts intercepting American trade. many in America support war with Britain so in 1916 they vote in Theodore Roosevelt who was running on a pro-war agenda. shortly after Roosevelt is inaugurated British ships fire at an American merchant ship heading for Norway and kill several members of its crew. Roosevelt then demands that Britain end the blockade of Germany. Britain refuses and America declares war. within the first few weeks, Britain's naval presence in the old world is destroyed and Canada is cut off from Britain. the Americans quickly overrun the Parie provinces using a new weapon known as the tank. by June of 1917, all of Canada is under American control. at the same time, marines under Smedley Butler capture all of the entente's colonies in the new world including Bermuda. on June great white fleet in coordination with the German fleet begin the second battle of Jutland in order to break the British blockade. the battle ends with a victory for central powers though both sides took heavy casualties.
now American soldiers and weapons can enter Germany tipping scales on the western front. Germany's shortages end boosting morale and the overall strength of the army. American factories began to mass-produce weapons further boosting the war effort. german u boats and the combined American german fleet manage in disrupting the flow of supplies to the British isles. the American expeditionary forces also helped turn the tide and push the french back. at the same time, America began to foment a guerilla uprising in Ireland.
while aloof this was happening on western front japan had begun an offensive against the Americans. despite suffering several defeats at the beginning of the war against the Japanese the Americans were able to prevent the Japanese from taking the Philippines. after the second battle of Jutland America was able to send more of the fleet to the pacfic in order to defeat the Japanese which they did.
in November of 1917 the Russian revolution forced Russia out of the war and allowed the Germans to send more troops to the western front.
by May of 1918 Paris was declared a free city and a ceasefire was called
then representatives of the central powers met in Brussels and decided the terms of peace.
the treaty stated that
1: Canda would be incorporated into America
2: The entente will give up all colonies in the new world
3: Belgium would become a german puppet
4: Germany would gain ownership of the Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Gabon, and central Africa
5: Germany would also gain french Indochina, Malaysia, Papua new guinea, and Hong Kong
6: Japan would give up any land gained in the war.
7: The whole of Ireland would become a unified independent republic.
8: Bulgaria would gain control over Serbian Macedonia Greek Macedonia and the Danube delta
9: The ottoman empire would gain control over all British colonies in the middle east.
10: soviet union will have to continue to follow the treaty of Brest Livosk .
11: all members of the entente will have to pay massive reparations.
12: the size of France's military will be significantly smaller.
13: Britains navy will be significantly smaller.
14: everything north of the Po river will be occupied by the Austrian army.
reluctantly the entente agreed to the terms of peace.
this treaty would become known as the treaty of Brussels.
submitted by Unfair-Kangaroo to AlternateHistory [link] [comments]

Why don't Chinese people hate their authoritarian government as much as we think they should? — Kaiser Kuo explains

I've been PMed by multiple people to repost this after my original SSC post was deleted, so here it is again:
The following was originally written by the talented Kaiser Kuo as an answer to a question posed on Quora, but for the sake of easier readability, shareability, and the mobile users who don't want to create a Quora account, I've decided to repost it in text post form. I've also added the last part of the answer and postscript in the comments because of Reddit's character limit. Apologies in advance if that breaks any rules. Anyway.
Why do many people feel that the Chinese can't possibly be basically okay with their government or society?
I’m going to attempt an answer in three parts.
First, I’ll look at the gap in political culture between China and the liberal western democracies, especially the United States. I’ll argue that there is little appreciation among most WEIRD individuals—that is, Western, Educated people from Industrialized, Rich, and Developed nations—for just how highly contingent political norms they take for granted really are from an historical perspective. I’ll sketch the outlines of the major historical currents that had to converge for these ideas to emerge in the late 18th century. Then, I’ll compare this very exceptional experience with that of China, which only embraced and began to harness those engines of western wealth and power—science, industrialization, state structures capable of total mobilization of manpower and capital—much later. And late to the game, China suffered for over a century the predations of imperial powers, most notably Japan. Hopefully, I’ll show why it was that liberalism never really took hold, why it was that Chinese intellectuals turned instead to authoritarian politics to address the urgent matters of the day, and why authoritarian habits of mind have lingered on.
Next, I’ll argue that a lot of unexamined hubris lies not only behind the belief that all people living under authoritarian political systems should be willing to make monumental sacrifices to create liberal democratic states but also behind the belief that it can work at all, given the decidedly poor record of projects for liberal democratic transformation in recent years, whether American-led or otherwise. It’s important to see what the world of recent years looks like through Beijing’s windows, and to understand the extent to which Beijing’s interpretation of that view is shared by a wide swath of China’s citizenry.
Finally, I’ll look at the role of media in shaping perspectives of China in the western liberal democracies and in other states. A very small number of individuals—reporters for major mainstream media outlets posted to China, plus their editors—wield a tremendous amount of influence over how China is perceived by ordinary Anglophone media consumers. It's important to know something about the optical properties of the lens through which most of us view China.
Part I — The Values Gap: The Historical Contingency of Liberal Western Thought and Institutions
One evening, I was chatting online with a friend here in China, another American expatriate living in another city, about the great disconnect in recent Western understandings of China—the thing that this question and answer seeks to get to the heart of. He suggested that at least for Americans (we’re going to use Americans here, mainly, to stand in for the Anglophone western liberal democracies) the question underlying the disconnect boiled down to this:
“Why don’t you Chinese hate your government as much as we think you ought to?"
The modern Chinese party-state, after all, is a notorious violator of human rights. It cut its own people down in the street in 1989. It prevents with brutal coercion the formation of rival political parties and suppresses dissent through censorship of the Internet and other media. It oppresses minority populations in Tibet and in Xinjiang, depriving them of religious freedoms and the right to national self-determination. It persecutes religious sects like the Falun Gong. It behaves in a bellicose manner with many of its neighbors, like the Philippines, Vietnam, and India. It saber-rattles over disputed islands with its longstanding East Asian adversary, Japan. It presses irredentist claims against Taiwan, which has functioned as an effectively sovereign state since 1949. It has pursued breakneck economic growth without sufficient heed to the devastation of the environment. It has not atoned for the crimes committed during the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward, when tens of millions died because of absurdly misguided economic policies. It jails rights activists, including a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. I could of course go on.
Why then would any American not ask this question? Seems pretty obvious from the perspective of anyone from a liberal western democracy that this is a political system that needs to go, that has failed its people and failed to live up to basic, universal ideas about what rights a government needs to respect and protect. They’ll have heard the argument that China’s leadership has succeeded in other ways: it has allowed China to prosper economically, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, creating a substantial and comfortable middle class with expanded personal (if not political) freedom. And the Chinese Communist Party has managed to ensure a relatively long period of political stability, with orderly leadership transitions absent the political violence that had accompanied nearly all others until Deng Xiaoping’s ascent.
"Yeah, but so what?" asks the American. "Anyone who would trade a little freedom for a little personal safety deserves neither freedom nor safety,” he asserts, quoting Benjamin Franklin. He quotes this as gospel truth, ignoring the irony that many Americans advocated just such a trade in the aftermath of September 11. That aside, why shouldn't he quote it? It’s deeply engrained in his political culture. Political liberty is held up practically above all else in the values pantheon of American political culture.
The American myth of founding sees the Puritan pilgrims, seeking a place where their brand of Protestantism might be practiced freely, crossing the Atlantic in the Mayflower, creating en route a quasi-democratic quasi-constitution, the Mayflower Compact, landing at Plymouth Rock in 1620, and over the next 150 years growing into the colony that would lead its 12 sisters into rebellion for freedom from the "tyranny" of King George III. Americans hold the ideas enshrined in their founding documents very dearly, and can't really be blamed for doing so: they are, after all, some very high-minded and frankly very beautiful ideas.
What he doesn’t quite appreciate is the precariousness of the historical perch on which these ideas—ideas he holds so strongly and believes so ardently to be universal truths—ultimately rest. Americans, like everyone else for that matter, tend not to take much time to understand the historical experiences of other peoples, and can't therefore grasp the utter contingency upon which their own marvelous system rests.
I'm going to grossly oversimplify here, in this grand backward tour of European history, but the political philosophy that gave rise to modern American political ideals, as even a fairly casual student of history should know, emerged during the 18th century in the Enlightenment—an intellectual movement of tremendous consequence but one that would not have been possible save for the groundwork laid by 17th century naturalists who, taken together, gave us an "Age of Reason" (think Newton and all the natural philosophers of the Royal Academy). Their great work could be pursued because already the intellectual climate had changed in crucial ways—chiefly, that the stultifying effects of rigid, dogmatic theology had been pushed aside enough for the growth of scientific inquiry. That itself owes much to the Protestant Reformation, of course, which people tend to date from 1517 but which actually reaches back over a century earlier with John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, arguably Erasmus, and the other pre-Lutheran reformers.
And would the Reformation have been possible without the rediscovery of classical learning that was the animating spirit of the Renaissance? Would the Renaissance have been possible without the late medieval thinkers, such as Abelard, who sought out to subject theology to the rigors of Aristotelian logic and reason? Would all this have been possible, if not for the continuous struggles between Emperor and Pope, between Guelph and Ghibelline factions—partisans for the temporal power of the Vatican and Holy Roman Emperor? The fact is that this series of historical movements, eventually carving out politics that was quite separate from—indeed, explicitly separate from—theocratic control, was only really happening in this small, jagged peninsula on the far western end of the great Eurasian landmass. And in the rest of the world—the whole rest of the world—none of this was happening. Political theology remained the rule with rare, rare exceptions.
What we've now taken as the norm and the correct form for the whole world—liberal, secular, democratic, capitalistic—is truly exceptional, recent, rare, fragile, and quite contingent.
Let’s turn and look for a moment at China, which is arguably much more typical. China is a civilization that didn’t until much later and perhaps still doesn't fit neatly into the modern conception of the nation-state; a massive continental agrarian empire, a civilization with an integrated cosmology, moral philosophy, and political philosophy which together formed the basis of a holistic orthodoxy, deep knowledge of which was required for any man (alas, only men) who wished to climb the only real available ladder of success: the Civil Service Exams.
The China that the West—in this case, chiefly the British—encountered in the late 1700s was really at or just past its peak, ruled by a reasonably competent and conscientious Manchu emperor who history knows as Qianlong, ruling a land empire matching, roughly, the contours of the contemporary People’s Republic, almost entirely self-sufficient but willing to sell its silk, porcelain, and especially its tea to anyone who brought minted silver bullion—two-thirds of the world’s supply of which, by the time of the American Revolution, was already in Chinese coffers.
What followed was a crisis that lasted, with no meaningful interruption, right up to 1949. Foreign invasion, large-scale drug addiction, massive internal civil wars (the Taiping Civil War of 1852-1863 killed some 20 million people), a disastrous anti-foreign uprising (the Boxers) stupidly supported by the Qing court with baleful consequence, and a belated effort at reform that only seems to have hastened dynastic collapse.
The ostensible republic that followed the Qing was built on the flimsiest of foundations. The Republican experiment under the early Kuomintang was short-lived and, in no time, military strongmen took over—first, ex-dynastic generals like Yuan Shikai, then the militarists who scrambled for power after he died in 1916. China disintegrated into what were basically feuding warlord satrapies, waging war in different constellations of factional alliance. Meanwhile, China's impotence was laid bare at Versailles, where the great powers handed to Japan the colonial possessions of the defeated Germany, despite China having entered the Great War on the side of the Allies.
During this time, liberalism appeared as a possible solution, an alternative answer to the question of how to rescue China from its dire plight. Liberalism was the avowed ideology of many of the intellectuals of the period of tremendous ferment known as the May Fourth Period, which takes its name from the student-led protests on that date in 1919, demonstrating against the warlord regime then in power which had failed to protect Chinese interests at Versailles at the end of World War I. (The May Fourth period is also referred to as the New Culture Movement, which stretched from roughly 1915 to 1925). The "New Youth" of this movement advocated all the liberal tenets—democracy, rule of law, universal suffrage, even gender equality. Taking to the streets on May Fourth, they waved banners extolling Mr. Sai (science) and Mr. De (democracy).
But with only very few exceptions they really conceived of liberalism not as an end in itself but rather as a means to the decidedly nationalist ends of wealth and power. They believed that liberalism was part of the formula that had allowed the U.S. and Great Britain to become so mighty. It was embraced in a very instrumental fashion. And yet Chinese advocates of liberalism were guilty, too, of not appreciating that same contingency, that whole precarious historical edifice from which the liberalism of the Enlightenment had emerged. Did they think that it could take root in utterly alien soil? In any case, it most surely did not.
It must be understood that liberalism and nationalism developed in China in lockstep, with one, in a sense, serving as means to the other. That is, liberalism was a means to serve national ends—the wealth and power of the country. And so when means and end came into conflict, as they inevitably did, the end won out. Nationalism trumped liberalism. Unity, sovereignty, and the means to preserve both were ultimately more important even to those who espoused republicanism and the franchise.
China's betrayal at Versailles did not help the cause of liberalism in China. After all, it was the standard bearers of liberalism—the U.K., France, and the United States—that had negotiated secret treaties to give Shandong to the Japanese.
Former liberals gravitated toward two main camps, both overtly Leninist in organization, both unapologetically authoritarian: the Nationalists and the Communists. By the mid-1920s, the overwhelming majority of Chinese intellectuals believed that an authoritarian solution was China's only recourse. Some looked to the Soviet Union, and to Bolshevism. Others looked to Italy, and later Germany, and to Fascism. Liberalism became almost irrelevant to the violent discourse on China's future.
For anyone coming of age in that time, there are few fond memories. It was war, deprivation, foreign invasion, famine, a fragile and short-lived peace after August 1945, then more war. Violence did not let up after 1949—especially for the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who were "class enemies" on the wrong side of an ideological divide; or for the hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers sent to fight and die in Korea so soon after unification. And even with peace, prosperity didn't come: 1955 saw Mao announce a "high tide of collectivization," which was followed by the tragic folly of the Great Leap Forward and ensuing famine, in which tens of millions perished.
A friend of mine named Jeremiah Jenne who taught US college students at a program here in Beijing once said something to the effect of, “When Americans create their movie villains, when they populate their nightmares, they create Hitler and the SS again and again: Darth Vader and the Stormtroopers.” The fear of the liberty-loving American, he implied, is of a surfeit of authoritarianism.
What of the Chinese? The Chinese nightmare is of chaos—of an absence of authority. And such episodes of history are fresh in the minds of many Chinese alive today—only a handful are old enough to actually remember the Warlord Period but plenty can remember the Cultural Revolution, when Mao bade his Red Guards to go forth and attack all the structures of authority, whether in the classroom, in the hospital, in the factory, or in the home. And so they humiliated, tortured, sometimes imprisoned and sometimes even murdered the teachers, the doctors, the managers, the fathers and mothers.
In the 25 years since Deng inaugurated reforms in 1979, China has not experienced significant countrywide political violence. GDP growth has averaged close to 10 percent per annum. Almost any measure of human development has seen remarkable improvement. There are no food shortages and no significant energy shortages. Nearly 700 million Chinese now use the Internet. Over 500 million have smartphones. China has a high speed rail network that's the envy of even much of the developed world. China has, by some measures, even surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest economy.
So try telling a Chinese person that anyone willing to trade a little personal liberty for a little personal safety deserves neither liberty nor safety, and they’ll look at you like you’re insane. Therein lies the values gap.
Part II — The View through China’s Window: Liberal Hegemonism in US Foreign Policy
In the first part, I laid out a case for why it’s quite natural, given the tendency of Americans (as with all people) to ignore or understate historical contingencies and recognize their own privileges and prejudices, for Americans to be puzzled by Chinese acquiescence toward—indeed, by their often quite vocal support for—a political system so execrable by certain American standards.
The hubris of some Americans about their own political system seems to me especially natural, even forgivable, in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the vantage point of 1991, a kind of triumphalism was inevitable: the liberal west, with America at its vanguard, had just vanquished the second of the century’s great ideological enemies. First was Fascism and Naziism with the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945 (never mind that Bolshevik Russia, from the time Hitler invaded Russia, never faced less than two-thirds of German divisions in the field), then Bolshevism with the end of the Cold War.
And what was on the minds of Americans—who had watched the Berlin Wall come down, Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel assume the Polish and Czech presidencies, Yeltsin defend the Russian parliament and Gorbachev declare the Soviet Union’s end—what was on their minds as they turned thoughts to China?
Tiananmen, of course, with its incredibly potent imagery: a million people in the Square, Tank Man, and the Goddess of Democracy. Looming ever present in nearly every conversation about American perception of China in the last quarter century—now in the background, now in the fore—is the bloody suppression of the 1989 student-led protests in Beijing. (Fun Fact: The first democratic elections in Poland were held on June 4, 1989, the very day of the crackdown on the Beijing protests).
The years that followed the end of the Cold War would see gathering in American foreign policy a new ideology that would come to supplant the realist school that had dominated from the time of Richard Nixon. This is what the MIT political scientist Barry R. Posen calls Liberal Hegemonism: an activist, interventionist thread that believes in the pushing of liberal democratic politics and capitalism through all available means from “soft power,” to operations aimed at destabilizing authoritarian governments, to actual preemptive war (the Bush doctrine) and the “regime change” of the Neoconservatives. Some of its basic assumptions—not all, but some—are shared both by liberal interventionists and NeoCons. For American liberals, it was guilt from failure to act in the Rwandan Genocide, or to the “ethnic cleansing” that characterized the wars during the breakup of Yugoslavia, that gave impetus to this; for NeoCons, it was the unfinished business of Desert Storm. They found much common ground in their support for “color revolutions” in the former Soviet republics. They may have debated tactics but the impulse was to spread American values and institutions, whether or not doing so would serve a specific and definable American interest. That could be done the Gene Sharp way, or the Paul Wolfowitz way. Neither way was something Beijing wanted done to it.
And I don’t think it takes a whole lot of empathy to see what things have looked like from Beijing over the last 25 years. Deng Xiaoping, while he was still alive, pursued a policy of “biding its time and hiding its power” as he focused on building China's domestic economy, avoiding any real confrontation and trying to rebuild relationships post-Tiananmen.
But it wasn’t long before tensions sparked. In May of 1999, US smart bombs fell on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and virtually no Chinese believed the American explanation that it was a mistake, the result of an out-of-date map that showed the embassy as an arms depot. Later, in April of 2001, the collision of an American EP-3 spy plane with a Chinese fighter jet off of Hainan Island, off China’s southern coast, sent another chill through Sino-American relations. And things looked like they might have taken a turn for the worse, had not September 11 taken the pressure off.
The “War on Terror,” which China could notionally join in, distracted the U.S., which quickly found itself fighting two long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, the Chinese economy was in high gear, chugging along at double-digit growth rates right up to the eve of the Financial Crisis. The Sino-American waters were probably never calmer than in the years between 2001 and 2008.
Perhaps history will see 2008 as an important turning point in these attitudes: during the same year that China staged its first Olympic games, the financial crisis, which China weathered surprisingly well, walloped the West (and much of the rest of the world) with what was arguably its signal event, the bankruptcy filing by Lehman Brothers on September 15—happening just three weeks almost to the day after the closing ceremony of the Beijing summer games on August 24.
It was China’s turn to feel a kind of triumphalism, which often took the form of an unattractive swagger. Meanwhile, a sense of declinism gnawed at the American psyche. After 2008, China became the object of global (read: American) attention again, fueled for some by anxieties over the rapidity of its rise, in others by anger over major flare-ups in western China: riots in Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, in March, 2008, and in Urumqi, Xinjiang’s capital, in July, 2009. Factory conditions became a growing concern as Americans realized that even the most sophisticated electronics they sported—everyone had an iPhone by then, right?—were manufactured in China.
Remember, too, that excitement over the political potency of social media was also enjoying something of a heyday in this period of liberal hegemonic ascent. As one color revolution after another was live-tweeted (Moldova was perhaps the first, but not the only, of the street movements to be called “The Twitter Revolution”), as every movement had its own Facebook page and Youtube channel, China’s reaction was to censor. There is, after all, one belief about the Internet that the most hardline Chinese politburo member shares with the staunchest American NeoCon: that the Internet, unfettered, would represent an existential threat to the Communist Party’s hold on power. They have of course very different views as to whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. But can we really be surprised that, able as they are to open to the op-ed section of any American broadsheet and find this idea that Internet freedom is the key to toppling authoritarian single-party rule, the Communist Party leadership would conclude that their approach to censorship is correct? But this of course has created another potent issue over which Americans, very naturally, express outrage—and puzzled frustration that Chinese aren’t (literally) up in arms over Internet censorship.
Beijing obviously lamented the Soviet empire’s incredibly rapid implosion. It doubtlessly chafed at how NATO expanded its membership practically up to the Russian doorstep. It certainly hasn’t loved it that American troops are operating from Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, and were present in great numbers in Afghanistan (which by the way borders China, if only at one end of the narrow Wakhan Corridor). Beijing has surely fretted as American-backed NGOs (the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, is the big boogeyman for pro-Beijing types—perhaps as Confucius Institutes are the bête noire for their anti-Beijing American counterparts) conspired, or so they believe, with the instigators of color revolutions. And it certainly sees the Pivot to Asia—now rebranded the “Rebalancing”—as a species of containment. But what I suspect really has Beijing freaked out, what really seems to have confirmed that America still has its cherished liberal hegemonic ambition, was the Arab Spring. Is Beijing so wrong, looking out on the smoldering wreckage of Libya and Syria, at the mess that Egypt still remains, to want to avoid that outcome at whatever price? Or to think that America’s true, ultimate intention might be regime change in Beijing? Kissinger once famously said that even a paranoid can have enemies.
What does all this foreign policy stuff have to do with Chinese attitudes toward their government? It’s fair to ask this; after all, the question I’m trying to answer isn’t specifically about the Chinese state and how it sees things, but rather the Chinese people, and the attachment they seem to have toward a state that comes up so short by American measure. It’s the rare person who can truly separate, at both an intellectual and an emotional level, criticism of his or her country from criticism of his or her country’s government—especially if that government is not, at present, terribly embattled and is delivering basic public goods in a reasonably competent manner. States tend to try to reinforce that conflation of people with state (and in China’s case, party). They encourage the basic state-as-family metaphor, something that in the Chinese case is part of the deep structure of Confucian political thinking and is therefore probably easier to nurture than to extirpate. I don’t doubt that propaganda has a role in this, but I would assert that its role is generally exaggerated in American thinking about China.
In any case, if you’ll indulge some pop psychological speculation, I’ll go out on a limb and posit confidently that external criticism of a leadership will tend to, if anything, reinforce a citizenry’s identification with the state and blur the lines even more between “government” and “people.” Perhaps I’m wrong. But most people I know who are known to bitch occasionally about their own parents get awfully defensive when people outside the family offer unsolicited criticism. This seems especially to be the case with mothers.
And so it is that many ordinary Chinese citizens, online and inevitably aware now of the timbre of China discourse in English-language media, tend to elide criticism of the state and Party with criticism of China, and take it personally. They feel a distinct sense of having been singled out for unfair criticism and will reach easily for handy explanations: Hegemonic America can't abide another serious power rising in the world, and just wants to sow discord and strife to keep China down; America needs to create a boogyman, an enemy to replace its fallen Cold War foe and placate its military-industrial complex. And in any case, America doesn't appreciate just how far we've come under the leadership of this party, however imperfect.
People will debate what the Party’s real role has been in poverty alleviation: is it accurate to say that the Chinese government “lifted 300 million people from poverty” or is it more correct to say that they mostly got out of the way and allowed those people to climb out of it themselves? (I tend to like the latter phrasing). That’s not the only accomplishment in China’s 35+ years of reform that will be fought over. But the simple truth is that by many, many measures of human development, the great majority of Chinese people are undeniably better off today than they were before Deng inaugurated reform. The grand unofficial compromise, in a kind of updated Hobbesian social contract, that the Party made with the Chinese people—“You stay out of politics, we’ll create conditions in which you can prosper and enjoy many personal freedoms”—has been, on balance (and to date), a success.
No thinking Chinese person of my acquaintance believes that the Party or its leadership is anything close to infallible. Most can be quite cynical about the Party, the venality of officials, the hidden factional struggles, the instinct for self-preservation. They’re fully appreciative of the Party and leadership's many shortcomings. They don’t shrink from criticizing it, either; they aren’t reflexively careful of what they say and who might be listening.
But they don’t bandy words like “revolution” about casually. They tend to have a sober appreciation for what’s at stake, for the price that would have to be paid. They’re realistic enough to understand that the Party is not apt to tip its hat adieu and go gently to history's proverbial dustbin. They still believe, and not entirely without evidence, that the Party leadership is attuned to public opinion and will respond when the will of the people is made manifest. They support reform, not revolution.
I’ve little doubt that desire for more formal political participation, for a renegotiation of terms in that unwritten contract, will grow stronger. That’s in the cards. You’ll get no argument from me that it’s been a raw deal for many people with very legitimate grievances. There are many who’ve broken with the Party-state, who openly or secretly dissent, whose relationship with it is entirely and irreversibly oppositional. Among these are many whose courage of conviction and towering intellects I deeply and unreservedly admire, and others who I think are mere gadflies or attention-seeking malcontents without a sense of what’s at stake. In the case of all of them, regardless of what I think of them personally, I regard it as a black mark on the Chinese leadership each time a dissident is locked up for ideology, speech, religious belief or what have you. But most Chinese people tend to be pragmatic and utilitarian; the state’s ability to deliver social goods gives it a kind of “performance legitimacy." The good (prosperity, material comfort, sovereign dignity) and the bad (a censored Internet, jailed dissidents, polluted rivers, smog) go on the scales. For now, it’s unambiguous in which direction those scales are tipping.
Part III — The Anglophone Media Narrative on China and Sources of Bias
If you're a denizen of the Anglophone world, your impressions of China are almost certainly formed primarily by the media that you consume. There are of course exceptions: some 100,000 Americans have, in the last five years, spent time working or studying in China; there are several thousand enrolled in East Asian Studies graduate programs, or taking serious upper-division undergraduate coursework on China, or pursuing an academic discipline that focuses on China; and there are probably a few thousand more who, for personal reasons, have taken more than a passing interest in China and have read a good number of books on contemporary China or on modern Chinese history, have undertaken the study of Chinese, or have otherwise immersed themselves in trying to gain a deeper understanding of China. Taken together, though, these people represent a small percentage of the general media-consuming audience—the college-educated American who, say, reads a paper once in a while, watches cable or network news with fair regularity, listens to NPR on her drive to work, and occasionally clicks on a China-related tweet or on a friend's Facebook page, or her counterpart elsewhere in the Anglophone world. All told, that's several tens of millions of people, I'm guessing, in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.
It's worth reflecting on that, for this majority of news-consumers, impressions of China are almost entirely dependent on the reporting produced, at least regularly and in the main, by probably fewer than a hundred individuals. I'm talking about the reporters for the major newswires like Reuters, Bloomberg, Dow Jones, and AP, whose stories appear not only in the major papers and on news portals online, but also in smaller metropolitan and even local markets; the journalists who write for the major newspapers and news magazines; television news reporters; and the foreign desk editors, subeditors, and producers working with the reporters. There are also the news assistants, unsung heroes without whom many of the China-based reporters who haven't mastered enough Chinese to read local media or documents, or conduct interviews in the native tongue of their interviewees, would be unable to do their jobs. If we include them, the number perhaps doubles but it's still no more than 200, perhaps 250 individuals whose contributions to the gathering, reporting, writing, and editing of news and the creation of news-related commentary actually matters.
What, though, do we really know about these people? If this is the lens through which so many Americans (once again, I'll remind folks that "American" here is really shorthand for Anglophone westerners) view China, it seems to me very sensible that we should wish to understand something about the optical properties of that lens. Does it distort? Of course it does; it could not but distort, could not but offer only a partial and selective view—this mere few score of reporters trying to present a picture of the world's most populous nation as it hurtles ahead with unprecedented force (in the f=ma sense).
This is not an indictment. These are people who I very much respect—indeed, the very people who these days comprise most of my personal circle of friends—and they are people who have my sympathy for what they must often endure in reporting from China. It's not an easy place to report from, especially if you're reporting on things that the Chinese government, or someone at least, doesn't want reported—and what else, after all, really qualifies as news reporting? They are subjected to some pretty shabby treatment, everything from the talk-to-the-hand they'll get from government ministries, to veiled and not-so-veiled threats related to visa renewals, to roughing-up by local thugs or plainclothes cops or even uniformed ones, to surveillance and harassment. I think if there's a source of bias with which I'd start my list, it's this. Seems only natural that this kind of treatment of a journalist anywhere would beget less than rosy coverage of the institutions doling it out. Negative coverage begets more of that nasty treatment, and so on in a most un-virtuous circle.
Should the journalists be faulted for focusing on the things that power, whether political or corporate, wants to hide? No, I don't think so. Rightly or wrongly—and I'm unambivalent in my personal belief that it's "rightly"— this is what gets the journo juices flowing. Journalism is not about the quotidian.
The historian Will Durant once wrote in The Age of Faith, "We must remind ourselves again that the historian, like the journalist, is forever tempted to sacrifice the normal to the dramatic, and never quite conveys an adequate picture of any age." I would note that while the historian can write enormously lengthy monographs in which some of that normal can be restored and that picture made more adequate, the journalist just doesn't have that leisure, and his sacrifice of the normal is more forgivable.
And yet it has an impact on perception; it's still a source of distortion, of bias. This failure to focus on the more "normal" is, I would assert, one of the major reasons for the disconnect at the heart of the original question: the prevalence among Americans of "Why don't you hate your government as much as I think you ought to?"
One of the more regrettable outcomes of this particular bias in the way China is reported reflects in the (notional, educated, mainstream-media-consuming) American public's understanding of the Chinese intellectual. Reporters tend to focus not just on critical intellectuals but on the more outspokenly critical ones, on the full-blown dissidents, on the very vocal activists, on the writers who challenge the establishment on human rights issues, on freedom of speech, on rule of law, on religious policy, on minority nationality policy and so forth. Of course they focus on these people; they're "the dramatic," in Durant's phrase. They set out to excite so no wonder that many of them are exciting. They play to the American love of the underdog. They flatter American values.
It's right, I believe, to focus on intellectuals. One could make a very serious argument that China's history is at some important levels driven by the dynamics of the relationship between intellectuals and state power, whether dynastic or Party. Dissidents and the more stridently critical intellectuals certainly are part of that dynamic. But I would submit that it's actually more important to understand another type of intellectual, and another mode of relations between the intellectuals and state power, between, if you will, the pen and the sword: the "loyal opposition," who during most times—including this time—comprise the real mainstream, and who see it as their role to remonstrate and to criticize but not to fully confront. It's these voices, a kind of "silent majority," to use an apt phrase whatever its connotations in the American polity, who go too often ignored in our reporting. Because "Noted Chinese scholar is basically okay with the government, though he thinks it could be improved in X, Y, and Z" is not a particularly grabby headline or a compelling read.
There's also a kind of source bias that's related to this and it's regrettably caught in a bit of a feedback loop, too. The general impression is that Anglophone media is pro-dissident, and so dissidents will tend to go on record with or speak at greater length with Anglophone reporters; moderate or pro-Party intellectuals will tend to decline interviews and comment, and the impression that Anglophone media is biased in favor of the dissidents gets reinforced: the narrative that they want is buttressed while the other is marginalized or weakened.
Another almost ineradicable bias in Anglophone media reporting, so prevalent that it's almost not worth pointing out, is bias in favor of democratic polities. Authoritarian states like China tend to get reported on unfavorably because they behave like authoritarian states. They don't allow, by definition, rival political parties to freely form. They don't allow a free press. They censor the Internet. And of course journalists in the Anglophone world are themselves on the front lines of these speech and press issues. It's almost tautological that the press of the free world would want to free the press of the world.
submitted by inkspring to u/inkspring [link] [comments]

A Timeline of a Different Cold War - The Heir Apparent: The Legacy of Henry Wallace

A Timeline of a Different Cold War - The Heir Apparent: The Legacy of Henry Wallace
(This is work in progress) Hope you enjoy inventive timelines ;)
The Heir Apparent: The Legacy of Henry Wallace

US and Soviet Leaders
Cold War Circa 2016
Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, 1st Man on the Moon
July 19-21, 1944: Under pressure from FDR, and the re-energized Left in the party, the DNC relents and Henry Wallace is renominated as Roosevelt’s VP for 1944 General Election.

July 21, 1944 - The United States military begins to retake the island of Guam after Japanese troops had occupied the island during World War II. The battle would end on August 10.

November 6, 1944 - The last campaign speech of Franklin D. Roosevelt, seeking his fourth term in office, is broadcast from his Hyde Park, New York home. One day later, Roosevelt would gain that fourth term by a significant, but smaller margin than any of his previous elections, especially in the popular vote where Thomas Dewey lost by only three and one half million votes. The Electoral College margin, however, at 399 to 132, ensured Roosevelt good footing in the final prosecution of World War II.

December 18, 1944 - The United States Supreme Court rules in the case of Korematsu vs. the United States, the wartime internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast was valid during a time of war.

1945
February 4-11, 1945 - President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Premier Josef Stalin hold the Yalta Conference in the Soviet Union to discuss post-war Europe. Stalin meets with VP Henry Wallace many times during the conference, with FDR's health clearly failing, Stalin comes to believe that Wallace is someone that will be just as accomodating as FDR, if not more. FDR & Wallace want to prioritize the Pacific Theater and agree with Stalin to halt at the Wessen River in exchange for full Soviet commitment to routing the Japanese from the Asian mainland. This works out greatly to the benefit of the Soviet post-war position.

February 19, 1945 - Thirty thousand United States Marines land on Iwo Jima.

March 1, 1945 - American troops cross the Rhine River at Remagen, Germany. Two weeks later, on March 18, twelve hundred and fifty U.S. bombers attack Berlin, causing Adolf Hitler to announce the destruction of his own industries and military installations one day later in preparation for invasion. US forces advance eastward until they halted at the Wesser River as agreed at Yalta.

April 1, 1945 - American troops invade Okinawa, beginning the Battle of Okinawa, which would continue until June 21.

April 12, 1945 - President Roosevelt dies suddenly; Vice President Henry Wallace assumes the presidency and role as commander in chief for the duration of World War II.

May 2, 1945 – The Red Army captures Berlin following the suicide of Hitler and other Nazi leaders in a secret bunker. The Werhmacht continues fighting the Red Army east of the Wesser River.

May 17, 1945 - Wehrmacht High Command surrenders after their lines collapse allowing the Soviets to advance to the River Wesser. Soviet and US allies meet at Wilhelm Kaisen bridge in Bremen and fraternize with each other in celebration.

May 21, 1945 - The unconditional surrender of Germany at Reims, France concludes the military engagements of World War II in Europe. It is accepted by General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his role as the commander of Allied troops in the European theater of the war.

July 5, 1945 - In a surpise landslide, Labor wins the UK election. Despite the popularity of Churchill as a leader, the electorate did not want the Tories in charge of the recovery as they were for the previous depression recovery. President Wallace reaffirms America's special relationship with the UK and welcomes the renewed shift to the left.

July 16, 1945 - The first atomic bomb, the Trinity Test, is exploded at Alamogordo, New Mexico, after its production at Los Alamos.

August 2, 1945 - The Potsdam Conference concludes with the UK rather sidelined and the US, represented by Wallace, largely indifferent to Soviet expansion. The biggest change from Yalta, was the the abandonment of seperate zones of control for Berlin and Vienna while retaining the zones for Germany as a whole. Wallace was mosty focused on ensuring full Soviet cooperation with other allies regarding empowering the Allied Control Commission to make systemic changes in Germany. Within 5 years Germany would become more agrarian and lose most heavy manfucaturing capacity in favor of light manufacturing. Most significantly Potsdam established Denazification and the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremburg.

August 6, 1945 - After much debate with the top brass, President Henry Wallace refuses to give the go-ahead for the use of the atomic bomb, citing such devastation would only harden the Japanese will to resist. He is also keen to keep the Soviets from discovering America’s atomic weapons project for both diplomatic and national security reasons. Operation Downfall is initiated instead as the official war plan to force the Japanese surrender by invasion of their home islands.

https://preview.redd.it/o2ae4vk2nps41.jpg?width=1100&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7eaa99954176e85336550eba11c7dbd40fc63520
September 4, 1945 – Soviet forces capture Sakhalin and Kuril Islands, and then commit their forces to pushing remnant Japanese forces out of Manchuria. Communist movements greatly benefit from Soviet patronage in Korea and China.

September 19, 1945 - Thomas G. Corcoran is narrowly confirmed a justice of the Supreme Court by the Senate.

October 4, 1945 - The Soviets begin a secret atomic weapons program of their own after discovering the success of the US atomic bomb project through the spy operation of Julius Rosenberg, Klaus Fuchs and David Greenglass. It would be decades before knowledge of the spy ring in the US would come to light.

October 30, 1945 - Soviets recruit Wernher von Braun and nearly a thousand other engineers and scientists into the Soviet rocket program greatly benefiting their long-sustained lead in the future Space Race.

November 14, 1945 – Operation Olympic begins with the invasion of Kyushu from the south coast by forces staged in Okinawa. Despite massive preparatory bombardment, the landings becomes the most deadly battle yet for American forces in WW2. Near total casualty rate is reported for the first wave of American troops.

1946
January 3, 1946 – Second Phase of Olympic is executed with a smaller invasion of the island of Shikoku. Aerial bombardment, staged from Kyushu and the fleet, intensifies across Japan.

January 10, 1946 - The first meeting of the United Nations general assembly occurs after its founding on October 24, 1945 by fifty-one nations, including the Security Council nations of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.A.

March 18, 1946 – Operation Coronet begins with the amphibious invasion of the Kanto plain and setting the Siege of Tokyo. Concurrently, US forces invade the Honshu coast from Kyushu and Shikoku.

June 6, 1946 - The Basketball Association of America, known as the National Basketball Association (NBA) since 1949 after its merger with the rival National Basketball League, is founded.

June 12, 1946 – Tokyo falls to US forces. Soviet forces invade Hokkaido as US forces fight northward against hold-outs.

June 20, 1946 - Wallace's second appointment to the Supreme Court, Fred M. Vinson, enjoyed more support in the Senate, thanks to majority leader Harry S. Truman for appealing to the center of the Democratic Party.

July 4, 1946 - The island nation of the Philippines is given their independence by the United States. This ends four hundred and twenty-five years of dominance by the west.

1947
February 24, 1947 – Japan surrenders to the US by order of Emperor Hirohito, in return for protection, fearing Soviet control of a Post-War Japan. Days later US and Soviet forces meet at the 38th parallel and exchange diplomatic courtesies. Japan is divided by two occupation governments, Soviet-occupied "North Japan" (called the Democratic Republic of Japan) and US-Occupied "South" Japan.

190,000 Americans died in the battle. Millions of Japanese died during the fighting and resulting famines and guerilla insurgency during the post-war occupation.

March 1, 1947 - The Atomic Energy Commission is established.

March 12, 1947 - The Wallace Doctrine is announced to the U.S. Congress. When passed it would grant $700 million in humanitarian aid to liberal or socialist democracies. President Henry Wallace implements the act on May 22. During the bill signing ceremony, President Wallace argued for cooperation—not cold war—with the Soviet Union, setting the future course of US-Soviet diplomatic relations.

April 15, 1947 - Jackie Robinson breaks Major League Baseball's barrier against colored players when he debuts at first base for Branch Rickey's Brooklyn Dodgers.

June 5, 1947 - Secretary of State George C. Marshall proposes aid extension to all European nations for war recovery, known as the Marshall Plan, which would lead to Congressional approval of $14 billion over the following four years.

June 20, 1947 – Democrats in Congress, rallied by President Wallace, vote down the Taft-Hartley Labor Act that would have curbed strikes and sectoral collective bargaining.

December 30, 1947 - King Michael I, a westernized monarch, was forced to abdicate his throne at gunpoint by communist partisans. Romania was thereafter declared a socialist republic.

1948
January 1, 1948 - Five hundred thousand mine workers begin to strike, with other industries following their lead in solidarity, particularly the Railroad. This was a result of built up grievances that were suppressed by the wartime “No-Strike Pledge”. Wallace responds days later with an order to nationalize the nation’s iron and coal mines and then implement worker demands.

April 1, 1948 - US convinced UK to make assurances that the decision to replace the Reichsmark would be quashed after a diplomatic row erupted with the USSR that threatened the post-war cooperative order. The German debt crisis will remain acute for the next decade. Despite earlier threats by the Soviets the West-East German border remains open.

April 30, 1948 - The Organization of American States is founded by twenty-one nations to provide a mutual development pact after World War II. Founding nations were Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

May 15, 1948 - Arab-Israeli War commence after the declaration of independece by Israel.

June 2, 1948 - President Wallaces decision to nationalize coal and iron mines is ruled legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, Peabody Coal Co vs US, expanding eminent domain power for "national security" purposes.

June 19, 1948 - Josip Broz Tito breaks with Moscow over growing Soviet interference over the Yugoslavian Communist Party. This tests the post-war unity amongst socialist nations and the USSR by starting the Non-Aligned Movement.

July 26, 1948 - Executive Order 9976, ending segregation in the United States military and federal civil service, is signed into effect by President Henry Wallace to the anger of many Southern Democrats.

August 12, 1948 - Infighting between Irgun and Soviet-backed partisans collapses the Ben-Guirion coaltion, and divides the IDF forces into separate militia factions. This causes the Israelis much delay in countering the Arab incursion.

November 2, 1948 - President Henry Wallace, and his VP Rexford Tugwell, rallies from behind, capturing his first president election from the presumptive winner Thomas E. Dewey, the governor of New York. Headlines in national newspapers had overtly announced a Dewey victory, only to be proven wrong. Wallace won the Electoral College vote with 283 to Dewey's 200, with Strom Thurmond, running as the States' Rights candidate, receiving 48 Electoral votes. Wallace won the election with 50.1% of the popular votes.

Wallace, in contrast to Dewey, saw unchecked private wealth as a threat to liberty. The “common man,” he argued, must “have the opportunity to form unions and bargain through them collectively.” Citing “Herr Thyssen, the wealthy German steel man” who “gave Hitler enough money to enable him to play on the minds of the German people,” Wallace warned of “wealthy men who sincerely believe that their wealth is likely to be safer if they can hire tyrants who lure the people back into slavery.”

Much throughout his campaign Wallace resisted Dewey's call for an American dominated post-war world order to counter the communist philosophy of the Soviet Union. Wallace's election was a rebuke to the concept of "American Exceptionalism". The implication was that global progress would flow from a partnership of nations, each of which boasted traditions of liberty, rather than domination by an America that would, as Wallace put it, “mold the world for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”

“Some have spoken of the ‘American century,’” he noted in his victory speech, but “I say that the century on which we are entering—the century which will come into being after this war—can be and must be the Century of the Common Man.”

December 15, 1948 - Alger Hiss, former State Department official, is indicted for perjury in connection to denials of passing state secrets to a communist spy ring. He would later be found not guilty in January 1950. It was perceived by the general public to be a partisan swipe at the Wallace administration.

1949
January 5, 1949 - The 1st Indo-Pakistani War concludes in a stalemate with Kasmir divided along the Line of Control.

January 8, 1949 - Council for Mutual Economic Assistance is founded by the Soviet Union to aid European nations still recovering from World War II to develop infrastructure, this is the Soviet response to the Marshall plan and generates much support among left-wing parties in Western Europe.

February 9, 1949 - The last confirmed resistance militia in Japan was defeated after a battle with US soldiers. This ends the small insurgency by Shintaisei diehards against US forces occupying Japan.

March 2, 1949 - Captain James Gallagher lands the B-50 Lucky Lady II in Texas after completing the first around-the-world non-stop airplane flight. It was refueled four times in flight.

April 2, 1949 - The United Nations Security Council unanimously approves the trusteeship of Pacific Islands formerly controlled by Japan to the United States.

https://preview.redd.it/6bpwdlkxyws41.png?width=4592&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4fd1c29fb33f1bdb3067f5246f4d0a8fee85ce9
April 4, 1949 - ETO, the European Treaty Organization, is formed by the ten Western European nations (Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal). The treaty stated that any attack against one nation would be considered an attack against them all. Henry Wallace refuses to commit the US to a “post-war, Eurocentric, military alliance” and denounces it as a unnecessary provocation toward our Soviet allies.

May 8, 1949 - A stalemate ends the Arab-Israeli War, despite an energenic Israeli counter-offensive that regained control over most of the Jewish Mandate borders and the Gaza Strip. Much of Arab Palastine including the entire West Bank is annexed by Trans-Jordan and Lebanon. The USSR has gained much clout with both nations due to its generous aid during the war.

August 18, 1949 - Due to his impressive record at Nuremburg, and commitment to desegregation and racial justice as Attorney General, the Senate soundly confirms Henry Wallace's 3rd nominee, Francis Biddle, to the Supreme Court.

August 29, 1949 - the Soviet Union secretly conducted its first successful atomic weapon test in Kazahkstan. Stalin decides that this must be kept a secret to ensure good diplomatic relations with the United States.

September 22, 1949 - Mao Zedong's Communists are victorious over the Koumintang in the Chinese Civil War and the People's Republic of China is founded on October 1st. The US, UK and France refuse to recognize the People's Republic, and despite Soviet protest, the Republic of China will retain its seat on the UN Security Council indefinitely.

October 4, 1949 - Earl Warren is appointed to Supreme Court by President Wallace after the death of Justice Rutledge.

October 7, 1949 - Tokyo Rose, the femme fatale of Japanese war broadcasts, is sentenced to ten years in prison. She would be paroled in 1956 and pardoned in 1977.

October 14, 1949 - Eleven leaders of the United States Communist party are convicted of advocating a violent insurrection and overthrow of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court would overturn the convictions 6-3 on June 4, 1951.

October 16, 1949 - In a stunning reversal of fortunes, thanks to generous aid and support by the Soviet Army, the Communist Party of Greece wins the Greek Civil War. Markos Vafeiadis establishes the Democratic Hellenic Republic and purges the monarchy and royal family. This encourages Turkey to pursue closer ties with the West and actively surpress communist influence at home.

November 1, 1949 – President Wallace signs into law a program, modeled after the Montgomery G.I. Bill, to provide college tuition to any person who has been accepted to an accredited public university or trade school.
World of 1950

1950
January 14, 1950 - The United States recalls all consular officials from China after the seizure of the American consul general in Peking by communists. The Soviet Union intervenes diplomatically on behalf of the US to guarantee the safety of US citizens.

January 17, 1950 - The Brinks robbery in Boston occurs when eleven masked bandits steal $2.8 million from an armored car outside their express office.

April 1, 1950 – After President Wallace signed the Medicare Act into law, the US began implementing its first national health insurance program guaranteeing medical coverage for all Americans, subject to added premiums for wealthier citizens.

June 8, 1950 - Swedish scientists detect abnormal radioactivity in air samples, when shared with US government scientists the DOD begins to suspect that the USSR has been actively testing atomic weapons. This assessment is made Top Secret by the president and not released to the public until decades later.

1951
February 28, 1951 - Preliminary report from the Senator Estes Kefauver investigation that had begun in May 1950 into organized crime is issued, stating that gambling take was in excess of $20 billion per year. Estes Kefauver spurred a renewed effort at combating the Mafia by passing new federal racketeering and forfeiture laws.

April 16, 1951 - The Fair Labor Standards Act is expanded by congress to require overtime pay for work performed on federal holidays and also establishes election day as a paid federal holiday.
September 6, 1951 – President Wallace hosts Josef Stalin at the White House for the first ever state visit by a Soviet leader to the United States. The meeting was heavily criticized by Republicans as a tacit acceptance of global communism.

October 25, 1951 - Labor holds their majority in the UK parliment after snap elections, President Wallace made a public endorsement for Clement Attlee and his Labor Party and their platform of economic justice. Labor will hold this majority until 1970.

1952
February 14, 1952 - The 1952 Winter Olympics open in Helsinki, Finland with thirty participating nations. During these games, the first triple jump in figure skating history is performed by Dick Button, who won one of the four gold medals gained by U.S. athletes.

April 8, 1952 - President Wallace authorizes the nationalization of US steel mills in order to avert economic disruption by a another strike. Opponents deride Wallace as a “Socialist Tyrant”.

July 18, 1952 - Congress founds the National Airlines as a public-owned monopoly on commercial air service. Smaller air companies can still contract with the National Airlines to fill gaps in essential services between small airports. Air traffic control and airport ownership also fall under federal ownership.

September 4, 1952 - The inauguration of trans-continental television occurs with the broadcast of President Wallace's speech at the Japanese Peace Treaty Conference in San Francisco. The treaty would be signed on September 8 by the U.S., Japan, and forty-seven other nations. The conditions of the treaty allow the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy to continue within limits as counterweight to the Japanese People’s Army (JPA). The parties also sign the US-Japan Mutual Defense Pact assuring South Japan that the US will provide a defense gaurentee against any agression by the Communist North. It also preserves the Imperial Family’s role in government.

November 1, 1952 - At Eniwetok Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, a larger atomic bomb, named Able, is exploded. US atomic weapons continue to remain a secret to the general public and the vast majority of nations.

November 4, 1952 - General Dwight D. Eisenhower, popular due to his role in winning World War II as European commander, turns down an offer to be the Republican nominee. President Wallace announces that he will run for a third and final term in office, as the recently passed 25th amendment doesn't apply to the current president. Henry Wallace remains as extremely popular as his predecessor and eventually trounces Robert A Taft, securing an mandate for a third expansion of the New Deal and continued peace with the Soviet Union. The Electoral College vote was 349 to 182.

1953
June 5, 1953 – The first federal public education funding program is passed and signed into law. The Act will create block grants to support poor primary and secondary schools and provides extensive funding for science education.

June 17, 1953 - Food shortages, pay cuts and tensions over Soviet occupation lead to riots across East Germany. The uprising is swiftly put down by Soviet troops.

July 23, 1953 - Gamal Abdel Nasser takes power in a coup in Egypt and his Pan-Arab movement aligns itself with the Soviet Union after accepting foreign aid.

July 24, 1953 – The Atoms for Peace initiative begins to improve atomic power technology for civilian use by researching powerful atomic batteries, developing an emission-free nuclear energy economy, and improving agriculture through radiation-based gene manipulation. Henry Wallace successfully lobbied Congress to fund his initiative and to pass a law to indemnify atomic power plants leading to the Atomic Industrial Revolution in America.

August 19, 1953 - Operation Ajax is presented to Wallace and he admonishes the intelligence community for even suggesting something so damaging to US foreign policy. Mossadegh is not overthrown and continues to rule Iran on a social-democratic platform.

October 30, 1953 - President Henry Wallace approves a bill to reduce the size of the US military by 30% and to reduce naval tonnage in half. President Wallace also decided to secretly end US atomic weapons production by executive order. US stockpile was about 430 warheads.

December 30, 1953 - The first color televisions go on sale.


1954
January 26, 1954 - Bell Labs discontinues research into transistors in favor of miniturizing vacuum tubes and developing atomic-derived portable power sources.

February 23, 1954 - The first large scale vaccination of children against polio begins in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

March 4, 1954 - Henry Wallace appoints Senator Estes Kefauver as Justice to replace the late Justice Vinson, and is confirmed by his colleagues.

May 17, 1954 - Racial segregation in public schools is declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Brown vs. the Board of Education. The ruling of the court stated that racial segregation violated the 14th Amendment's clause that guaranteed equal protection. The Monroe School in Topeka, Kansas had segregated Linda Brown in its classes.

July 18, 1954 - After protracted legal disputes with medical providers threatening to undermine the Medicare system, Henry Wallace rallies Congress to give him the power to nationalize for-profit hospitals under the National Health System.

August 19, 1954 - Another series of protracted disputes resulting from the Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin case, which upheld federal price controls on oil and gas producers, the oil companies collude to restrict production and instigate lock-outs. This was met with an Act of Congress authorizing President Wallace to nationalize the oil and gas industry.

September 8, 1954 - In Bangkok, Thailand, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization is formed by the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Thailand, creating a mutual defense pact against Red China.

In 1954, Ray Kroc founds the idea for the McDonald's corporation, agreeing to franchise the idea of Dick and Mac McDonald, who had started the first McDonald's restaurant in 1940 and had eight restaurants by 1954. Kroc would incorporate the entity on March 2, 1955 and open his first franchise on April 15 in Des Plaines, Illinois. He would buy out the McDonald's brothers in 1961.
submitted by Mr_Haw_Haw to AlternateHistory [link] [comments]

Forex Free Seminars and Live Webinars in Philippines Tagalog Forex Trading - Equity and Margin Learning to trade in the Philippines Paano Mag Setup and Magbasa ng Chart sa Forex Trading My simple technique on how to earn money on Philippine stock market

The Philippines is catching up to Japan with a growing number of approved cryptocurrency exchanges. The central bank has green-lighted 10 crypto exchanges to operate in the country so far. Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, 1605 Philippines Customer Service Hotline +632 651 5888; Fax No. +632 636 3512 Email Address: PSE Trading Particip ant; SIPF and SCCP Member . MARGIN FACILITY AGREEMENT(v.10.15) I/We (Client) hereby apply for a Margin Facility and agree to be to this Margin Trading Agreement (MTA) is subject to verification with my/our expressed consent. This MTA shall be subject to the Constitution, By-laws, rules and regulations of the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) and its clearing house and the customs and usages of the market, and to XTB is the best CFD broker in the Philippines in 2020. Low forex and stock index CFD fees. Free and fast deposit and withdrawal. Easy and fast account opening. City Index is number two. Low fees for forex and index CFDs. Fast and smooth account opening. Diverse research tools. eToro is third. Free stock and ETF trading . Seamless account opening. Trading forex (currencies) in the Philippines is popular among residents. While recommended, forex brokers are not required to become authorised by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to accept residents of the Philippines as customers. ... "There is a very high degree of risk involved in trading securities. With respect to margin ...

[index] [470] [230] [549] [83] [505] [73] [75] [50] [767] [775]

Forex Free Seminars and Live Webinars in Philippines

MT4 Basics on What is Equity, Margin, Margin percent etc. -Tagalog explanation Basic MT4 Forex Terms Simplified explanation on Balance, Equity, Free Margin, Margin Level %, Margin Simple Formula ... Tara Aral tayo ng Technical Analysis Philippine Stock Market Day Trading - Duration: 3:55:18. Ricardo Alvaro 25,947 views. 3:55:18. paano mamili ng magandang stocks in a second - Duration: 11:02. LEARN THE BASICS FO FOREX and HOW TO TRADE FOREX in the Philippines Complete Guide for Beginners Understanding Leverage What is? Margin, Lot Size, Pip, Spread, etc. WELCOME TO KABAYAN TRADING ... Lot Size and Value Per Pip Calculator - Position Size Calculator Forex Trading Philippines - Duration: 10:15. Bibiano ForeX 15,572 views. 10:15. At Learn to Trade we share one common goal, to help you, achieve the financial freedom you need to live the lifestyle you want. Our successful, experienced a...

#