Skip to navigationSkip to content
Paige Vickers

Good evening. Here is your news brief.

A wild day in Washington

...but agreed with him on a trade deal... Democrats are claiming victory after reaching an agreement with the White House on an update to the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement—but the Senate will not take it up this year due to president Trump’s impending impeachment trial, The Hill reports.

McConnell: Senate will not take up new NAFTA deal this year

As of Tuesday, the World Trade Organization's appellate body no longer has enough members to function because the US is blocking new member appointments. So WTO dispute rulings will not be enforceable going forward. With the global trading system under this kind of pressure, regional deals like USMCA

As of Tuesday, the World Trade Organization's appellate body no longer has enough members to function because the US is blocking new member appointments. So WTO dispute rulings will not be enforceable going forward. With the global trading system under this kind of pressure, regional deals like USMCA (new NAFTA) will become an even more important part of trade policy.

...and even insurance companies got in on the act. US health insurers sued the government for denying their claims—apparently failing to see any irony—saying that they are owed $12 billion for losses in connection to Obamacare's "risk corridors."

Health insurers fighting claim denials made some seriously ironic arguments at the Supreme Court

I couldn't help chortling in court today when the attorney for a bunch of US health insurers complained that there was nothing more pernicious than an insurance program that won't pay what's promised. HA! Americans would have had a good laugh if cameras were allowed in the courtroom. But they are not

I couldn't help chortling in court today when the attorney for a bunch of US health insurers complained that there was nothing more pernicious than an insurance program that won't pay what's promised. HA! Americans would have had a good laugh if cameras were allowed in the courtroom. But they are not so few got a chance to see insurers fighting the US government for allegedly promised funds and experiencing what the insured feel when dealing with health institutions.

Journalists love a deadline

Netflix hits and misses

Global tech battles for Africa

Energize your meetings with a power playlist

Judgement day for the world's most valuable fintech

Looking for a new job?

How safe are volcano vacations?

Matters of debate

Private companies shouldn’t bankroll the public good. Corporations can use their funding power in public-private partnerships to influence policymakers’ priorities, mask their own bad behavior, or even cause additional harm.

Why private companies should stop giving money for good causes

I don't think a blanket ban on public private partnerships is the solution. More transparency is. But done right, public private partnerships can help fund critical work for the social good that otherwise won't be funded.

There's no question that there's an underlying risk of bias and foul play behind public-private partnerships, but we're also in an age of accountability where customers are clamoring for transparency.

That desire can help these partnerships get better and take on the bad actors. It's ambitious, but

There's no question that there's an underlying risk of bias and foul play behind public-private partnerships, but we're also in an age of accountability where customers are clamoring for transparency.

That desire can help these partnerships get better and take on the bad actors. It's ambitious, but necessary, especially since we can put money to the right work.

Not all companies are as duplicitous as some the pharma companies that fund research into their own products. Some companies go so far as to obscure their participation on good works that have no relationship with their business. Companies are no better or worse than the people that run them . Each case

Not all companies are as duplicitous as some the pharma companies that fund research into their own products. Some companies go so far as to obscure their participation on good works that have no relationship with their business. Companies are no better or worse than the people that run them . Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits

What is the real purpose of companies? Only their behavior can tell us. Employee and consumer expectations have changed and it won’t be long before business leaders are forced to catch up.

What is the real purpose of companies? Only their behavior can tell us

It will be interesting to see how companies measure success now that the Business Roundtable has challenged them to think differently about purpose. From my perspective, those that follow purpose like a north star and make decisions that go beyond the bottom line, will be positioned to win.

The purpose of corporations is being increasingly challenged. It can't merely be for shareholder returns. The Business Roundtable dropped shareholder primacy in August as the debate intensifies. Perhaps we are indeed all becoming Japanese, for when I arrived there in the 1990s they told me that the shareholder

The purpose of corporations is being increasingly challenged. It can't merely be for shareholder returns. The Business Roundtable dropped shareholder primacy in August as the debate intensifies. Perhaps we are indeed all becoming Japanese, for when I arrived there in the 1990s they told me that the shareholder wasn't the most important stakeholder, to the shock of my investor friends. Maybe we are returning to old values.

Roger Martin has said that there is a real market, where goods and services are made and traded, and an expectations market which looks further out and makes bets on what things will look like in the future. In the world of sports, these 2 markets are separate. But in the business world business managers often overtly intervene in the expectations market. For example by doing share buy backs in order to push the stock price higher. In a world of shareholder primacy, US companies have been putting all the gains from recent corporate tax cuts into buybacks instead of investment or employee wages which was allegedly the policymakers goal for the cuts. Western society is starting to acknowledge that there are other stakeholders apart from shareholders (and the board of directors who have a vested interested in doing buybacks to push up short term share prices). In a world of changing employee and consumer tastes and demands - whilst the economy appears unfair to many - I would expect these debates to continue.

Arts, letters, and the future

Time to ride off into that sunset...for now.

Close
Russia asks Apple to help block Telegram

Russia asks Apple to help block Telegram

Read more on The Straits Times

Contributions

  • Information is free and access to it should essentially follow the same set of rules. Sorry Russia if you are uncomfortable with letting your people demonstrating that freedom. I am unhappy with the way this country is shaping up to be but when I read articles about the way of life in Russia I settle

    Information is free and access to it should essentially follow the same set of rules. Sorry Russia if you are uncomfortable with letting your people demonstrating that freedom. I am unhappy with the way this country is shaping up to be but when I read articles about the way of life in Russia I settle into my chair a little deeper because this seems unreal in 2018.

    I hope more websites have the guts to stand up and actively try to change and archaic way of thinking such as this. I hope Google has these same guts and takes a stand. They have the power to after all.

  • Banning Telegram is justified because it was used to organize recent terror attacks around the world. That makes sense. But actually, Telegram is used on smartphones, which were used to organize recent terror attacks so we should ban them too. And computers, the internet etc etc were all used to plan...I

    Banning Telegram is justified because it was used to organize recent terror attacks around the world. That makes sense. But actually, Telegram is used on smartphones, which were used to organize recent terror attacks so we should ban them too. And computers, the internet etc etc were all used to plan...I think you see where I’m going with this. Banning an app simply because a handful of people use it to do bad things is a very slippery slope that will not end well. By using this as justification, the government could start to demand more and more from its companies and citizens. Allowing this ban would set a scary precedent for future internet and communication and privacy laws in Russia.

  • I don't have a problem with Russia being cyber conscious, what only amazes me is that a Russian created the app. Inasmuch as the acceptability of such app created by a citizen should be granted, it has been violated and rejected and this will have an effect on the economy of the country. The Russian

    I don't have a problem with Russia being cyber conscious, what only amazes me is that a Russian created the app. Inasmuch as the acceptability of such app created by a citizen should be granted, it has been violated and rejected and this will have an effect on the economy of the country. The Russian government wants to have access to secret and private conversations which seemed convenient in other countries. However, the rise from 15% to 30% isn't a joke, it will rise sooner or later and with the help of Apple Inc., Telegram would probably have to be banned from the company except the creator pays to play.