Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is falsely blaming Harris for high prices. His plans will cause huge inflation | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      As the presidential campaign enters the home stretch, one of Donald Trump’s most dishonest – and effective – attacks is that Kamala Harris is to blame for inflation.That attack makes no sense. Several things caused a surge in inflation, but the US vice-president wasn’t one of them. Blame inflation on the pandemic or on Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, but don’t blame it on Harris. Blaming her for inflation makes as much sense as blaming her for the leak in your roof. In seeking to blame Harris for inflation, Trump is absurdly trying to turn her – a vice-president who, like other veeps, has very little power – into some all-powerful economic tsar who somehow controls everything from egg prices to gasoline prices.Any American who is truly concerned about inflation should be much more worried about Trump than about Harris. She is far more serious about fighting inflation and helping households cope with the high cost of living. What’s more, Trump’s plan to impose steep tariffs on all imported goods will significantly push up prices and hit consumers hard, especially less wealthy consumers.If Trump is elected and implements his tariffs and other plans, inflation will probably – and quickly – rise to an uncomfortable 6% to 9.3% per year (from the current 2.5%), according to a respected thinktank, with prices climbing a very painful 20% to 28% during Trump’s four years in office. That means there’s a good chance that inflation would rise more in a second Trump term than it has under Joe Biden. Not only that, economists say the higher prices caused by Trump’s tariffs will cost the typical American household from $2,600 to $3,900 a year. Ouch.Trump blames Harris for causing “the worst inflation in American history”. Comments like that insult everyone’s intelligence and show that Trump knows zilch about American history. Inflation was far worse in the years immediately after the second world war and far worse in the late 1970s and early 1980s.More absurdity: JD Vance recently blamed Harris for higher egg prices, even though we’ve been repeatedly told that bird flu and the loss of more than 100 million chickens were what caused egg prices to soar. (In fact, the not-always-truthful Vance embarrassed himself by blaming Harris for $4-a-dozen egg prices while he stood in front of egg cartons marked $2.99 for a dozen.)Instead of listening to Trump’s attacks about inflation, every American should be rejoicing that inflation has come way down – back to nearly 2%. If we look honestly at inflation, we see that two main factors fueled the spike in inflation back in 2021 and 2022. (Neither of those factors is named Kamala Harris.)The first factor was the pandemic, which closed thousands of factories worldwide and badly disrupted supply chains, causing prices of everything from furniture to cars to soar.The second factor was Putin’s war against Ukraine, which pushed up agricultural prices around the world because Ukraine is a major grain and fertilizer exporter. That war also caused oil and gas prices to soar because Russia is a huge energy exporter and the war disrupted energy exports.There was another important factor behind inflation. Many corporations took advantage of the situation by raising prices far higher than necessary. This “greedflation” jacked up corporate profits while hammering consumers. The Economic Policy Institute, a progressive thinktank, said these moves to boost corporate profits caused one-third of the growth in prices since the pandemic began.Under Biden, Congress enacted the American Rescue Plan, which gave an important boost to our pandemic-plagued economy and sent checks to millions of households to help them weather the pandemic. Thanks to that ambitious plan, the US under Biden has had far stronger economic growth than other G7 countries while also having the lowest average unemployment rate under any president since Lyndon Johnson. Indeed, the 16.2m jobs added under Biden are a record, far more than were added under any previous president in a four-year term.The American Rescue Plan was a huge success: the billions of dollars it put in people’s pockets contributed modestly to inflation, but far less than other factors did. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, has said: “There’s a long list of reasons for the high inflation. At the top of the list is the pandemic and the Russian war … [the American Rescue Plan is] at the bottom of the list.”The truth is, the US economy is in good shape, even though many people are unhappy because prices are considerably higher than when the pandemic began. Many Americans fail to realize that wages have been rising faster than prices.As for what will happen to prices in the future, economists are far more worried about Trump than Harris. They fear that Trump’s promised tariffs will send prices shooting upwards and trigger a huge trade war that could drag the US economy into recession. Trump has talked up two economic policies: big tax cuts for the richest 1% and corporations and, second, steep tariffs – up to 20% on all imports, from TVs to shoes to bananas – and a 60% tariff on imports from China.Trump says foreign companies will pay for those tariffs even though economists keep saying he’s 100% wrong on that. American consumers will pay for those tariffs in the form of higher prices. Economists warn that a second Trump term will dangerously increase inflation through his tariffs, through his plans that will cause the budget deficit to soar, and through his threats to limit the Federal Reserve’s ability to reduce inflation. Sixteen Nobel-prize winning economists have warned that Trump’s policies “will reignite” inflation and have a “destabilizing effect” on our economy.Unlike Trump, Harris has serious plans to fight against higher prices. Seeing how housing prices have soared (largely because builders haven’t built enough homes since 2008), Harris has a bold plan to build 3m new housing units nationwide. She also wants to give a $25,000 down payment subsidy to first-time homebuyers.To battle high grocery prices, Harris has vowed to crack down on price-gouging by food suppliers and supermarket chains. She also wants the government to do more to reduce bloated prescription drug prices, in the same way Biden has chopped insulin prices to $35 a month for seniors.Recognizing how expensive it is to raise a family, Harris has called for creating an annual $3,600 tax credit per child and a $6,000 credit in a newborn’s first year. She is also pushing for a trailblazing measure: to subsidize childcare so that no family spends more than 7% of its income on childcare.Trump is once again attacking people for what he’s guilty of. He is falsely attacking Harris for causing inflation, while he is the one whose economic plans will cause inflation to climb skyward.

      Steven Greenhouse, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, is an American labor and workplace journalist and writer More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Warren and Dean demand Coke, Pepsi and General Mills stop ‘shrinkflation’

      by

      It’s becoming a common experience for Americans going to the grocery store: your bag of chips seems lighter, your favorite drink comes in a slimmer bottle, and you’re running out of laundry detergent more quickly than usual. And yet things are staying the same price.On Monday two Democratic lawmakers launched an attempt to get to the bottom of the phenomena, accusing three major companies, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and General Mills, of shrinking the size of products while charging consumers the same price – a price-gouging practice known as “shrinkflation”.Senator Elizabeth Warren and US representative Madeleine Dean allege in letters to the CEOs of the three companies that they have participated in shrinkflation, subtly decreasing the size of cereals and sodas sold in stores.General Mills decreased its box of “family size” Cocoa Puffs from 19.3 ounces to 18.1 ounces over the last few years, the letter alleges. Meanwhile, PepsiCo downgraded the size of Gatorade bottles from 32 ounces to 28 ounces.Companies often say that decreases in size can be attributed to changes in packaging that are unrelated to pricing or the economic environment. PepsiCo told NBC News in July that their 28-ounce bottle has been around for years and that the company had planned to widen its distribution as part of a long-term strategy.But many remain skeptical at the widespread variety of products that seem to be shrinking.“Shrinking the size of a product in order to gouge consumers on the price per ounce is not innovation, it’s exploitation,” Warren and Dean said in a statement. “Unfortunately, this price gouging is a widespread problem, with corporate profits driving over half of inflation.”People on social media have been talking about the slimming down of products for months, with users posting about their shrinkflation experiences with side-by-side pictures of products before and after shrinking.“Major corporations are trying to gaslighting us, trying to make us believe that what we’re seeing is not real,” said TikTok user Melissa Simonson in a video from March, where she points out the sizes of drinks, cereals, chips, orange juice, gum and laundry detergent, among other grocery store items, have gotten smaller.Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and General Mills did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the letters.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates the US inflation rate each month, says its economists try to incorporate any instances of shrinkflation into its inflation calculations. For example, if a tub of 64-ounce vanilla ice cream was priced at $5.99 in January, then the price-per-ounce is $0.093. If in February, the tub remains the same price, but shrinks to 60 ounces, the price-per-ounce has gone up, representing a kind of price increase.Warren and Dean also used the letters as an opportunity to blast the companies for paying less taxes on higher profits after Donald Trump’s corporate tax cuts in 2017. The lawmakers cited a recent report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that said Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and General Mills all paid taxes at a rate of 15% or under from 2018 to 2022, despite making billions in profit.“We strongly oppose these corporate tax giveaways, and have fought to pass tax increases on big corporations, including the 15 percent minimum tax on billion-dollar corporations,” the lawmakers said in their statement. “No corporation should pay a lower tax rate than working Americans – especially when that same corporation turns around and gouges consumers on the other end through shrinkflation.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Major US firefighter union declines to endorse Trump or Harris for president

      by

      The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) has declined to endorse a candidate ahead of next month’s US presidential election, despite efforts by both the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump campaigns to court the union.“This decision, which we took very seriously, is the best way to preserve and strengthen our unity,” the IAFF said in a statement.The union, which has almost 350,000 members, was a key part of the coalition built by Joe Biden – and the first union to back the president’s run for election in 2020.It is the second leading trade union to refrain from endorsing either Harris or Trump as tens of millions of Americans prepare to cast their votes. The Teamsters International, a US transportation workers union that represents more than 1.3 million workers, also announced it would not back a candidate.Both campaigns had sought the IAFF’s support, with Tim Walz, Harris’s running mate, and JD Vance, Trump’s running mate, addressing the union’s convention in August.Walz claimed in his speech that he had signed “the most comprehensive firefighter legislation in the nation” as governor of Minnesota. Vance, who grappled with boos from the audience, claimed that he and Trump represented a “new kind of Republican party” and would “never stop fighting” for first responders.On Thursday, the IAFF said its executive board had voted by a margin of 1.2% to not endorse a presidential candidate. “We encourage our members – and all eligible voters – to get out and make their voices heard in the upcoming election,” said Edward Kelly, the union’s president.It is not the first time the IAFF has refrained from backing a candidate. While it endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, it reportedly shelved plans to publicly support Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate in 2016. More

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Pennsylvania steel workers, wooed by Harris and Trump, remain skeptical: ‘I don’t trust either one of them’

      by

      The Monongahela River winds through the tight Mon Valley south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, creating a main artery in the nation’s industrial heart, where the steel and coal industries have driven the region’s economy and shaped political landscapes since the late 19th century.In the weeks preceding the election, the region is once again playing an outsize role in determining the nation’s political future. A controversial Biden-Harris administration plan to kill Pittsburgh-based US Steel’s proposed sale to Japan’s Nippon Steel is viewed in part as an election-year strategy to shore up critical union support in a must-win swing state.On the ground in and around the city, evidence suggests the move may just work – unions oppose the sale and the administration’s position is at the very least maintaining recent Democratic gains in the tug-of-war for swing voters in the nation’s steel capital.Anecdotal evidence and polling point to Harris gaining momentum here.“I’ve learned not to be comfortable with any election because we didn’t think Trump could win in 16 … but I think people are going to vote more common sense this year,” said Keli Vereb, a steelworker union rep and Lincoln borough council member.Unusually in these fractious times, both presidential candidates oppose the deal, backing United Steelworkers International union members across the political spectrum who are determined to thwart a deal they see as a job killer that puts their pensions at risk.Recent memories of supply chain issues have also hardened US resolve to protect vital industries such as steel.Still, politics are omnipresent, and the deal undoubtedly will play a role in determining the next president. It comes eight years after blue-collar workers here defected from the Democratic party en masse when then candidate Hillary Clinton said during a debate that she would put coalminers out of business.Some union leaders say the comment may have cost her Pennsylvania, which Donald Trump won by 0.7%. After four years of pro-labor policies from Joe Biden, the party has begun to win back some who left, and with Trump proposing to block the US Steel sale if he were elected, Democrats risk a 2016 repeat if it is allowed to proceed.“Trump would pounce on them if they let [the sale] go,” said Allen George, a lifelong Democrat who worked in unions adjacent to the steel industry.The companies are making a powerful argument that the deal is vital to US Steel’s survival. US Steel claims it will be forced to cut Pennsylvania jobs and move its headquarters out of Pittsburgh if Biden blocks Nippon’s $14.1bn bid, while it has promised to invest $2.4bn in its facilities if the sale goes through. The company’s “scorched earth” public relations campaign on the factory floors has at least some rank and file supporting the sale, said Bernie Hall, Pennsylvania director for USI.“Some are scared and think: ‘We should just take this and live to fight another day,’ and that’s natural,” Hall said.Many more, however, oppose the sale. The union’s contract is up in 23 months and they fear a Nippon-US Steel would cut jobs, or continue to send them to non-union states. They point to Nippon’s long history of “dumping” steel in the US, which has cratered prices and cost American jobs, and many fear the purchase is a ploy to continue the practice.US Steel’s record of closing factories and failing to keep promises has generated a deep mistrust and disdain for the company, workers told the Guardian on a recent Monday afternoon outside the Harvey Wilner’s pub in West Mifflin, just south of Pittsburgh. They rattled off a list of facilities that have closed over the decades.“Nippon can have at it,” said Barry Fez, who has worked in manufacturing in the region for decades, but, he says, in a few years he expects they will go back on their word.But that sentiment is colliding with Wall Street and Beltway support for the deal. The latter argue that the administration’s protectionist plan would run counter to international trade norms because Japan is an ally and close economic partner.The idea that trade decorum with Japan is more important than Pennsylvania union members’ security drew scoffs from some workers.“And then they’ll wonder why they lost an election,” said Mike Gallagher, a retired union member.‘They lie all the time’Banking legend JP Morgan created US Steel in a mega-merger in 1901. It grew to be the largest US producer, employing more than 340,000 people at its second world war peak. Today, it is a shadow of its former self, has closed many of its Mon Valley facilities, and now employs about 4,000 people, although the company says it indirectly supports 11,000 jobs and generates $3.6bn in economic activity annually.In the face of waning American steel power, the company has looked for a buyer, and many feel a US-Japan alliance makes sense in countering increasing Chinese domination of the industry.But the union is opposed, and in Pennsylvania, 25% of the electorate is unionized, making it a formidable bloc intensely courted by both political parties.Trump in January said he would stop the deal. Biden has said the same, including in a private meeting with steel workers in April, when the president insisted “US steel will stay US-owned”, according to Don Furko, president of Local 1557 in Clairton. “He said he ‘guarantees’ it.”The administration’s decision on whether the deal should be blocked largely lies with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which is made up of Biden’s cabinet members and other appointees. It can veto mergers and acquisitions it finds present a national security risk.CFIUS was expected to issue an opinion on 21 September, but the administration punted until after the election. Union members say they aren’t worried.“President Biden and Vice-President Harris have been pretty clear and they will follow through,” Hall said.Harris has got the message: “US Steel should remain American-owned and American-operated,” she told a rally in Pittsburgh earlier this month.David Burritt, the CEO of US Steel, has warned of consequences if the deal is blocked. He says the company would “largely pivot away” from its blast furnace production in the region, and move its headquarters out of Pittsburgh.“We want elected leaders and other key decision makers to recognize the benefits of the deal as well as the unavoidable consequences if the deal fails,” Burritt said last month.That threat has further inflamed tensions. Furko said it reminds him of his young son flipping over the Monopoly board when he loses: “That’s really what’s going on here – if this deal doesn’t go through, then they’re going to flip over the Monopoly board.”Asked about US Steel’s claims that it will revitalize the region if the sale goes through, workers told the Guardian that there are no guarantees that the investment will be in Mon Valley. People would be “foolish” to believe that, Vereb said.That was echoed outside the Wilner’s pub. Fez recalled the pub’s heyday, when “you couldn’t get in there at 7am because it was so packed”, and the floor was littered with quarter wrappers from the slot machines.On a Monday afternoon around shift change time, a group of about a dozen retirees sat around the bar. They blamed US Steel for the region’s slowdown, and while they say they do not expect Biden or Trump to save the city, they have even less confidence that US Steel and a Japanese company will turn it around.“They lie all the time, and I don’t trust either one of them,” said Jack, a retiree who worked for US Steel for more than 30 years, who declined to use his last name.‘He gets credit for that’The political price that the Biden-Harris administration could pay for allowing the deal to go through can be seen in the 2016 election’s wake.Before 2016, the region was largely Democratic. But when Clinton made the comment about the clean energy industry putting coalminers and barons out of business, “Things turned on a dime,” Vereb said. Her borough of 900 was once about 80% Democrats. It’s now about 75% Republican, she estimates.About 75% of those working at US Steel’s Clairton Mill Works, several union leaders estimate, support Trump, and there is little Democrats can do to win back many of them.The situation is also complicated by US Steel’s intense campaign to convince workers that the sale will save their jobs. The company sends regular emails, holds meetings, takes out ads in newspapers and makes their case to reporters.“They say: ‘If you don’t support us, then we’re gonna shut this place down, and if that happens you can thank your union leadership,’” said Rob Hutchison, president of Local 1219. “When [rank and file] have that threat in their face eight to 12 hours per day, then it starts to become something they think about.”That also presents another political risk: if the Biden-Harris administration were to block the deal, and US Steel shuts down a plant, Democrats may again lose some voters.However, so far, the controversial move seems to be paying dividends.“I don’t know if the average Joe is thinking about CFIUS or is that in the weeds, but I think from a macro level, people see it, that it’s Biden supporting the union workers, and he gets credit for that,” Hall said. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris decries Trump’s abortion comments in first solo TV interview

      by

      Kamala Harris sat for her first solo interview as the Democratic presidential nominee on Wednesday, laying out her plan to boost the middle class and condemning her rival Donald Trump on his comments over abortion.During the interview with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, which was held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the vice-president painted Trump as a candidate focused on the rich at the expense of the middle class, and herself as better equipped to handle the economy.“The top economists in our country have compared our plans and say mine would grow the economy, [and] his would shrink it,” she said during the interview.On his economic record, Harris said: “Donald Trump made a whole lot of promises that he did not meet.”Harris also showed disdain over Trump’s comments over abortion, expressing he needs to trust women to make their own reproductive decisions. Her comments came after Trump, at a Pennsylvania rally, called himself a “protector” of women, claiming American women will not be “thinking about abortion” if he is elected.“Donald Trump is also the person who said women should be punished for exercising a decision that they, rightly, should be able to make about their own body and future,” Harris said.On a lighter note, Harris confirmed that she worked at McDonald’s, pushing back against Trump’s allegations that she did not.“Part of the reason I even talk about having worked at McDonald’s is because there are people who work at McDonald’s who are trying to raise a family,” she said, alluding to her economic policy plan to help working-class families.“I think part of the difference between me and my opponent includes our perspective on the needs of the American people and what our responsibility, then, is to meet those needs,” Harris added.The interview comes at a time when Harris faces harsh criticism over the lack of media interviews she has done. Earlier this month, Axios reported that the Harris-Walz campaign has so far given fewer interviews than any other candidates in modern history.Trump and JD Vance, the Republican vice-presidential pick, have used it as ammunition during their campaign speeches. On X, Vance responded to news of Harris’s interview by saying: “This is legitimately pathetic for a person who wants to be president. Ruhle has explicitly endorsed Harris. She won’t ask hard Qs. Kamala runs from tough questions because she can’t defend her record. If you want open borders and high groceries, vote for status quo Kamala.”In August, Harris was interviewed on CNN alongside Walz. The interview was hosted by Dana Bash and was aired as a one-hour primetime special. After the interview, Republicans criticized the joint interview with Walz for being pre-recorded and not live.Since then, Harris has given a handful of interviews, mostly with local outlets or more niche forums, including an appearance with Stephanie “Chiquibaby” Himonidis, a Spanish-language radio host and podcaster.Harris also appeared in a live-streamed “Unite For America” event with supporters hosted by Oprah Winfrey last week. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Amazon, Tesla and Meta among world’s top companies undermining democracy – report

      by

      Some of the world’s largest companies have been accused of undermining democracy across the world by financially backing far-right political movements, funding and exacerbating the climate crisis, and violating trade union rights and human rights in a report published on Monday by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).Amazon, Tesla, Meta, ExxonMobil, Blackstone, Vanguard and Glencore are the corporations included in the report. The companies’ lobbying arms are attempting to shape global policy at the United Nations Summit of the Future in New York City on 22 and 23 September.At Amazon, the report notes the company’s size and role as the fifth largest employer in the world and the largest online retailer and cloud computing service, has had a profound impact on the industries and communities it operates within.“The company has become notorious for its union busting and low wages on multiple continents, monopoly in e-commerce, egregious carbon emissions through its AWS data centres, corporate tax evasion, and lobbying at national and international level,” states the report.The report cites Amazon’s high injury rates in the US, the company challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), its efforts in Canada to overturn labor law, the banning of Amazon lobbyists from the European parliament for refusing to attend hearings on worker violations, and refusal to negotiate with unions in Germany, among other cases. Amazon has also funded far-right political groups’ efforts to undermine women’s rights and antitrust legislation, and its retail website has been used by hate groups to raise money and sell products.At Tesla, the report cites anti-union opposition by the company in the US, Germany, and Sweden; human rights violations within its supply chains; and Elon Musk’s personal opposition to unions and democracy, challenges to the NLRB in the US, and his support for the political leaders Donald Trump, Javier Milei in Argentina and Narendra Modi in India.The report cites Meta, the largest social media company in the world, for its vast role in permitting and enabling far-right propaganda and movements to use its platforms to grow members and garner support in the US and abroad. It also cited retaliation from the company for regulatory measures in Canada, and expensive lobbying efforts against laws to regulate data privacy.Glencore, the largest mining company in the world by revenue, was included in the report for its role in financing campaigns globally against Indigenous communities and activists.Blackstone, the private equity firm led by Stephen Schwarzman, a billionaire backer of Donald Trump, was cited in the report for its roles in funding far-right political movements, investments in fossil fuel projects and deforestation in the Amazon.“Blackstone’s network has spent tens of millions of dollars supporting politicians and political forces who promise to prevent or eliminate regulations that might hold it to account,” the report noted.The Vanguard Group was included in the report due to its role in financing some of the world’s most anti-democratic corporations. ExxonMobil was cited for funding anti-climate science research and aggressive lobbying against environmental regulations.Even in “robust democracies” workers’ demands “are overwhelmed by corporate lobbying operations, either in policymaking or the election in itself”, said Todd Brogan, director of campaigns and organizing at the ITUC.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“This is about power, who has it, and who sets the agenda. We know as trade unionists that unless we’re organized, the boss sets the agenda in the workplace, and we know as citizens in our countries that unless we’re organized and demanding responsive governments that actually meet the needs of people, it’s corporate power that’s going to set the agenda.“They’re playing the long game, and it’s a game about shifting power away from democracy at every level into one where they’re not concerned about the effects on workers – they’re concerned about maximizing their influence and their extractive power and their profit,” added Brogan. “Now is the time for international and multi-sectoral strategies, because these are, in many cases, multinational corporations that are more powerful than states, and they have no democratic accountability whatsoever, except for workers organized.”The ITUC includes labor group affiliates from 169 nations and territories around the world representing 191 million workers, including the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of labor unions in the US, and the Trades Union Congress in the UK.With 4 billion people around the world set to participate in elections in 2024, the federation is pushing for an international binding treaty being worked on by the Open-ended intergovernmental working group to hold transnational corporations accountable under international human rights laws. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Teamsters decline to endorse election candidate – but claim majority backs Trump

      by

      The Teamsters International, which represents over 1.3 million workers, declined to endorse a candidate ahead of November’s presidential election – but released data suggesting most of its members backed Donald Trump over Kamala Harris.The union’s decision to not make an election endorsement, for the first time in almost three decades, comes in the wake of scrutiny of its president, Sean O’Brien, becoming the first Teamsters leader to address the the Republican national convention in July. John Palmer, vice-president at large at the Teamsters, called the decision to appear at the convention, “unconscionable” given Trump’s record opposing labor unions.Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, met with the Teamsters this week for a roundtable discussion prior to the decision. Trump and Joe Biden attended roundtable with the union earlier this year.“Unfortunately, neither major candidate was able to make serious commitments to our union to ensure the interests of working people are always put before big business,” O’Brien said in a statement on Wednesday. “We sought commitments from both Trump and Harris not to interfere in critical union campaigns or core Teamsters industries – and to honor our members’ right to strike – but were unable to secure those pledges.”Polling data released by the union ahead of the announcement showed that its members supported Biden over Trump, though more recent surveys conduct by the union revealed membership supported Trump over Harris.The Teamsters National Black Caucus endorsed Harris last month.In response to the non-endorsement, Teamsters against Trump, a grassroots group of Teamster members and retirees, announced they will expand campaigning efforts to elect Vice President Kamala Harris.The California Teamsters also came out on 18 September to endorse Harris in response to the Teamsters International’s lack of endorsement.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“When it comes to my vote for President, as a proud Teamster there’s no contest. Donald Trump doesn’t give a damn about the working class. As President, Trump didn’t lift a finger to help Teamsters whose pensions were in danger. Instead, he installed his billionaire friends in the White House and did everything he could to stop workers from organizing into unions,” said James Larkin, a member of Teamsters Local 299 in Detroit, Michigan and member of the group, in a statement. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump launches new cryptocurrency venture but declines to share details

      by

      Donald Trump launched his family’s cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial, on a livestreamed interview on the social media platform X on Monday. The Republican presidential nominee gave few details about the venture but did offer his first public comments on the apparent assassination attempt against him a day earlier.Trump did not discuss specifics about World Liberty Financial on Monday or how it would work, pivoting from questions about cryptocurrency to talking about artificial intelligence and other topics. Instead, he recounted his experience on Sunday, saying he and a friend playing golf “heard shots being fired in the air, and I guess probably four or five.“I would have loved to have sank that last putt,” Trump continued. He credited the Secret Service agent who spotted the barrel of a rifle and began firing toward it as well as law enforcement and a civilian who he said helped track down the suspect.World Liberty Financial is expected to be a borrowing and lending service used to trade cryptocurrencies, which are forms of digital money that can be traded over the internet without relying on the global banking system. Exchanges often charge fees for withdrawals of bitcoin and other currencies.Other speakers after Trump, including his eldest son, Don Jr, talked about embracing cryptocurrency as an alternative to what they allege is a banking system tilted against conservatives.Experts have said a presidential candidate launching a business venture in the midst of a campaign could create ethical conflicts.“Taking a pro-crypto stance is not necessarily troubling, the troubling aspect is doing it while starting a way to personally benefit from it,” Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said earlier this month.During his time in the White House, Trump said he was “not a fan” of cryptocurrency and tweeted in 2019: “Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.” However, during this election cycle, he has reversed himself and taken on a favorable view of cryptocurrencies.He announced in May that his campaign would begin accepting donations in cryptocurrency as part of an effort to build what it calls a “crypto army” leading up to election day. He attended a bitcoin conference in Nashville this year, promising to make the US the “crypto capital of the planet” and create a bitcoin “strategic reserve” using the currency that the government currently holds.Hilary Allen, a law professor at American University who has done research on cryptocurrencies, said she was skeptical of Trump’s change of heart on crypto.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I think it’s fair to say that that reversal has been motivated in part by financial interests,” she said.Crypto enthusiasts welcomed the shift, viewing the launch as a positive sign for investors if Trump retakes the White House.Meanwhile, Kamala Harris’s campaign has not offered policy proposals on how it would regulate digital assets like cryptocurrencies.In an effort to appeal to crypto investors, a group of Democrats, including New York senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, participated in an online Crypto 4 Harris event in August. Neither Harris nor members of her campaign staff attended the event. More