kscarbel2

Refugees held in Australian offshore detention to be resettled in US The Guardian / November 12, 2016 Malcolm Turnbull announces one-off agreement for refugees [economic migrants] on Manus Island and Nauru to be resettled in the United States (Why ???) The Australian government has announced a landmark “one off” resettlement deal to the United States for refugees held at Australia’s remote offshore detention facilities on Nauru and ManusIsland. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the immigration minister Peter Dutton announced on Sunday that will see some refugees on ManusIsland and Nauru will be resettled in the United States. “I can now confirm that the government has now reached a further third party resettlement arrangement,” Turnbull said. “The agreement is with the United States. It is a one-off agreement. It will not be repeated. It is only available to those currently in the regional processing centres.” “It will not be available to any persons seeking to reach Australia in the future. Our priorities is the resettlement of women, children and families.” There is considerable uncertainty over how many refugees will be eligible for the resettlement deal with the United States. The remaining refugees on Nauru will be eligible for 20 year temporary visas on Nauru. Turnbull stressed that vulnerable asylum seekers - including family groups on Nauru - would be prioritised. The assessments would be contingent on vetting by the United States Homeland Security agency. He said that the scheme would be endorsed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. A statement from the UNHCR said of the deal it was “not a party to it” and had no formal role in processing. Australia’s opposition leader Bill Shorten also offered his cautious support for the resettlement deal. “It has taken the government three plus years to negotiate this deal, but we are pleased if it is an end to indefinite detention,” Shorten said. “We will certainly in principle work with the government. But we do welcome this. We do want to see people moved out of these facilities.” Speculation the Australian government was preparing to finalise a resettlement deal with the US was sparked by the announcement in September it would take refugees from camps in Costa Rica. Labor has opposed the measure, labelling aspects of the plan “ridiculous” because it would prevent a refugee resettled in a third country from coming to Australia as a tourist or on a business trip. Among those on Manus and Nauru are people from Iran, Syria, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iraq, as well as some who are stateless.

Interestingly, on the eve of the 2012 election (November 7, 2012) Obama and Romney, Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy.” After that election, in a tweet he has since deleted, Trump said, “The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! [sic]” Trump tweeted this at a time when he thought Romney would win the popular vote, which ultimately was not the case. (Yahoo News / Nov 12, 2016)

Obama Administration Gives Up on Pacific Trade Deal The Wall Street Journal / November 11, 2016 Congressional GOP leaders indicated they wouldn’t consider Trans-Pacific Partnership in lame-duck session A sweeping Pacific trade pact meant to bind the U.S.and Asia effectively died Friday, as Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress told the White House they won’t advance it in the election’s aftermath, and Obama administration officials acknowledged it has no way forward now. The failure to pass the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership—by far the biggest trade agreement in more than a decade—is a bitter defeat for President Barack Obama, whose belated but fervent support for freer trade divided his party and complicated the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if Mrs. Clinton had won. The deal’s collapse, which comes amid a rising wave of antitrade sentiment in the U.S., also dents American prestige in the region at a time when China is flexing its economic and military muscles. Just over a year ago, Republicans were willing to vote overwhelmingly in support of Mr. Obama’s trade policy. But as the political season approached and voters registered their concerns by supporting Donald J. Trump, the GOP reacted coolly to the deal Mr. Obama’s team reached with Japan and 10 others countries just over a year ago in Atlanta. Winning a majority of votes for the TPP in the House and Senate would have required both a last-minute deal to address Republican priorities and an election result that didn’t show such broad discontent. Neither occurred. Since the election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) have said no to bringing the TPP to a vote in the lame duck session, despite the strong support of many senators in both parties for freer trade. In the House, Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), the chairman of the committee that oversees trade, said in a statement Wednesday that “this important agreement is not ready to be considered during the lame duck and will remain on hold until President Trump decides the path forward.” Matthew McAlvanah, a spokesman for U.S. trade representative Mike Froman, said Friday that despite all the work the administration has done with lawmakers on Capitol Hill “ultimately it is a legislative process, and the final step is for Congress to take.” White House officials preparing for Mr. Obama’s trip to meet Pacific leaders in Peru appeared to acknowledge the defeat on Friday. “In terms of the TPP agreement itself, Leader McConnell has spoken to that, and it’s something that he’s going to work with the president-elect to figure out where they go in terms of trade agreements in the future,” said Wally Adeyemo, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. Chinese officials preparing for the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit next week said they had heard the rumblings of protectionism and vowed to push alternative, lower-standard Pacific trade deals that aren’t likely to include the U.S. President Xi Jinping will seek support for a broad free-trade area in the Asia-Pacific during the APEC summit, a senior Chinese official said. U.S. officials have long warned that failure to pass the TPP, which doesn’t include China, would help Beijing take the lead with another framework, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which could be concluded in coming months and would lower or eliminate tariffs among some Pacific countries but not the U.S. Neither proposed trade framework would have the TPP’s safeguards for intellectual property, the environment, labor or other U.S. priorities, administration officials say. A tariffs-only trade agreement led by China wouldn’t have the same strategic or economic impact as the TPP. Recently China has started taking advantage of U.S. hesitation abroad to push its own international financial programs and economic alliances, marking a new phase in the U.S.-led order that has helped provide prosperity and security in the Pacific for decades. This week’s election is also affecting European ties. The top trade official in Brussels said Friday that Mr. Trump’s election will further delay a big trade deal the Obama administration has been negotiating with the European Union—the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. Many American politicians see U.S. trade agreements as complicated and politically fraught deals that can provide a bit of extra economic growth and shore up strategic alliances. But foreign officials see Washington’s willingness to enter into such deals as a crucial barometer on whether the world’s biggest economy and military power is looking outward toward international engagement and problem-solving or inward toward domestic problems. The 2016 election season has shown that domestic concerns about globalization, the trade deficit and stagnant wages easily beat out the appetite for international engagement. The TPP became a symbol of Washington pursuing policies that disproportionately favor wealthier Americans over ordinary workers. Mr. Trump blamed the TPP on special interests trying to “rape” the country. Some lawmakers and officials say the TPP or a similar deal could reappear in the Pacific in the future, perhaps with different countries in the region or even a single partner.

With both Americans and people around the world dying of curiosity, the media is attempting to provide some information. I actually like the Financial Times. CNN was superb in the very beginning (1980) under original owner Ted Turner, revolutionary in fact and truly global in scope, but now it seems to be a government mouthpiece designed to steer the masses. What I dislike about the mainstream U.S. media most of all is the way they now "dramatize" the news, and as you said report oozing with opinion (I don't want their opinion.....just report the news, neutrally, and I'll form my own opinion).

U.S. FTC probing whether VW intentionally destroyed documents Reuters / November 11, 2016 The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wants a federal judge to allow the agency to take additional testimony from Volkswagen's U.S. unit over allegations the German automaker intentionally destroyed documents last year over its diesel emissions scandal. The FTC said in court documents filed late Thursday that it has been investigating since March whether Volkswagen Group of America destroyed documents related to its "Dieselgate" scandal. VW admitted in September 2015 to installing secret software in its diesel cars to cheat exhaust emissions tests and make them appear cleaner in testing than they really were. In reality, the vehicles emitted up to 40 times the legally allowable pollution levels. The FTC said a Volkswagen witness at an August deposition could not answer 250 separate questions and now wants court approval to question another VW official. VW has previously faced allegations it destroyed documents - both in a whistleblower lawsuit and state lawsuits. In March, a fired Volkswagen Group of America employee filed a whistleblower lawsuit, accusing VW of deleting documents and obstructing justice in the diesel emissions investigations. Daniel Donovan, who worked as an information technology employee in VW's general counsel office, claimed in his lawsuit that he was fired in December 2015 "because of his refusal to participate in a course of action" that would destroy evidence and obstruct justice. The lawsuit was settled in June, and Donovan agreed to cooperate with VW's internal investigation. Three U.S. states filed suit in July against Volkswagen, asserting at least eight employees in VW's engineering department deleted or removed incriminating data in August 2015 after a senior attorney advised them of an impending order not to destroy documents. The lawsuits said "some but not all of the data has been recovered." In total, Volkswagen has agreed to date to spend up to $16.5 billion in connection with the scandal, including payments to dealers, states, clean energy programs and attorneys for owners. A court filing this week said lawyers for VW dealers are seeking legal fees of up to $36.2 million. Lawyers for 2.0-liter owners confirmed in a court filing that VW has agreed to pay $175 million in legal fees. VW has agreed to spend up to $10.03 billion to buy back as many as 475,000 polluting 2.0-liter vehicles. As of last week, 78 percent of owners who have registered for the settlement are choosing the buyback option, VW said. Buybacks will begin later this month.

Automakers seek a new relationship with government Automotive News / November 12, 2016 Automakers are seizing on what they see as a fresh opportunity to recast the industry's relationship with the federal government. Within a day of Donald Trump's surprise victory last week, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers was handing the president-elect's transition team its wish list of policy priorities and calling for "a new paradigm for vehicle regulation." If those wishes come true, it could recast how autos are regulated by the federal government and provide relief from regulatory friction that the group says drives up vehicle costs. The alliance says the industry's policy agenda hasn't changed. But its prospects for advancing that agenda have, and the response could come quickly. For the first time in a decade, a Republican president will be working with a GOP Congress -- fractured as it may be -- a clear runway that may not be available in two years. The potential for regulatory relief goes beyond agencies such as the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In its letter, the alliance cites the full complement of agencies with roles that touch on the auto sector -- from the Federal Trade Commission to the Department of Homeland Security -- in its bold call for a presidential advisory panel that would coordinate directives from all of them. The opportunity arises at a time when the industry least expected it. One government-affairs executive told Automotive News that auto executives here broadly expected a Hillary Clinton victory and bet that the next administration would presumably hew close to the direction set by President Obama on big-ticket issues such as fuel economy and greenhouse-gas standards and autonomous-vehicle policy. The prospect of a President Trump, the executive said, "was always kind of laughed off." But now, the executive said, "it's time to kind of re-gather our thoughts on these things that the Democratic administration has been pushing the industry towards and that the industry was reluctantly moving towards." 'All bets are off' One major example of that rethink surrounds the administration's approach to the fuel economy and greenhouse-gas regulations. On the eve of the election, an alliance memo to its membership on the implications of potential outcomes said "all bets are off" if Trump were to win. Under one scenario outlined by the alliance, Trump could follow through with his campaign rhetoric about hobbling the EPA -- which oversees the corporate average fuel economy program with NHTSA -- and "blow up the agreement entirely," the pre-election memo said. Another scenario, the one preferred by the industry, would be for the Trump administration to work with automakers and Congress to "adjust the program" in light of lower gasoline prices, the alliance said in the memo. The dueling scenarios illustrate the high degree of uncertainty surrounding what to expect from Trump's administration. His campaign was built around his business experience but also included populist themes and promises to sweep out the influence of special interests while making better deals on behalf of the nation. How that will translate into policy choices is anyone's guess. "If in fact he translates that campaign rhetoric to policy, he offers those who don't support the regulations some opportunities," a second industry government-affairs executive said. The alliance is diving into those opportunities. It wants a full review of all regulatory and policy actions by the Obama administration since Sept. 1 and more attention to the economic impact of regulations on the health of automakers. "We live at a moment where technology and change are swamping the regulatory capacity to manage our emerging reality," alliance CEO Mitch Bainwol said in the letter, obtained by Automotive News. "Reform is imperative." History repeats The unfurling political landscape is in a sense the inverse of what the industry faced in 2009, when Obama came to office with a Democratic Congress at his back. At that time, the industry was close to drowning, and the administration had the only life preservers. Naturally, there were strings attached. A strong advocate for climate-change action, Obama built into his auto industry reform agenda the most significant increase to fuel economy standards in years and later, the first-ever greenhouse-gas limits imposed on autos, a major victory for environmentalists and climate-change policy advocates. Now, under a GOP-controlled Congress and a presumably business-minded administration, market forces and economic impacts will take on greater weight as the fuel economy standards undergo a midterm evaluation. That could lead to a more workable program for the industry, which has struggled to reconcile the push for higher fleetwide fuel efficiency with consumer preferences for large vehicles. But a wholesale rollback of the program would be difficult. The process behind it requires that outcome of the midterm review be based on rigorous analysis of data and science. In addition, NHTSA is bound by law to set CAFE standards at the maximum feasible level. Any change in the standards -- to toughen or weaken them -- must withstand a challenge in court from either the industry or environmental lobby. Luke Tonachel, director of the Clean Vehicles and Fuels Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in an email that "if the Trump administration seeks to roll back fuel efficiency standards, which are highly popular with the American people and even have been supported by the auto industry, it will find us standing in the way." Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, signaled a harder line, pledging to give "President Trump the hardest fight of his life every step of the way." A weakened national standard also would pose major risks for the industry. California regulators agreed to align their greenhouse-gas rules with the federal program in 2011, a major reason why the pact drew strong support from the auto industry. A weakened federal policy could prompt the state's powerful Air Resources Board to go rogue and institute even tougher standards for the nation's largest auto market to compensate for a relaxation of standards at the federal level. To head that off, one industry insider here suggested, automakers could rally behind the 2025 standards to ensure that the industry at least has a consistent, national program. "Even if you can do it," the insider said of diluting the 2025 standards, "should you do it?"

Due to being overseas and traveling, I did not vote in the primaries. My point was, on election day, Americans should not be limited to a mere two choices. There should be a dozen. (Recall the Bush/Gore election, there was no choice......neither man was qualified to be anything more than a state governor). Second, the electoral college and the party system are both relics of the past and fraudulent by nature. The president should be chosen by direct election. No matter which state you're standing in, we're all Americans alike. On the eve of the 2012 Obama/Romney election (November 7, 2012), Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy.” After that election, in a tweet he has since deleted, Trump said, “The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one! [sic]” Trump tweeted this at a time when he thought Romney would win the popular vote, which ultimately was not the case. (Yahoo News / Nov 12, 2016)

CNN Money / November 11, 2016 Warren Buffett was a vocal backer of Hillary Clinton. So what does the Berkshire Hathaway CEO think of President-elect Donald Trump? "I support any president of the United States. It's very important that the American people coalesce behind the president," says Buffett. "That doesn't mean they can't criticize him or they can't disagree with what he's doing maybe. But we need a country unified," Buffett added. "He deserves everybody's respect." That's a turnaround from what Buffett told Berkshire Hathaway shareholders before its annual meeting in Omaha in April. When an investor asked him if he'd be worried about how his businesses would perform under a President Trump, Buffett said "that won't be the main problem." But Buffett took a more conciliatory tone Thursday, even as he defended why he still thinks Clinton was the better candidate. "You have to choose between two people and I chose Hillary," saying that her temperament was the number one reason why he endorsed and voted for her. Buffett said he understands why Trump won. Many Americans are resentful about the wealth gap in the country. Can Trump fix that? Buffett said he was skeptical of some of Trump's claims about how fast he can grow the economy. "Nobody can grow the economy 4% in real terms over time," Buffett said, referring to a Trump campaign promise. "The math is too extraordinary." But Buffett thinks that even 2% annual growth over a period of a few years will lead to wage growth and gains in the stock market. Speaking of stocks, Buffett said he was not surprised to see the market rally after Trump won. He thought concerns the market would tank due to Trump were "silly." This week's rally has helped make Buffett even wealthier. Berkshire stock has popped. The company owns and operates the big insurer Geico and railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Berkshire also invests heavily in large financial firms and industrial giants. Those sectors have been big winners since the election. Investors have been betting that Trump will seek to cut back on regulation of banks and other industries and also spend more to repair highways, bridges and other parts of the nation's infrastructure. Buffett said he was buying stocks a few weeks ago when he thought Clinton would win -- and that he continued to do so this week after she lost. He said stocks will be higher 10, 20 and 30 years from now and that would have been the case if Clinton won. And he continued, as he has done for years, to stress that America is a "fantastic country." At the end of the day, Buffett said he's not worried about Trump trying to enact some of the more controversial things that he talked about in his campaign, such as cracking down on immigration and enacting isolationist trade policies. "There are a lot of things said in campaigns that don't happen after the election," he said. Asked about Trump's proposal to impose 35% tariffs on goods imported to the U.S. -- Buffett said: "It's a bad idea, a very bad idea, but I'm not going to say it is going to cause a recession." He also didn't seem worried about Trump's mixed track record as a businessman. Buffett even joked that President Harry Truman ran a failed haberdashery store and that "he turned out to be a terrific president." Buffett said he thought Trump was very good at licensing and promoting his name. But he continued to argue that Trump didn't have a great track record of operating casinos and other Trump-branded businesses successfully. That isn't Buffett's concern. "I don't have to worry about him running a business anymore," he said. But if President-elect Trump called Buffett asking for advice on the economy, would Buffett offer a hand? "I would do that with any president. I've never called a president in my life. So I I don't initiate 'em. But ... but if any president asks me for help in any way, I mean, that's part of being a citizen," Buffett said.

Looking at this from outside the box.............. "We're going to make America great again. Politicians aren't going to do that"......Trump I couldn't agree more. But who are the "we" non-politicians? All the people on Trump's team are.......politicians. We've all seen news reports over the last 24 hours pointing out that, after running a campaign touting that he would "drain the swamp" in Washington, his team is full of "swamp people". Christie, from New Jersey where the swamp politicians theme song was written ("anything's legal as long as you don't get caught "), is facing calls for impeachment over his "Bridgegate". Now, Pence is in charge, and Pence is a great admirer of Draconian Dick Cheney, perhaps the one individual most singularly responsible for the birth of ISIS. I find that scary. “I frankly hold Dick Cheney in really high regard in his role as vice president and as an American,”.......Pence

Modular A-Double Trailer Combination Delivers Rewards MaxiTRANS Press Release / December 10, 2015 MaxiTRANS has delivered four innovative PBS A-double combinations to growing Victorian transport company, Porthaul. A collaborative effort by two MaxiTRANS brands, Freighter and Hamelex White, the combinations maximise payload while their modular design means they can be used for a variety of purposes. The ongoing cooperative efforts between MaxiTRANS and growing transport company Porthaul has produced some innovative Performance Based Standards-approved combinations in the last few years, thanks in large part to the adventurous approach of Porthaul General Manager, James Williamson. Son of company founder, Brian Williamson, James says one of the most exciting projects he has been working on with MaxiTRANS is a modular PBS A-double concept – a project that has now come to fruition. The combinations consist of Hamelex White aluminium tubs, similar to those found on a grain tipper, mounted on lightweight skels from Freighter, with Freighter dollies, creating a modular combination produced entirely by MaxiTRANS. “The fact that all parts of the trailer came from MaxiTRANS made the process a lot cleaner than going to two or three different suppliers to provide the separate dolly, skel and bin components. It meant I only needed one company who could coordinate the whole job for me. They put a team of engineers at my disposal to work together on the project, from a dedicated PBS expert to skel and tipper engineers,” says James. “Using their Solidworks 3D CAD design software, MaxiTRANS was able to simulate the trailers in action, ensuring they would work as intended before manufacturing began.” The innovative combination is designed to allow the trailers to “tip through” their contents when loaded onto the tipping ramp in Portland, Victoria. The sliding dolly allows the front trailer to be backed up directly onto the rear trailer. The doors of the front and rear trailer then swing open together when the tipping ramp is raised to allow product to tip through from the front trailer, all the way out the rear door of the rear trailer. The modular design also allows the trailers to be used in different combinations based on the type of application they will be put to, providing Porthaul with increased diversity without purchasing extra equipment. “We work a lot with woodchips, transporting around two and a half million tonnes a year. But there are only two tipping ramps we work with in Victoria and if they break down we need to be able to put our equipment to different uses,” says James. “These A-doubles can transport pretty much anything we want, from hauling woodchips, grain or fertiliser in the tubs, to removing the tubs to transport logs. We’ve diversified but haven’t had to add more equipment. In fact, we’ve taken about 20 per cent of our combinations off the road, because this configuration gets it done.” Adding to that saving, James says he has achieved a total of 81 tonne GCM – an additional 7 tonne gain over his previous quad quad Super B-doubles and 14 tonne more than a standard B-double. “With the help of MaxiTRANS and its PBS expertise, we have now maximised the total payload available to us on Victorian roads,” he says. At James’ request, MaxiTRANS has packed the trailers full of the latest technology, including full auto greasing, Electronic Braking System (EBS), Central Tyre Inflation (CTI) and weight gauges. “We purposely sourced the best products to go into these trailers, which have now got pretty much everything you can imagine in them,” James says. “Most of the technology also helps improve our driver safety, like the weight gauges, which send readings directly to the driver via a display in the cab, so they don’t have to get out into the forest when we’re working in the plantations.” The inventive design of Porthaul’s modular A-double combination earned the company a nomination for an ‘Investment in Technology’ award as part of the VTA Australian Freight Industry Awards – a just reward for having the confidence to take on a new concept. James is satisfied that the financial rewards delivered by the trailers will be equally as good. .

Can the A-double change the trucking industry? Prime Mover Magazine / April 2011 A new type of combination is appearing on our roads, Prime Mover talks to one of the developers of a new design aimed at improving productivity. When the idea of a system of Performance Based Standards (PBS) was first discussed 20 years ago in the Australian trucking industry, the pioneers of the scheme had some idea of the kind of innovative vehicles which could be developed. In fact, the main thrust of the PBS scheme, as it developed, was to create a space into which innovative thinkers about vehicle engineering could move and come up with the kinds of solutions which were capable of making a quantum leap in productivity improvements for trucking on Australian roads. However, the Australian trucking industry is aware of the relatively small impact the actual existence of PBS has had on the trucking scene here in Australia. The scheme created a great space for innovation but, so far, nothing has matched the leap in productivity achieved previously by the introduction of the B-double. Instead, apart from a small number of highly specialised vehicles designed to suit a particular small niche market, most of the PBS approvals on the highway achieved small productivity gains due to incremental dimension changes, adding axles or steering axles. The PBS system has been approving vehicles in steady numbers but the overall productivity of the Australian trucking industry has not been greatly improved. Back in the 90s, when the system was being developed, the pioneers of PBS were looking for the silver bullet, a new innovative vehicle which could become a game changer. It had to be something which could make genuine productivity gains but also would not take state and local government, the agencies tasked with maintaining road infrastructure, outside of their comfort zone. Finally, in 2010 a combination vehicle has emerged with the potential to make the quantum shift required to give the PBS system some credibility and, at the same time, give the Australian trucking industry the kind of productivity boost it has been crying out for. Surprisingly, the new innovative design comes from a type of combination which has had many critics over the years. The A-double is a very basic multiple combination with two semitrailers linked by a converter dolly between the two trailers. It is the simplest of the multiple combinations, using two trailers which can be used individually with the addition of one single extra component, the dolly. In the past, this combination has been seen as a necessary evil in remote areas, but on road performance has made it unsuitable to come anywhere near large centres of population or busy traffic conditions. In 2010, all that has changed, the A-double is still a simple basic multiple combination, but now, with one small change, it has become a modern, innovative, high productivity safe vehicle. By concentrating all of the new technology in one element of the combination, the converter dolly, Haulmark Trailers may have come up with the kind of game changer those who initiated the PBS process were looking for 20 years ago. “The whole thing started in late 2006 after Haulmark had been involved in the PBS process for many years,” says Haulmark’s National Sales and Marketing Manager, Mark Johnston. “We had built a number of PBS approved vehicles, steerable extendable trailers and a 52 foot trailer without a steering axle. “The concept of PBS had been to provide that quantum step for the industry. The A-double is that solution which comes up with the very elusive quadruple bottom line. It offers considerable improvement in productivity, emissions, congestion and safety for everyone. Those four things provide a huge step forward, the game changer.” Developing vehicles for PBS requires a deep understanding of how a vehicle performs. Designers need to know where it performs well and where it doesn’t perform well. They have to identify what needs to be worked on and improved to meet the standards. Understanding the dynamics of these vehicles leads to developing the technology to provide solutions. “We are trying to find solutions for the growing freight task, control emissions, deal with congestion, all of those things,” says Mark. “We take the principles of PBS, our understanding of the dynamics of vehicles and then we try to apply technology to a range of those vehicles to see what was actually going to come up with the real trump card. “We came up with the A-double concept because it gives us a significant step up in mass, a significant step up in trailer length and by doing that we significantly improve emissions and congestion with a safer vehicle. We had looked at a range of potential vehicles – B-doubles, quads – but every time I looked at it, it didn’t convince me as being the way to go. The vehicles are very specialised and limited by their mass. A quad/quad B-double will only give you a 77 tonnes GCM but when we looked at the A-double we could get 85 tonnes.” For many years there have pocket road trains running in Western Australia, into Perth and around the industrial areas. They are a different to the design Haulmark has come up with but they do demonstrate their effectiveness in terms of productivity and compatibility with the urban environment. “The A-double just kept coming up as the one with the most potential,” says Mark. “Then we needed to work out exactly what we needed to do to the dynamics of that vehicle to make it work really well. It’s all to do with the high-speed performance of these vehicles, that’s where the technology is required to make it do what you need. You need to keep the trailers in line and compliant with the standards. “The important thing is, it’s not just about getting something to theoretically comply, it’s about getting something you know really does work. With that technology, as we have developed it, we have vehicles up to 30m long but also others with shorter overall lengths. Because of their manoeuvrability we have got them operating in areas where they will not let B-doubles operate. They are being allowed there because of their performance. “Urban distribution is more about low speed and manoeuvrability. It’s about negotiating roundabouts and going into particular streets, those sorts of things. The 27m long A-doubles we are running have a swept path which matches that of a normal six axle semitrailer. That’s Level I PBS performance and it is only precluded from some roads by its length.” As part of the PBS development process, computer modelling was done and a range of simulations, where Haulmark took a basic non-steering A-double, put it through the system and worked out where it didn’t comply. Haulmark’s priority was not to develop a system which just complied, it was looking for something with which it could say, ‘hand on heart’, was the right vehicle for the job. A few practical priorities were also identified. It was looking for a solution which could use a standard B-double prime mover and normal trailers with ABS. Dimensions of the trailer would be vital to getting the system to work. However, the plan was to concentrate all of the technological improvements and gadgetry in the dolly. Keeping the smarts, as much as possible, contained on the dolly, gives operators the opportunity to utilise existing equipment within fleets. This also meant the technology could be expanded to be used with trailers in the wider industry, tankers and bulk tippers, trailers Haulmark don’t make. However, it would be able to supply a dolly which other people could use to make a compliant A-double. The basic principle of the technology uses sensors to tell the steering dolly which way the first trailer is moving when following the prime mover. This information is then used by the steering control to move the second trailer across to follow the first. At high speed this steering anticipates any ‘whip’ from the trailer and keeps the combination in a straight line. At slow speeds the steering dolly tries to take the second trailer in a wider arc around the corner to follow the first without ‘cutting in’. “Once we got to the point where we really understood the dynamics of the vehicle, we realised the A-double was the one which was going to work,” says Mark. “It was going to give us the mass and it was going to give us the length. The more we looked, it became really clear this was the area we needed to concentrate on. “Looking at the overall design you get the dimensional parameters right, so it fits within the 30m. Then you have to look at weight distribution, to make sure it will be able achieve the masses required. We also knew it would be vital for the vehicle to be capable of carrying two 40 foot containers and compete easily with options like the Super B-double. “The big dynamic benefits are available when you put the technology on the dolly, especially at high speed. That’s why we went down the path of the steering dolly. We needed to take the whip out of the dolly, controlling the dynamics throughout the combination. You need to control the rearward amplification and the high-speed transient off tracking when the combination makes a lane change. There is also a test called a pulse steer where the steering wheel is shifted, held and then returned to the starting position.” During the development process, Haulmark found there was a possibility the combination could meet the low speed of tracking requirements of PBS without a steering dolly. However, the steering capability was already in place so could be utilised to improve low speed performance. The final A-double out on the road now has a swept path performance better than most 26m B-doubles. These new combinations are a major step up in vehicle performance, this is not just a design which squeezes into compliance and meets the standards by a small margin. For Haulmark, it was important to demonstrate a considerable safety improvement and show the A-double exceeds the requirements by a clear margin. “We wanted to put a vehicle on the road which was the pinnacle of road safety and by fitting things like ABS, side underrun protection and spray suppression equipment we have achieved that,” says Mark. As the ideas for an A-double were coming to fruition on the technical side for Haulmark, it was approached by a customer in the Newcastle area, hauling steel, to have a look of an application which it felt justified a PBS vehicle. The customer was given a number of options including a B-double and a single trailer with five axles, but Mark did inform them that the A-double looked like the best option. The longest product they were carrying was only 9m long and they were wanting to travel over general access routes so Haulmark would only need to build the combination to a length of 27 m. Word-of-mouth then got around about what Haulmark was doing and other potential customers expressed an interest in the ideas. Haulmark now has 15 of these combinations on the road, both 27 and 30 metre versions, working in both New South Wales and Queensland. This experience has allowed them to work through all of the reliability issues and have a lot more knowledge about what the combinations are like and how they work. Before the first customer had approached Haulmark, in late 2006, Haulmark already had its first A-double going through the approval process for the PBS scheme. This is the initial process whereby the vehicle is assessed as to whether or not its performance meets the criteria for the PBS access for which it is intended. “Back then, they wouldn’t do a route assessment for your proposal until you had an approved vehicle,” says Mark. “This was a bone of contention for me because they were expecting me to go out and spend the money to develop the vehicle without knowing whether the vehicle would be acceptable for the route it was intended to use. The bureaucrats didn’t understand we could change the vehicle to suit the route requirements. “The route assessment for these trucks was a very long and drawn out process. Although I have to say, in NSW, the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Newcastle Council were very good to deal with. This was probably because the road transport industry is particularly important to the local economy and they could see the 50% reduction in truck trips along with the other benefits in emissions and safety as benefitting all. “The process of getting route assessments has highlighted the fact these jurisdictions have very little knowledge of their infrastructure and its capabilities. The jurisdictions need to make a more committed effort to analyse their assets. The real issue is for them to develop freight routes for PBS vehicles. The roadblock for us now is route assessments, operators cannot tender for major contracts with innovative vehicles because they don’t know how long permission to use a route will take. “All the bridges on our highways are not going to be upgraded overnight. We need the information from the jurisdictions to enable us to alter the design of the vehicles to suit the infrastructure we are hoping to use. Sometimes, if we are lucky, the authorities are willing to upgrade bridges on a route. This is what happened with our application for a route between Port of Brisbane and Toowoomba.” By the end of this year the bridge upgrade work will have been done and A-doubles up to 85 tonnes GCM will be able to use the route. This means they can carry two 40 foot containers, each weighing 31 tonnes from Toowoomba to the Port of Brisbane. It was only when Queensland Transport and Main Roads had to do the route assessments for the PBS application, it realised these particular bridges needed improvement. “There is a collaboration required between those of us who are designing vehicles and jurisdictions who are responsible for the infrastructure, to get the best out of the infrastructure and identify where it needs to be improved,” says Mark. “We’re not looking for policy change, that’s all in place – it’s all been accepted. It’s just a matter of getting a better focus on the requirements of the trucking industry and directing resources into these departments to develop the networks on which these innovative vehicles can run. “In the past, it has taken people, like me, who have been willing to make a fuss, thump the table and generally be a nuisance to get some of the progress we have achieved. Now, that time is over, there are routes which have been approved. All we are doing is accessing a system of which all of the regulators have approved. “Coming out of using these vehicles are really great productivity improvements, a direct reduction in traffic congestion, a reduction in emissions and a direct improvement in road safety. Once transport operators see this is working properly, they will be willing to invest capital to make it work and improve their productivity. There is no reason why everybody shouldn’t embrace this.”

Australasian Transport News (ATN) / November 11, 2016 A range of high-productivity vehicles showcased their productivity and safety benefits in a demonstration event held at the Toowoomba Showgrounds on Wednesday. Administered under the NHVR Performance-Based Standards (PBS) program, the vehicles exhibited their performance benefits and impact on local roads, as well as their contribution to the viability of local businesses. On display were: 23m (75ft) 5-axle truck and dog trailer combination 26m (85ft) A-Double tanker combination 30m (98ft) A-Double combination capable of transporting two 40ft shipping containers A new heavy vehicle being rolled out by the Australian Defense Force (ADF). Part of the ongoing National Local Government Roads and Transport Congress, the open day offered road managers an opportunity to better understand options to tackle their local freight task. Organised by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) in association with the Toowoomba Regional Council (TRC), the event was attended by TRC deputy mayor Carol Taylor, TRC infrastructure services portfolio leader James O’Shea, NHVR director – access Peter Caprioli, and Australian Local Government Association vice president and Mayor of Alice Springs Damien Ryan. "It was great to see trucking industry representatives having a range of conversations with councils to give them a better understanding of the capabilities of these vehicles," NHVR stakeholder specialist Tim Hansen says. "A number of councils are keen to explore how the vehicles can be part of major projects planned in their areas. "The event was also a great demonstration of the cooperation between the NHVR, industry and road managers to make gains in productivity and safety in Australia's road freight task." NHVR says the event was in keeping with the success of another similar heavy vehicle demonstration event held in Bundaberg in August. Photo gallery - http://www.bigrigs.com.au/photos/big-trucks-come-to-town/46213/#/0

Ford Trucks Brasil / November 4, 2016 The calendar of homesickness is a timetable that, in addition to showing the days, lets your family when you're coming home. After all, for Ford trucks, the most important moment of your trip is coming back. .

ST-KY.ru / November 10, 2016 A pictorial history of the Yaroslavl Automobile Plant (YaAZ), which produced trucks from 1925 to 1951. Photo gallery - http://st-kt.ru/articles/domotornaya-era-yaroslavskogo-«avtodizelya»

Renault Trucks Press Release / November 10, 2016 Renault Trucks has been actively engaged during 2016 in paying tribute to Marius Berliet and celebrating the history of the men and women who helped spread the French truck's renown from their base in Vénissieux and Saint-Priest on the outskirts of Lyon. The cradle of the Renault Trucks brand, the Lyon site is continuing to design and build tomorrow's transport solutions. In 1915, Marius Berliet made the decision to buy up a large number of plots of land in the east of Lyon and build a production plant in Vénissieux. After outgrowing the Monplaisir site in Lyon's 8th arrondissement, he needed room to undertake his ambitious projects, meet the urgent demand for trucks and contribute to the war effort by producing weapons for the French Army in the grip of the First World War. Marius was up against a huge challenge: in record time, he had to design, build and outfit his plant even as production began. After successfully meeting this challenge, successive extensions took the site's total area to 387 hectares on the eve of the Second World War. But Marius Berliet had set his sights on greater things than simply building a plant: "The only motivation behind all my hard work is the burning desire to finally realize my life's dream: to create a vast, thriving industrial city". This vision gave birth to the Cité Berliet in 1917, which was built to cater for the plant's operations. This self-contained town contained housing, a school, a creche and a farm. Today the Lyon site houses the nerve center of Renault Trucks and is a key component of the industrial and global engineering facilities of the Volvo Group, which the Renault Trucks brand joined in 2001. It hosts over 4,000 people work on a 180 hectare site straddling the municipalities of Vénissieux and Saint-Priest. The site is home to an engine assembly plant, a bridge and axle assembly plant, a swaging center and a spare parts logistics center. In addition to Renault Trucks' headquarters and global management team, the Lyon site accommodates numerous tertiary activities, including a research facility with a staff of 1,300. It is mainly devoted to developing medium-payload trucks and their engines, as well as transport solutions for urban areas. A design studio boasts a team of international designer to whom we owe the design of Renault Trucks' new range of trucks launched in 2013 and whose flagship vehicle, the Renault Trucks T, was elected International Truck of the Year 2015. To celebrate its centenary, the Lyon site is getting into the party spirit and organizing a series of events to spotlight the establishment and its people: .

Heavy Duty Trucking / November 10, 2016 Isuzu Technical Center of America is recalling 25,018 2014- to 2016-model year Isuzu NPR and NPR HD trucks and 2016-MY Chevrolet Low Cab Forward 3500 HD, 4500HD, and 4500XD trucks because of potential unintended acceleration, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These vehicles have an accelerator pedal that may get stuck under the steel stopper bolt, causing the pedal to remain in the full throttle position. “A stuck open accelerator pedal may result in very high vehicle speeds and make it difficult to stop the vehicle, which could cause a crash, serious injury or death,” NHTSA warned on its website. The Isuzu NPR and NPR HD trucks were manufactured from Aug. 26, 2013, to Nov. 11, 2016. The Chevrolet Low Cab Forward 3500 HD, 4500HD, and 4500XD trucks were manufactured from July 27 to Nov. 11 of this year. Isuzu dealers will remove and replace the stopper bolt with a flanged plate to prevent lateral movement of the throttle. There will be no charge for this service. The trucks are equipped with a brake override system. If the accelerator pedal becomes trapped, drivers can still push on the brake pedal to slow, stop, and turn off the vehicle, NHTSA pointed out. The recall is expected to begin Nov. 14. Truck owners can reach Isuzu customer service at (866) 441-9638.

Automakers reach out to Trump on regulation, seek review of fuel efficiency mandates Automotive News / November 10, 2016 Major automakers are seizing on the infancy of President-elect Donald Trump’s administration to mount a push to ease regulatory headaches faced under President Obama. In a letter to Trump’s White House transition team today, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers proposed that the new administration pause a key step in the ongoing midterm evaluation of the Obama administration’s 2025 fuel economy and greenhouse rules until Trump’s administration can “lead efforts” with regulators and automakers on “a pathway forward” for the final four years of the rules. The Alliance called the rules, which become increasingly stringent starting in model year 2017, a “substantial challenge” for the industry. While the industry has expressed support for the broader efficiency and environmental goals of the program, automakers are concerned about the timing and costs of the rules, which will require billions of dollars in investment. The proposal is among a series of policy and regulatory recommendations submitted to the Trump transition team aimed at streamlining the industry’s regulatory obligations. Taken together, they signal that automakers view the early stages of Trump’s administration as a key opportunity to secure regulatory reforms that they say create friction and drive up vehicle costs. “We live at a moment where technology and change are swamping the regulatory capacity to manage our emerging reality. Reform is imperative,” Alliance CEO Mitch Bainwol said in the letter, obtained by Automotive News. Trump himself has vowed a broad review of existing regulations that threaten jobs and a moratorium on all new regulations. Advisory committee The Alliance called for a comprehensive review of all regulatory and policy actions by the Obama administration since Sept. 1. This would include the Transportation Department’s guidelines for autonomous vehicle deployment. It also proposed the creation of a new "presidential advisory committee" to coordinate the many federal agencies that oversee parts of the industry such as the EPA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and others. The Alliance said the committee could recommend a “new paradigm” for vehicle regulation. “As car prices rise, it becomes vital to look at the full cost of regulatory initiatives,” Bainwol said in the letter. “Well-meaning regulatory action risks increasing compliance costs to the point that additional safety and fuel-efficiency technologies put new vehicles out of financial reach of the average new car purchaser.” Much of the Alliance’s letter focuses on changes to the so-called National Program of joint greenhouse gas rules administered by the EPA and mpg standards overseen by NHTSA. The coordinated regulations were put into effect by the Obama administration in the 2012 model year. The Alliance says discrepancies between the two programs have led to unneeded costs and make it possible for an automaker to comply with the EPA’s CO2 limits but risk paying noncompliance fines under NHTSA’s program. “This regulatory friction is already occurring, driving up vehicle costs, and will become even more counterproductive as the regulatory requirements become more stringent in future Model Years,” Bainwol wrote. “Potentially billions of dollars in fines under the NHTSA CAFE program are anticipated.” In the Trump letter, the Alliance called on the Trump administration to back agency and legislative changes to iron out those differences. An EPA spokesman refused to comment. ZEV mandates The trade group also wants costs incurred from California’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandates to be considered in the midterm evaluation of the national mpg program. They currently are not factored in. The California requirement, which is followed by nine other states, requires that 15 percent of sales in California be zero-emission vehicles like battery-electrics or hydrogen fuel cell by 2025. California has supported the mandate with tax incentives and other programs but other states haven’t followed suit, leading to “dramatically” different ZEV purchase rates outside of California, the Alliance said. “The Administration should engage as appropriate to help address these ZEV issues -- especially to help avoid the creation of a patchwork of requirements that will frustrate the overall intent of the ‘One National Program,’” Bainwol wrote. Greenhouse gas and mpg targets through model year 2021 are already on the books. A required midterm evaluation is underway to determine whether proposed mpg and greenhouse gas standards through 2022 are appropriate, or if they should be changed. The next step in the evaluation comes in 2017, likely midyear, when the next EPA administrator will propose whether the standards are appropriate or should be changed, which would kick off a rulemaking process. A final determination is due by April 2018. The Alliance argues that that proposed determination shouldn’t happen until Trump’s administration has had a chance to review the regulations, and can lead talks between regulators and automakers about the final years of the program, which currently aim for a fleet average of more than 50 mpg. A Technical Assessment Report issued by the EPA about the 2025 rules found that automakers were on track to comply and adopting technologies to boost efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions faster than anticipated. The Alliance believes that the report “over-projects” the benefits of certain technologies and fails to fully consider consumer acceptance and market factors. “The combination of low gas prices and the existing fuel efficiency gains from the early years of the program is undercutting consumer willingness to buy the vehicles with more expensive alternative powertrains that are necessary for the sector to comply with the more stringent standards in out-years,” Bainwol wrote. Reaction The 2025 fuel economy and greenhouse gas rules are a cornerstone of President Obama’s effort to combat climate change. Trump meanwhile has said he believes climate change is a hoax and indicated he’d pare back EPA regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Any weakening of the 2025 standards will be met by stiff opposition from environmental groups, who’ve broadly championed the Obama administration policy. “If the Trump Administration seeks to roll back fuel efficiency standards, which are highly popular with the American people and even have been supported by the auto industry, it will find us standing in the way,” Luke Tonachel, director of the Clean Vehicles and Fuels Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in an e-mail.

VW Accused of Concealing Emissions Cheating in Audi Gasoline Cars Bloomberg / November 10, 2016 Volkswagen’s plot to cheat emissions tests by installing so-called defeat devices in its vehicles wasn’t limited to diesel cars, but also included at least six models of Audi 3.0-liter gasoline engines, according to a consumer lawsuit. In a class action on behalf of owners of more than 100,000 vehicles, the German carmaker’s Audi unit is accused of installing software designed to beat emissions tests in its A6, A8, Q5 and Q7 cars since February 2013 and possibly earlier. Audi executives encouraged use of the devices in gasoline-powered vehicles as recently as May, eight months after the diesel cheating was publicly disclosed, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in Chicago federal court. VW spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan and Audi spokesman Mark Clothier refused to comment on the complaint. The lawsuit comes two weeks after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer gave his final approval to VW’s $14.7 billion settlement covering 480,000 diesel cars with 2.0-liter engines, widely seen as a benchmark achievement for the carmaker. VW still doesn’t have an approved way to fix any of the 560,000 cars still polluting U.S. roads. The automaker faces a potential trial with owners of 3.0-liter diesel cars in the U.S., in addition to shareholder claims, environmental lawsuits by multiple states and criminal investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and European authorities. “Throughout the yearlong dieselgate scandal, Audi chose to continue to deceive consumers across the country with yet another emissions-cheating device installed in even more of its vehicles,” said attorney Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, the Seattle-based firm representing consumers in Wednesday’s complaint “This kind of flagrant disregard for federal environmental regulations and consumers’ expectations is unacceptable, and we intend to hold Audi to the law on behalf of those who overpaid for Audi’s noncompliant, polluting cars.” While the algorithm-based defeat device in diesel cars would veil the vehicle’s real emissions, the gas cars are capable of detecting that the vehicle is in a testing bay and then shifts into “low rev” mode, according to the complaint. “This modified shifting scheme effectively falsifies the vehicle’s emissions and fuel efficiency results by keeping the engine RPM artificially low, thereby using less fuel and emitting less carbon dioxide," Audi owners alleged in the complaint. The consumers seek unspecified damages including restitution from Audi’s sales and profit. This case is Stokar v. Audi of America LLC, 16-cv-10456, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

Trump’s economic policy explained: the era of fiscal restraint is over The Financial Times / November 10, 2016 As Donald Trump prepares for the White House, a theme is beginning to emerge: the era of fiscal restraint in the US could be coming to an end. Mr Trump was scathing during the campaign about the increases in US national debt under Barack Obama, and the businessman at one point claimed implausibly that he would pay the entire $19 trillion stock off in eight years. Yet as bond markets have been recognizing over the past 48 hours, by prioritizing tax cuts and an infrastructure package for the first 100 days of the Trump administration, his team appears to be envisaging a stimulus program that comes at a time when the US is already close to full employment. That could mean not only higher growth, but quicker inflation. If this is indeed what the Republican-led Congress signs up to next year, it would represent a major shift at a time when organizations including the International Monetary Fund have argued in favor of greater budgetary support around the world. The upshot for the Federal Reserve could be an acceleration of the return to more normal interest rates. “Fiscal policy is coming back big-time relative to what we have seen in the past five or six years,” said Torsten Sløk, chief international economist at Deutsche Bank. “From a Fed perspective if fiscal policy is coming back the corollary to that is monetary policy will have to do less easing.” What does the plan entail? Mr Trump’s plans for cutting personal and business taxes would, according to analysis from the Tax Policy Center, lead to a rise in the federal debt by $7.2 trillion over the first decade. In addition, Mr Trump’s transition team has pledged to invest $550 billion in infrastructure and has spoken of ramping up defense spending, including adding 42 ships to the navy and renewing nuclear and missile defense. The agenda also includes supply-side measures such as a regulation-slashing blitz. His sketchy fiscal plans will now have to be fleshed out in dialogue with Congress. A template on the tax side is the Better Way plan of Paul Ryan, House speaker, which is a more conservative package but overlaps with Mr Trump’s by reducing corporate income tax and consolidating the number of income tax brackets as well as lowering some rates. How about the infrastructure side? The fact that Mr Trump mentioned infrastructure in his acceptance speech in the small hours of Wednesday morning underlines how important this component is. He rode into victory on the back of support from Midwestern states where his supporters will want to see tangible signs of government action on jobs. New bridges and roads are an obvious way of delivering. What will help Mr Trump in this area is the bipartisan consensus that has emerged over the need for renewal of US infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers has projected a $1.44 trillion funding investment gap between 2016 and 2025 on infrastructure. Infrastructure was a component of Hillary Clinton’s plans for her first 100 days as well. Trump advisers have suggested that he is willing to increase the national debt in order to provide federal funding for infrastructure, which would give a further push to the prospects of a fiscal stimulus. The problem is that planning infrastructure projects takes time, so it is not clear how quickly the growth effects would come. What will Trump do on trade? Mr Trump’s campaign promises to rip up or renegotiate deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and combat unfair trade practices by China by imposing punitive tariffs have drawn dire warnings from economists of a potential return to recession. Were he to pull the US out of NAFTA, it would threaten the elaborate North American supply chains that many US corporations rely on. A trade war with China would yield higher prices for consumers and fuel inflation. It would also hurt companies that depend on Chinese imports as well as American farmers and other businesses for whom China has become an important export market. Delivered concurrently and in their most radical forms both pillars would yield a significant blow to US growth. For that reason some trade experts have already begun to argue that, while a Trump administration is likely to bring more anti-dumping and other high-profile trade cases against China, it may not deliver the entire radical agenda he has threatened. What about Fed reform? Mr Trump’s advisers have suggested the Fed’s ultra-stimulative policies are unfair by penalising savers and have led to unequal implications for different segments of society. During the campaign Mr Trump was ferociously critical of Janet Yellen, the Fed chair, for her low-rates policies, but she is not expected to resign before her term expires in 2018. The focus on the Fed will firstly be the filling of two vacant Fed Board seats, potentially with more hawkish policymakers. Secondly there is the question of reform proposals that have been circulating among Republicans in Congress for some time. These include measures to steer the Fed towards the use of stricter monetary rules — something it fiercely rejects. Mr Trump’s arrival could provide a boost to conservative lawmakers advocating those ideas. What does this mean for the economy? While Republicans have tended to brand themselves as the party of fiscal conservatism, their new president may lead them down the path of stimulus. And while the party used to fly the free-trade banner, Mr Trump ran on a platform of protectionism — which would alienate Republican business backers. Untangling the true policy priorities is going to be fraught. “These are promises and not proposals,” said Diane Swonk of DS Economics. “The question is which promises does he deliver to core constituencies who got him elected, and what does he deliver on the pro-business side?”

This will interest some, I suggest from 16:50 on. .

Trump doesn’t see Israeli land grab as ‘obstacle for peace’ with Palestine The Wall Street Journal / November 10, 2016 Mr. Trump does not view the settlements as being an obstacle for peace,” says Jason Greenblatt, Trumps advisor for Israel, marking a stark departure from the long-time American stance that Israeli construction in areas captured in the 1967 war makes it more difficult to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. “The two sides are going to have to decide how to deal with that region, but it’s certainly not Mr. Trump’s view that settlement activity should be condemned and that it is an obstacle to peace. It is not the obstacle to peace.”

President Trump’s Justice Dept. could see less scrutiny of police, more surveillance of Muslims The Washington Post / November 10, 2016 The Justice Department is set to significantly shift its priorities under Donald Trump, reflecting the themes of a presidential candidate who consistently described the country as riven by chaos and in need of more powerful law enforcement. The department, which under President Obama built an aggressive civil rights division, is likely to take a more hands-off approach toward police departments alleged to have overused force and to loosen restrictions on surveillance in Muslim communities, according to legal analysts and Trump’s public statements. Trump sought to position himself as the candidate of law and order, delivering apocalyptic speeches describing a nation torn apart by crime and terror. He said police in Chicago could stop a spate of deadly violence by being “very much tougher than they are right now,” and wrote to the International Association of Chiefs of Police that he would generally keep the federal government out of local law enforcement’s business. He has been critical of Obama’s effort to give clemency to inmates serving long prison terms for nonviolent drug offenses. In response to the terrorist attack in Orlando in June, Trump said he would renew surveillance on mosques. Those positions put him at odds with the current Justice Department. Under Obama, officials have tried to position Muslims as a partner in the fight against terrorism, and they have been supportive of broad changes to the criminal-justice system, including more lenient sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. The department has also taken a tough stance toward policing issues — scrutinizing entire departments with comprehensive “pattern or practice” inquiries and investigating high-profile incidents of officers killing people. With the impending change, civil rights advocates said they are bracing for the worst. “This is a guy who will have no problem targeting civil rights leaders, targeting reporters. We’re back to a Nixon enemies-list world,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network. “We’ve got to get ready to fight. This is serious.” The Justice Department’s policy positions and priorities often change when a Republican takes over from a Democrat, and vice versa, and in many ways, Trump’s administration will be no different. Under President George W. Bush, for example, the civil rights division took significantly fewer enforcement actions on ­anti-discrimination and voting rights laws than it did under President Bill Clinton. After Obama took office, then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. moved to give it back its teeth, taking aim at policies that officials thought resulted in racially disparate outcomes, even if the intent of those policies was not explicitly or intentionally racist. “The civil rights division gets whipsawed more than any other part of the Department of Justice when the White House changes parties,” said Bill Yeomans, who spent 26 years at the department, primarily in the civil rights division. “This promises to bring a dramatic shift in priorities and ideology.” Legal analysts said the core mission of the Justice Department — enforcing the nation’s federal laws — should remain the same. And they stressed that, because Trump has not yet indicated whom he will select as his attorney general, nor is he likely to follow traditional norms, it is hard to assess what his Justice Department might look like. “We’ve never had a transition like this,” said Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general under Clinton. Two of Trump’s closest advisers — former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — have federal legal experience. Both were U.S. attorneys, and Giuliani served as the Justice Department’s third-highest-ranking official under President Ronald Reagan. Giuliani has staked his reputation on the drop in crime during his time as mayor. Officers under him employed controversial stop-and-frisk tactics that a federal court in 2013 ruled were unconstitutional. Both Giuliani and Trump have made the dubious claim that the tactics drove down crime. Christie, likewise, built his political career on his image as a tough-on-crime former prosecutor, talking extensively during his presidential primary campaign about his national security prosecutions. The governor, though, has been tainted by the “Bridgegate” scandal, in which two of his former aides were convicted last week of conspiring to shut down the nation’s busiest bridge to punish a local mayor who refused to support Christie’s reelection bid. After his inauguration, Trump will face an early test in what, if anything, he decides to do with the investigation of Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Although FBI Director James B. Comey recommended no charges in that case, Trump has said that he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into the matter and that, if he were president, Clinton would “be in jail.” Trump could, in theory, order his attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to reinvestigate the former secretary of state, although many conservatives argue that it would be ill-advised to do so. Analysts say Trump already will have to contend with the perception that the Justice Department is partisan. “If anything has become clear as a result of the Justice Department’s recent involvement in political affairs, it’s that the public needs to be reassured that it’s substance, not politics, that drives Justice Department decision-making,” said George Terwilliger, who served as deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. Whomever Trump appoints will take over a department that has regularly waded into eruptions of anger that followed the deaths of black men and boys at the hands of police officers. In recent months, the Justice Department has opened investigations of fatal police shootings in Baton Rouge and Tulsa. The department also is investigating the Chicago police force, the country’s second-biggest local department, after video footage emerged of an officer fatally shooting a teenager there. A U.S. official familiar with the investigation said that it is “unlikely” that the inquiry will wrap up before Trump is sworn in, and that once the new Justice Department leaders are in place, they could react to the investigation by deciding to take out some required reforms. The official said, though, that it was unlikely that new leadership would opt to override the results of the Chicago investigation or others that resulted in reform agreements already in place. Such inquiries are carried out by career officials rather than political appointees. “I can’t imagine that they would come in and undo those” existing agreements, the official said. “But would they initiate a new one in the future? They might be a little less likely to do those.” Giuliani, speaking to the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association in October, said that court-mandated police reform agreements show how the Justice ­Department has become “politicized” during the Obama administration. It is possible, were he to be appointed attorney general, that the department would simply stop suing police departments to bring about new agreements, or even enforce old ones, analysts said. “The consent decree agreements already in place — they could just choose not to enforce. They can let it all die by doing nothing,” said Jonathan Smith, who for five years was the Justice Department’s chief of special litigation, overseeing investigations of police departments. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who has been outspoken on the issue of race and policing, announced recently that the FBI will begin a project next year to start collecting nationwide use-of-force statistics in hopes of building a national database. Trump, in response to questions from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, seemed skeptical to the idea, writing that “the federal government should not be in the habit of demanding data from local or state law enforcement organizations.” “Crime reporting should take place, but the management of local and state law enforcement should be left to those jurisdictions,” he wrote. Sharpton and others said they are strategizing how they will apply pressure to Trump and his advisers, with the hopes of influencing his selection of attorney general, the Cabinet post most vital to issues of civil rights. “We’ve fought for years, for decades on these issues. It is all at risk,” Sharpton said. The American Civil Liberties Union, after Trump’s election, vowed to challenge in court any of his policies that might run afoul of U.S. law. Many of Trump’s changes, though, probably would draw support. The Fraternal Order of Police, which has more than 335,000 members and describes itself as the country’s biggest police union, endorsed Trump in September. “Our membership . . . is pretty energized by the results of the election,” Jim Pasco, the union’s executive director, said Wednesday. Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, said that after Trump’s comments about violent crime, immigration, drugs and terrorism, it remains to be seen whether his administration will provide more resources or try to expand its assistance to state and local jurisdictions in how they confront those issues. “It’s a different administration, and they will have different priorities, and they will put their resources where they think is important,” he said. “He definitely has expressed support for officers on the street. That did not go unnoticed. The question is: When you get into policy, how does that translate?”

Trump’s Vow to Target China’s Currency Could Be First Step to Trade War The Wall Street Journal / November 10, 2016 Unlike Mr. Trump’s many other policy promises, his commitment to sanction Beijing for its currency policy has been one of his most explicit Donald Trump’s pledge to declare China a currency manipulator on day one of his presidency raises the prospect of U.S. tariffs on the Asian giant that figure to push their relationship onto new, contentious ground. The threat, which Mr. Trump has made repeatedly, risks sparking a trade war with China that would complicate negotiations on a host of other strategic and economic issues. It also risks sparking a legal backlash by U.S. importers. Unlike Mr. Trump’s many other policy promises, his commitment to sanction China for its currency policy has been one of his most explicit, and was included in his Gettysburg, Pa., speech that outlined his first-100-days action plan. By itself, the currency-manipulation designation has little practical effect. It requires an escalation in negotiations with currency offenders and gives the White House power to preclude countries from some U.S. financing and trade deals. If used in conjunction with other laws that give the president broad authority to unilaterally sanction trade partners, however, Mr. Trump could use the designation to justify costly fees on imports from China, as he has also promised. “Trump has a lot of legal authority to intervene in trade,” said Michael Gadbaw, a former U.S. Trade Representative attorney who is now a Georgetown University law professor. Under the Foreign Trade Act of 1974, for example, “he could determine that this is an unreasonable and unjustifiable restriction on trade, and use that authority to impose tariffs on China,” Mr. Gadbaw said. Few economists would dispute Beijing kept the value of its exchange rate artificially low for more than a decade to gain an unfair export advantage against trade competitors. That competitive devaluation helped transform the nation into the world’s second-largest economy at the expense of manufacturers in the U.S. and other countries. But over the past two years, Chinese authorities have burned through nearly $1 trillion of the country’s foreign exchange reserves to prop up the yuan against heavy downward pressure on the currency. A fast-cooling economy has led to an unprecedented exodus of capital out of the country, tugging the currency down with it. “The fact is that China has not manipulated for over two years,” said Fred Bergsten, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a longtime advocate for stronger trade sanctions against Beijing for its yuan policy. “It would be highly inappropriate and inaccurate to label them a manipulator at this time.” Still, Mr. Trump could use his authority in the Treasury Department’s semiannual currency report to Congress, due out in April next year, to censure China as part of a broader strategy to leverage trade concessions from Beijing. Gregory Daco, an Oxford Economics economist, says he thinks Mr. Trump will most likely refrain from imposing 45% trade tariffs on China, as he proposed many times during the campaign. But he could threaten to use more targeted and limited protectionist measures. China’s finance and commerce ministries didn’t respond to questions about the potential for a more protectionist U.S. under Mr. Trump, or of Washington labeling China a currency manipulator. Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Thursday that Beijing was still waiting to assess the new administration’s policies toward China. Chinese exporters and economists, meanwhile, warned of a backlash for U.S. firms. “If there really is a 45% tariff, I don’t think Boeing will sell any more airplanes in China,” said Lawrence Lau, an economics professor at Chinese University of Hong Kong. Investors, analysts and economists are uncertain whether Mr. Trump’s policies as president will match his campaign rhetoric as a candidate. Many say they are counting on his move into the White House, with the burden of responsibility that comes with leading the world’s largest economy, to moderate his most controversial economic proposals. Even if Mr. Trump’s trade sanctions were temporary, many experts believe Beijing would respond in kind. That is one reason why the IMF said in its latest World Economic Outlook in October a surge in global protectionist measures could sap global gross domestic product by more than 1.5% over the next several years. “China probably would retaliate and that’s problematic for us,” said Matthew Goodman, a top Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Besides the economic fallout from a trade war, imposing punitive tariffs could also endanger Washington’s already strained diplomacy with Beijing on many other economic and strategic issues. The U.S. has been trying to negotiate greater access for U.S. companies into Chinese markets, including through a bilateral investment treaty. American firms want to be able to take advantage of the business opportunities that a billion-plus population moving into the middle class represents. Washington has also been encouraging Beijing to wind down a massive overhang of excess industrial-production capacity swamping global markets, pushing down prices and forcing U.S. layoffs. U.S.-China relations have also been on edge over escalating cybersecurity tensions, Beijing’s reluctance to rein in North Korea’s nuclear weapons ambitions, and maritime border conflicts that threaten to turn into dangerous regional conflagrations. The new president could also find himself embroiled in a legal challenges from U.S. companies such as Apple Inc. that rely on Chinese imports as part of their global product supply chains.