Home Blog Page 743

10 Reasons Why US May Want Russia to Invade Ukraine

By Dr. Jack Rasmus

In recent weeks both US and NATO have been stumbling toward confrontation with Russia over whether the Ukraine will be allowed membership in NATO. While there are various secondary issues on the negotiating table—deployment of US troops into Poland, Baltics and Romania and Russian natural gas delivery to Germany, among other issues—make no mistake: NATO membership is what the developing conflict is fundamentally about. As one of the main media vehicles of US imperialism, the New York Times, recently blared in its front page headline: “U.S. Won’t Bow to Russia Over Who Can Join NATO”. (February 3, 2022).

Background to Today’s Conflict 

The pending conflict over Ukraine NATO membership has intensified recently, events have been leading to this at least since the January 2005 so-called Orange Revolution in Ukraine when emergent right wing forces rode a wave of popular protest over the previous November 2004 national elections—and even go back further to the breakup of the former USSR in the early 1990s during which the US promised Russia that NATO would not be expanded to Eastern Europe, the Baltics, or the Caucasus.

In November 2004 the pro-Russia candidate, Viktor Yanukovich won 39% of the vote; but the anti-Russia candidate, supported by growing fascist forces, also won 39%. Yanukovich’s support was heavily concentrated in east and south Ukraine, while Yushchenko’s in western Ukraine. As the vote was underway, and not yet concluded, Yushchenko called for mass street demonstrations, then immediately declared himself president as mass protestors threatened to assault the Ukraine Parliament. In front of his massed supporters in Kyiv, also a day after the election, Yushchenko unilaterally took the ‘oath of president’ in the Parliament in which only his supporters were present and therefore lacked a quorum to legitimize the November vote results.  He then immediately called for continued mass strikes, protests and sit-ins to force the acceptance of his declared victory and questionable ‘oath’.

Yushckenko’s declaration was supported by the Central Electoral Commission which, it was later determined, withheld significant regional votes from being counted and ran a separate computer tally of the votes. In order to avoid growing political conflict in the streets, the Ukraine Supreme Court intervened in early December and voided the November election in which Yanukovich had won a narrow popular vote victory by less than 1%, and declared a run-off election for late December 2004. The same Central Election Commission tallied 52% vote for Yushchenko vs. 44% for Yanukovich, as several minor parties either abstained or threw their support to Yushchenko.

The next election in 2010 saw Yanukovich win back again,in an election international observers declared was fair.  Rising right wing forces did not accept the 2010 results, however. In 2014 another uprising was staged, focused in the capital city of Kyiv occurred and this time far more violent than in January 2005. This time, February 2014, fascist forces murdered more than 100 in the streets.

The insurrection of 2014 was clearly organized and funded by US imperialist interests. Manipulating forces behind the uprising was US undersecretary of State for Eastern Europe, Virginia Nuland. In a pubic speech in the Ukraine following the uprising of 2014, at which Nuland unbeknownst to her at the time was quoted by the press, she bragged the US has spent $5 billion funding various grass roots movements behind the insurrection that toppled ‘fairly elected’ pro-Russia leader, Yanukovich.

At the core of those movements were largely self-declared fascist organizations that had grown and mobilized since 2005. Using classic fascist violence, including assassinations and widespread shootings of police and government officials in Kyiv (as well as subsequent multiple assassinations in Ukraine’s second important city, Odessa), the US-backed fascist forces—along with their political representatives—took control of the Ukraine government that February 2014.

In the wake of the insurrection and take over, Virginia Nuland was appointed by the new right wing Ukraine government as ‘economic Czar’.  Nuland had formerly been an owner of a well known US Chicago financial firm before being appointed as under-secretary of State for the region. After she became ‘economic Czar’, US investors began to pour into Ukraine—including relatives of well-known US politicians like Vice President Joe Biden—and took up positions on various Ukrainian company boards of directors. US economic imperialism now penetrated deeply into the economic infrastructure of Ukraine.

Russia’s response in 2014 to the insurrection of 2014 and the deposing of ‘fairly elected’ Yanukovich, was to provide support to the heavily pro-Russian eastern provinces. As it became clear in 2014 that outright declared fascist organization members took over key positions in the Parliamen and government, Russia sent military forces to take back the strategic Crimea peninsula that housed Russia’s black sea naval forces. Crimea had always been part of Russia, but was ‘given’ to the Ukraine in the 1950s by the USSR in a government provincial reorganization.   In 2016 further conflict erupted in the eastern Ukraine provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk as Ukrainian fascist-led military forces attempted to take back the provinces but failed in the wake of Russian military support to the region.  The US and NATO then imposed sanctions on Russia its response.

It’s important to note that while these events from 2004 to 2016 were occurring in the Ukraine, US war hawks pushed for, and achieved, expansion of NATO into East Europe—contrary to assurances made to Russia by the Clinton administration in the 1990s. The same year, 2004, as the first right wing uprising occurred in Ukraine, the US expanded NATO into seven East European countries and the three Baltic nations, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.  NATO forces were now located less than 400 miles from Moscow.

In 2008 US political factions in government, led by US Senator John McCain, signaled and encouraged then Georgia President, Mikhail Saakashvili, to invade South Ossetia on its northern border.  Georgia had been courting US and demanding NATO membership since at least 2003, when it sent significant troops to join the US invasion of Iraq. Georgian military forces invaded the province of South Ossetia on August 7, 2008. Russia drove them back and entered Georgia itself a week later. It later withdrew and military conflict ending October 2008.

In 2009 and 2010 the US announced plans to deploy advanced missile systems of NATO into Poland and Romania, which were completed by 2016. The US also deployed ship-based advanced Tomahawk offensive missile systems on warships it sent into the Black Sea. Both the Romania land-based and US ship-based missiles were of the advanced ‘Aegis’ type, capable of rearming with nuclear warheads on very short notice.  If Russia intervened in the US election of 2016, it certainly had some justification.

Russia responded angrily in 2017 and 2018 to the advanced US missile deployments of 2016, declaring they violated the then Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) missile treaty signed with the US in 1987, in which both sides had agreed not to deploy nuclear-capable missiles in eastern Europe or by Russia on its western border.  In an unprecedented direct public response, Russia further declared it could and would destroy the missile systems in Romania if necessary. In reply, the US followed up with deployment of a Patriot anti-missile systems in Romania.

In July 2019 the US formally withdrew from the 1987 intermediate missile treaty that Reagan and Gorbachev had negotiated. During the 2020 US election year and Covid health & economic crisis further escalations more or less froze in place.

It is in this context of events in Ukraine from 2004 to 2016, the deployment of US missile systems in Eastern Europe and in the black sea thereafter, and US withdrawal from the INF treaty in 2019 that the recent events of US-NATO expansion into Ukraine should be understood. History and context mean everything.  Explanations based just on immediate events are easily manipulated by mainstream media and political forces behind it.

US/NATO vs. Russia: Ukraine 2021-22 

Once Biden was elected and Democrats were in power once again in 2021 political forces in Eastern Europe’s NATO allies and within the newly elected Zelensky government in the Ukraine began pushing for more US advanced armaments and for Ukraine’s admission into NATO.  By late summer 2021, aware of the new pressure to allow Ukraine into NATO and the greater sympathy of the Democrats to sanction Russia compared to Trump (whom they, the Russians, had largely neutralized for reasons still unknown), Russia responded to the new NATO inclusion initiative.

Putin wrote an extended position paper in late summer 2021 that more or less drew a line in the sand so far as Ukraine inclusion in NATO was concerned. He noted in particular the fact that the US and other NATO governments declared in 2008 that Ukraine “will become members of NATO” in the future without specifying exactly when, and that US/NATO has never withdrawn or repudiated that statement. That fact, plus the advanced and potentially nuclear armed missile deployments in Poland, Romania, and on the Black Sea in US ships constituted a clear threat to Russia.  The US pulling out of Afghanistan and the middle east, while bolstering its sea-based nuclear submarine forces in Australia, was a clear signal that the US empire was clearly shifting its military resources and preparing for new conflicts with Russia and China. A NATO Ukraine would mean moving of Romanian and Black Sea US missiles north into Ukraine. With similar NATO forces in the Baltics, Russia would be surrounded and missiles just a few minutes from Moscow.

At the same time in late 2021 uprisings erupted in Belarus and Kazakhstan which Russia might easily consider to portend future 2014-Kyiv like insurrections in these border states. Another ‘Ukraine’-like coup in Belarus or Kazakhstan would mean Russia would be even further encircled.  Russia intervened to assist their governments thus far and put down the protests.  Future such insurrections in these states, however, are not out of the question.  And it is probable that Russia and Putin have interpreted these uprisings as US CIA assisted—not unlike that of 2014 in Ukraine.

It is easy to see why Putin and Russia felt themselves increasingly encircled by NATO in East Europe and Baltics, given US instigated and backed forces in Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan destabilizing its frontiers. A NATO Ukraine would in effect strategically outflank Russia and close the ring on them. NATO in effect would accomplish what Nazi Germany could not. Social memories of the German Nazi invasion of Ukraine in 1941-42 run deep in Russia. It is often under-estimated by western political advisers—and especially by the so-called non-military ‘experts’ advisers to US presidents who have a long history of advocating US into military adventures abroad—most notably Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Syria.  One might ask “would Russia allow NATO and the US to enter and ‘take’ Ukraine—after it had lost 10 million of its citizens to deny the same to the Nazis?” While this is not a mode of thought among US advisers, it is no doubt a central consideration within Russian circles—military and civilian.

It is true that Putin and Russia began a build up of military resources on its Ukrainian border. But thus far it has been a ‘measured’ one. It is mostly military hardware that has been moved to forward bases with limited troops to support it. Most of the alleged 175,000 troops at the border, trumpeted by Biden and US mainstream media, are not in forward border positions. They are in some cases hundreds of kilometers within Russia at their regular bases.  A truer signal of intent to invade Ukraine will occur once support battalions move forward to the border: that is medical, ammunition, food and similar logistical troops and supplies. That doesn’t appear to have occurred as yet, however. Russia’s military movements so far have been designed apparently to get the attention of Biden and the US to bring them to the negotiating table. And in early January it worked.

Biden released what the media is calling a ‘Transparency Mechanism’ offer.  In it the US offered to allow the Russians to verify if its missile systems in Poland and Romania were defensive or not. But in exchange, the US wanted Russia to reciprocate by allowing it access to Russian border missile sites—one of which would be the Russian facilities in the Kaliningrad, Russia region, a small area sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland on the Baltic sea coast. The US also offered in the ‘Mechanism’ that it would not permanently deploy offensive missiles in Ukraine—suggesting it might have the right to do so ‘temporarily’ however that might be defined. The real kicker of the Mechanism offer, however, was Russian had to withdraw from eastern Ukraine and Crimea as part of any deal.  It was obviously a non-starter but gave the US cover that it was putting a proposal on the table.

As Biden made the offer he announced the US was sending another 5,000 US troops to eastern Europe, no doubt to placate Poland and the NATO Baltic states now demanding even more advanced NATO arms. Biden reiterated his oft-repeated threat since December that if Russia invaded there would be new massive economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and its allies worldwide. He didn’t, and hasn’t yet, defined what exactly that might be but clearly it suggests sanctions of a new nature not just more severe. (That could include, in this writer’s opinion, denying Russia to the US controlled SWIFT international payments system that would prevent Russia from selling its oil on global markets.) At the same time the US Congress has rushed to pass new emergency aid and military supplies to Ukraine. And US ‘war hawks’ have demanded US sanctions be placed on Russia even before it invades.  Somehow they think that is a deterrent, instead of a provocation.

Throughout January 2022 Biden and the US media pounded away the message that invasion is ‘imminent’.  This premature declaration, often repeated, has disrupted social stability within Ukraine itself, resulting in its president, Zelensky, to go so far as to publicly contradict Biden’s message. The US followed up the ‘imminent invasion’ theme with having the British release an alleged document showing Russian invasion plans (One wonders why it is that the Brits typically release such politically salacious but unverified ‘reports’—i.e. dossiers, false flags, etc.) on behalf of their US big brother?).  In the interim the pressure grows on Ukrainian politicians as near panic by Ukrainians themselves takes root among the populace.

On February 1, Putin predictably rejected the ‘Transparency Mechanism’ proposal and publicly stated he believed the US and NATO were attempting to provoke Russia into a war in Ukraine. In a clear appeal to western Europe NATO countries (which, unlike the US, had most to lose economically and politically from a war in Ukraine), Putin added he expected “dialogue to continue”.  That set off a flurry of announcements and visits by heads of state in the UK, France, Germany and Italy. About to get sacked by his own party in the UK, Boris Johnson ran off to Kyiv for some photo ops.  France’s Macron announced had had telephone conversations with Putin and planned to meet him directly. So did Germany’s newly elected chancellor, Olaf Shultz.

Putin meanwhile flew off to China to meet with President Xi during the opening of the winter Olympics. Both released a direct joint statement accusing the US of aggressive military moves in the Pacific and Ukraine that would severely destabilize global peace and status quo.

At latest report, the media war in the west continues to intensify, with the Biden administration leaking a report that suggested Russia had plans to fake a ‘false flag’ operation as a prelude to invasion. In a like response, the Spanish newspaper, El Pais, in turn leaked some US/NATO plans in the works.

The preceding events and moves by both sides around the Ukraine today are reminiscent of how, in August 1914, both sides kept raising the stakes, in what appeared at first as small inconsequential moves but which then accelerated, grew increasingly threatening, until eventually resulting in military conflict and the 1st World War. Today in the Ukraine both sides circle each other, like boxers coming into the ring in the first round, testing and feinting, looking for weaknesses, sizing each other up, trying to determine what the other’s opening move might be.  Should one slip or fall by accident or the other unknowingly signal a blow is coming, it might very well precipitate a general exchange between both.

10 Reasons Why US Elites May Want Russia to Invade Ukraine 

Much of mainstream media continues to focus on why Russia is about to invade Ukraine. It refuses to consider the fact there are nonetheless significant advantages for the US in provoking Russia to invade Ukraine.  The US media, the Biden administration, and US war hawks in Congress say they are trying to discourage Putin and Russia from invading. But what they say and what they do are not the same thing. Ample evidence suggests the US and NATO want a confrontation, so long as it’s a proxy war fought between Russia and Ukraine that they can stand by, feed the conflagration with arms, and in the process achieve other US-NATO gains. Just what might these other objectives of US/NATO be?

Here are at least 10 reasons why US political elites of both parties, war hawks and military-industrial complex capitalists favor a Russian invasion of Ukraine:

1. Reunite NATO and strengthen US hegemony over it once again 

In recent years—and especially since Trump—certain members in NATO have questioned whether the US is as reliable a partner to the alliance as it once was in decades past.  Nations like France, and now Germany, have had growing doubts. Voices have risen within the EU that it should go its own way with its own defense and strategy.  China has made major economic inroads to the EU NATO states. Europe and China are now either first or second biggest export/import traders with each other.  Key Europe state leaders are very nervous about the US leading them into a conflict in Ukraine that could have very serious effects on their economy, at the very least, and at a time Europe’s economy continues to struggle to jump start a recovery from the past two years Covid precipitated recession.  The US’s track record in the middle east is giving them pause: it achieved little, left the area in shambles, and just pulled out to shift its focus on China.  The European NATO allies, moreover, are quite split among themselves. The East Europeans as recent additions to NATO follow the US lead in hope of more arms and troops. Big players like France and Germany not so much so.  If a US provocation of conflict in Ukraine goes poorly, the risks—political and economic—for western Europe NATO states are high.

2. Get Germany to cancel the Nordstream2 Russian Gas Pipeline; get Europe to buy US gas instead; increase US natural gas exports to Europe and thereby create supply shortage in US to justify US domestic gas price hikes & US profits 

Germany is particularly uncertain about following the US lead into another quagmire in Ukraine. Its new chancellor, Olaf Shultz, is especially nervous about the prospect. There is significant public opposition to becoming embroiled in Ukraine, even indirectly. And German capitalists are split as well over the fate of the Nordstream2 natural gas pipeline from Russia. Germany desperately needs the supply. Russia’s gas is significantly less costly than would be purchasing natural gas from the US. For years now the US has been pressuring Germany to halt Norstream2 and buy liquefied natural gas from the US—at higher prices and requiring Germany as well to build highly expensive new port facilities to import the US gas.  US oil corporations want to sell the gas, to offload a US glut of natural gas supply. That would bring not only profits from more sales to Germany, but create shortages of supply in the US that would enable US corporations to raise prices in the US domestic market as well. The US gas corps—mostly owned by the big oil corporations—will enjoy a win-win profit.  Behind the scenes in the conflict in Ukraine is the looming gray presence of US oil companies—who have had their hand in just about every American military adventure since the 1960s.

3. Create excuse to send still more troops & advanced weaponry to Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) & East Europe (Poland, Romania)

There are political forces in the US that want to arm Poland, Romania, and the Baltic countries to the hilt, including stationing nuclear weapons in their countries.  Governments in the region are more than happy to bloc with these US war hawks. It means new massive funding from the US, more US arms and troops, and a boost to their economies (and politicians’ pockets as well no doubt).

4. Obtain more economic concessions from Ukraine for US business in exchange for more and better US/NATO arms 

The US empire does not provide aide without a cost. US investors and corporations have already, posts-2014, penetrated deeply into the Ukraine economy. They have funded, acquired, and otherwise controlled a significant number of former all Ukrainian companies in key sectors of the economy.  Biden’s son is not the only next generation representative of the US political elite (from both parties) to sit on Ukraine company boards of directors.  As the US provides even more funds and weapons to Ukraine, it will exact a price in return. It will deepen further its influence over the Ukraine economy and banking system.  Ukrainian elites will more than welcome them, since the US form of economic empire integrates the colonial elites by sharing a big piece of the economic pie with them.

5. Grow US political support to go after Moldova to drive out Russian supporters & install US puppet regime over entire country 

It is a certainty that should military conflict erupt in Ukraine, the US and its field intelligence services (CIA, State, etc.) will move on Moldova as well in some manner. Moldova is the small state located between southwest Ukraine and Romania. For years it has had an uneasy truce between Russian backed forces running half of the country and pro-western the other half. The US will attempt to change this and turn the country to full pro-western hegemony.

6. Justify more US effort & funding to try to destabilize Belarus & Kazakhstan 

It is naïve to think that US intelligence and related forces are deeply involved in the recent public demonstrations and protests in both Belarus and Kazakhstan, the latter just weeks ago as tensions have risen in the Ukraine.  At a minimum, the US is testing the extent of anti-Russian opposition in these countries, which are closely aligned economically and politically with Russia. Russia has helped these governments put down the demonstrations, some of which as in Kazakhstan, were especially violent uprisings.  Should the US ‘turn’ Ukraine fully toward NATO it is certain the US will intensify its efforts to destabilize Belarus and Kazakhstan on Russia’s borders. They will be the next ‘Ukraine-like’ targets, following the template for Ukraine that began with 2014 and now culminating in 2022.

7. Provide major foreign policy distraction for Democrat party before November 2022 midterms 

One cannot discount the potential advantages for the sitting president and party (Democrats) of a foreign policy issue such as Ukraine. It allows Biden and the party to ‘look tough’ in an election year, which always seems to add support for the party that ‘gets tough with Russia’, so long as it doesn’t lead to direct conflict with the US. Ukraine is a classic US ‘proxy war’ possibility—the kind it prefers to fight at a distance on the ground of another country (Ukraine) with its troops and/or under the cover of NATO forces as well in this case.

8. Get Congress to approve a further increase in US defense budget in addition to $778B 

The US wars in the middle east are over.  It will take time to build up new technological weaponry and forces to confront China in Asia.  The US deal to provide Australia with latest US nuclear subs is just one such example.  A proxy war in the Ukraine serves as a convenient interim excuse not to reduce defense spending benefiting the US military-industrial complex (MIC)—and actually raise it still more.  The US defense spending is clearly out of control. Pentagon spending alone is now $778 billion, and continues to rise even after the US withdrawal from the middle east. (Total US defense spending is well over $1 trillion a year when other departments of government are included as well: Energy, State, AEC, Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, DARPA, etc.) The MIC never wastes time encouraging the US to get into another conflict once it ends one in order to prevent defense spending cuts post-war. Once the USSR imploded in the late-eighties/early nineties the military bete noir became Saddam Hussein.  That fueled the 1991 first Gulf War and continued war spending thereafter and turned US attention to the middle east.  The US intervention in Somalia in the 1990s and Balkans kept it going. The next convenient enemy was the ‘Terrorist Threat’ in wake of 9-11 attack in the US. That fueled defense and war spending still further over the next two decades, including wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and the US proxy war in Yemen.  Now the US has withdrawn from the middle east direct wars, it needs a new enemy to keep the war spending going. It will take time to build up China as the target. In the interim, however, Ukraine and Russia will do nicely to keep Congress flowing dollars to the US military-industrial complex war making machine.

9. Excuse to go after pro-Russian supporters: Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba again 

A protracted conflict in Ukraine, funded and supported by the US and NATO allies in East Europe, could eventually lead to a spread of the conflict to other ‘proxy’ nations.  For Russia that means Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Given a war in Ukraine, war hawks in the US will no doubt find justification to go after these countries with renewed destabilization efforts by US intelligence and even perhaps special ops forces.

10. Test effectiveness of latest US weaponry against Russian forces & Russian weaponry effectiveness against US without having to directly confront Russia; get Russia to reveal state of its cyber capability

Proxy wars provide a good excuse to test new weaponry of the US in a third country battlefield. That means not only testing how well offensive US weapons perform against Russian, but how well Russian weapons perform against US defenses.  Weaknesses inevitably appear, permitting the correction and upgrading of the weaponry for potential future use elsewhere.  The US especially is interested in testing its cybersecurity weaponry while getting Russia to reveal the extent of much of its capability. Another area of interest is to test how well US anti-armor missiles perform and how well US/NATO missiles perform against Russian anti-missile systems (like its S-500).

Some Conclusions 

All the above constitute advantages for the US should a direct conflict occur in the Ukraine against Russian forces.  Ukrainians will pay the human and economic price. The US and its corporations will benefit economically and strategically.  Europe will be caught in between, uncertain as to the economic effects of a conflict on it or the great political risks should the conflict not go well.

The behavior of US interests the last two months increasingly suggests it is the US that favors an open conflict in the Ukraine. For the US, it’s win-win situation in the event of an open conflict. There is much to be gained strategically, politically at home, and economically: re-establishing its unchallenged hegemony over NATO; driving Russia out of Europe’s economy and making Europe even more dependent economically on US resources instead or Russia; deepening US influence and control over Ukraine’s economy and government; feeding US war hawks demands to destabilize other countries which, like Ukraine, also border Russia; resurrect spending and operations targeting Latin America friends of Russia;  create justifications in Congress to spend even more on US defense and war in the interim until the bigger, longer term buildup and military spending targeting China can come on line; and test in a real theater of operations the effectiveness of both US defensive and offensive weaponry against a sophisticated opponent like Russia.

Time will reveal whether Russia and Putin also favor an open conflict in Ukraine—or whether the western media is exaggerating the Russian threat and beating the drums of ‘imminent invasion’ to serve the interests of US and NATO.

Longer term, Russia may have no alternative but to invade should the US play its ‘final card’ and declare to bring Ukraine into NATO.  The US says it has no such intention. But if so, why does it refuse to withdraw its declaration of a decade ago that Ukraine in NATO is the goal at some point in the future?  Is the future now? Should the Ukraine be allowed into NATO it is ‘game over’ for Russia strategically for decades to come. Similar developments like Ukraine eventually would occur in Belarus and Kazakhstan and likely Moldova. Calls and efforts to bring them too into NATO would similarly follow. Russia will have been outflanked. It will be thereafter now more easily intimidated.  Surrounded by NATO states everywhere, what likely would follow would be full scale nuclear disarmament.

This writer believes therefore that preventing NATO from entering Ukraine is a ‘red line’ for Putin and Russia.  If pushed into a corner with no retreat or way out, it is quite possible Russia may see no alternative to invading. That’s not on the immediate agenda. But that’s not to say it will never be.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Jack Rasmus

Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, 2020 and the forthcoming ‘The Viral Economy’ latter in 2022. He blogs at http://jackrasmus.com. His website is: http://kyklosproductions.com . He hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network and tweets at @drjackrasmus on daily economic and political events.

Are Buy Now Pay Later Payments a Convenience or a Trap?

On the surface, “Buy Now Pay Later” (BNPL) services are an attractive offer. You make a purchase, and instead of paying it all at once, you pay over several installments. This makes it easier to handle big expenses, especially when you don’t have enough cash to pay in full.

Some schemes can give you up to 30 days to pay, while others can allow you up to 12 months. However, unlike credit cards, BNPL plans don’t charge interest on the items you pay off over time, provided you make payments when you are supposed to.

But is there a catch to this convenience? Read on if you’d like to find out.

How does Buy Now Pay Later work?

Buy Now Pay Later programs aren’t all the same. Every company has its own terms and conditions. However, the services generally operate along the following lines:

  • You buy something at a participating retailer and opt to ‘buy now, pay later’.
  • If you are approved (which only takes seconds), you’re told to make a small down payment. For example, 25% of the total.
  • You then pay off the remaining amount over a period of time in regular installments until the whole amount is paid.
  • You can pay the installments yourself or the amounts can be deducted from your debit card, bank account, or credit card.

There usually aren’t any interests or fees with BNPL. However, they have a fixed repayment schedule which usually lasts several weeks or months. You’re told upfront what you’ll need to pay every time. The thing is, you cannot miss a single payment.

For approval, most of these services don’t really consider your credit score. So just about anyone can access it. But, not all purchases are eligible. There may also be limits on how much you can pay this way.

With Buy Now Pay Later services seeming so attractive, it’s only natural to wonder whether it’s convenient or just a risk. Is it worth it?

What are the advantages of Buy Now Pay Later payments?

In recent years, Buy Now Pay Later services have become quite popular. So, why are so many people opting for this payment method? What are its advantages?

  • More flexibility – With the payments spread out over several weeks or months, Buy Now Pay Later services give you more flexibility when you have your heart set on buying something. 
  • No interest rates – If you make your payments on time, you won’t get slugged with extra costs. You just pay for the product itself, nothing more, nothing less. 
  • Easy approval– The best thing about BNPL services is that it’s quite easy to get approval. However, not all stores offer this. Some that do, make it simple for customers to access the service.
  • It’s convenient and easy to use – Most people find the service more convenient than using credit cards or paying the full price for a product upfront. It’s also easy to make the payments.
  • Good credit or a high credit score isn’t necessary – To qualify, you don’t need a high credit score.

All in all, these are some of the reasons most people prefer BNPL payments. But like with most things, there are risks involved.

Risks of Buy Now Pay Later payments

Some of the dangers include the ones listed below.

1.   Unaffordable debt

It’s easy to spend more money than you can really afford. Prices can seem cheaper when you split them into smaller repayments, but the truth is that you may end up losing track of how much you owe.

This is especially true if you make multiple purchases on different days. You could quickly find yourself spending far more than you intended or more than you can afford to pay. This could cause financial problems for you.

2.   It’s difficult to track spending

BNPL purchases can sneak up on you. You can easily go from paying $25 weekly over 8 weeks for a nice shirt, to buying even more items the next week. You may end up finding that you’ve committed the equivalent of your food budget for the week on BNPL payments.

3.   You can get hit with expensive fees and penalties

What makes this service attractive is that you’re not charged interest right off the bat. But watch out if you fall behind on your payment plan! You could get hit with expensive penalties and fees that would make your purchases cost a lot more than you thought. This can turn out to be quite the headache!

4.   Vulnerable groups

The easy approval process means vulnerable groups like low-income customers (students, teenagers, etc.) will jump on this service. These groups are more prone to buying on impulse. Unfortunately, this means they are most likely to fall down a debt rabbit hole. 

Don’t miss a payment

BNPL can quickly become expensive if you don’t make payments on time. While BNPL is a convenient way to shop, it could be problematic later down the track if you’re not able to meet your repayment obligations.

Late or missed payments may be reported to the credit bureau which can impact your credit score.  If your various repayments are piling up and you’re feeling overwhelmed, Credit24 could help.

Simply consolidate all your BNPL repayments into one manageable Credit24 account.

We provide you with the flexibility to spread your repayments over 36 months. This could reduce your fortnightly instalments into a more manageable and affordable amount. You can also repay the loan early with no penalty. The earlier you pay it back, the more you’ll save on interest.

Conclusion

BNPL has really revolutionized the way we shop. It’s such an ingenious idea but you need to have your wits about you to stay on top of your repayments.

But don’t stress, Credit24 is here to help if things go awry. If you’re looking to consolidate BNPL payments that are getting out of hand, visit our website today at www.credit24.com.au

 

Disclaimer: IPF Digital Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Credit24, ABN 59 130 894 405. Australian Credit Licence 422839. Lending criteria, fees and charges apply.

Go to top

How GST Affects Small Businesses In New Zealand

‘What is GST?’ is a question that many companies in New Zealand may ask themselves at some point. The answer is critical for every New Zealand business looking to sell products or services. The Inland Revenue Department levies the Products and Services Tax (GST) on the purchase price of goods and services.

Any New Zealand firm registered for GST or sold items that must include GST will have to include GST in the price of their goods or services. In October 2010, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate was increased from 12.5% to 15%. This article provides an overview of the impact of this change on small New Zealand businesses. You may read more about GST in New Zealand here. 

GST Threshold 

Taxpayers who earn more than $60,000 qualify for GST. Put another way. You need to register for GST if your firm generates taxable activity worth more than $60,000 per year or if you anticipate doing so during the following calendar year. 

Note that there’s no GST paid to sell items donated to charity. Rent, penalty interest, and other financial services are exempt from GST. As soon as your firm has been GST-registered, you must begin charging GST on all of your products and services and regularly file a GST return with the IRD, as per your specified schedule. 

GST On Import And Export 

Businesses outside New Zealand may be required to charge and pay GST on items supplied to New Zealand customers, depending on the product’s value and if it falls under the threshold. Overseas enterprises selling low-value items to New Zealand customers may have to register, collect, and remit GST starting December 1, 2019. 

On the other hand, taxes on products and services exported from New Zealand are zero percent. So, as a result, you don’t have to pay GST on exported items since they are ‘zero-rated.’ The items must be shipped and bought by a foreign buyer, which you should show.

Businesses outside New Zealand may be required to charge and pay GST on items supplied to New Zealand customers, depending on the product’s value and if it falls under the threshold. Overseas enterprises selling low-value items to New Zealand customers may have to register, collect, and remit GST starting December 1, 2019. 

GST Effect On Small Business Based On Studies 

A survey showed that most small and medium businesses expect sales to be hit by the Goods and Services Tax rise. Most firms believe that the increase will have a minor impact on their sales. 

Prior studies on tax compliance typically focused on individuals and income tax. This study aims to extend the scope of this research by examining the various types of tax compliance that taxpayers may have failed to report. 

The study interviewed over 200 small business taxpayers in the New Zealand economy. It was focused on those who work in the primary and trades sectors. It also aims to determine if there is a difference in the attitudes and norms of different taxpayers regarding tax compliance. 

There’s also evidence that many taxpayers in the primary and trades sectors keep different mental accounts for GST. They also cited the cost of compliance as a burden. Taxpayers in the primary and businesses sectors displayed mixed feelings about their interactions with the Inland Revenue. On the other hand, those in the GST sector were more positive about their dealings with the agency. 

How Economists View GST And Its Impact 

Is the interest rate of GST too high? Some economic analysts urge the New Zealand government to decrease the GST rate to 10% as a short-term solution to the country’s financial woes. 

Reducing the GST will help lower-income families spend more money, which might help the economy grow again. They believed it would send the correct message to New Zealanders, namely that they must spend money. 

GST

While some believed that it was unclear how this would address the issue at hand, consumers and businesses aren’t being impacted by rising prices right now. They might be amid a financial shortage and a crisis of confidence. 

In other words, cutting the GST may not going to help. Benefiting from it will be spread out across a large number of companies, as opposed to the few at danger at present. Preserving employment and preventing company failures are the immediate concerns that need to concentrate on. Providing things like salary subsidies, paid sick leave, and lines of credit is a better way to do this. 

Takeaway 

An analysis of the impact of the higher GST rate on business compliance costs found that it may impact the rate change on their business relationship and transactions and were particularly hard hit by the higher GST rate. 

Despite the steps taken to address the various issues related to the business taxation of goods and services, little has been done to compare the compliance costs of these businesses to those of large corporations.

Go to top

4 Smart Investing Tips from Experts

Are you looking to invest your money but don’t know where to start? Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Many people are hesitant to invest their hard-earned money, especially if they don’t have a lot of experience in the field. That’s why we’ve gathered 4 smart investing tips from experts in the industry. Keep reading to learn more.

Don’t Just Focus On One Stock

It’s important to remember that you don’t want to put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify your portfolio by investing in a variety of stocks, and don’t be afraid to invest in different sectors too. This will help reduce your risk if one stock happens to the tank. Tracking apps such as StockTwits and Finviz can help you keep an eye on your investments and make sure that you’re not overexposed. One of these stock tracking apps that you can find online can make all the difference. Investing isn’t just about picking the next big thing. It’s also about finding stability and consistent growth over time. So think long-term when you’re making investment decisions, and don’t get caught up in short-term trends.

Finally, always keep an eye on your portfolio and make sure it aligns with your goals and risk tolerance. If something starts to look like it’s going off track, take action sooner rather than later. Ignoring your investments can lead to big losses down the road.

Don’t Be Afraid To Ask Questions

When it comes to investing your money, don’t be afraid to ask questions. When you’re talking with a stockbroker or other financial professional, they are there to help you make the best decisions for your goals and should be able to answer any of the questions that come up. You can also research information on websites and in books about investing before you meet with someone so that you know what kind of terms or suggestions may come up during the meeting. Don’t hesitate to ask for an explanation if anything is unclear to you as well because even if it seems like a basic question, no one will fault you for wanting more clarity when making such important financial decisions.

If at all possible, try to get second and third opinions on your investment choices, especially if they are large ones. You can ask family or friends who have knowledge in this area for their thoughts or talk to a financial advisor who will be able to give an unbiased opinion. Mentorship can be an extremely valuable asset when it comes to making smart investing decisions as well.

Do Your Research

Before investing your hard-earned money into any stock, fund, or other security, it’s important to do your research. Arm yourself with as much information as possible so you can make informed decisions. Talk to friends and family who might have some experience in the market, read financial news and blogs, and take advantage of online resources like FINRA’s investor education center.

When looking at a potential investment, ask yourself these questions: What is the company’s history? What are its products or services? Who are its competitors? What is the management team like? What is the price/earnings ratio (P/E ratio)? How does the company compare to others in its industry? What are the risks? Answering these questions and more can help you make smart investment decisions. You can also find tools online that allow you to research companies and stocks, including the EDGAR search tool on sec.gov and FINRA’s BrokerCheck tool to check out a broker or firm before doing business with them.

The Earlier You Start Investing, The Better

The power of compounding means that your investment will grow exponentially over time. Don’t wait to invest – the earlier you do so, the more money you’ll make in the future due to compound interest (interest on interest). It might not sound like much at first but if you leave it long enough and put away a bit each month then it can amount to huge sums! This is particularly important given how inflation eats into our savings every year as well as taxes which reduce returns even further- meaning what seems like a ‘small sum now’ could be worth less than half its value 30 years from now.

Additionally, if you already have debt then your focus should be on paying this off as soon as possible so that you can start saving for the future. Interest rates on debts are usually much higher than those offered on savings accounts, so it’s important to get rid of any high-interest debts as quickly as possible and then channel the
money you save into the best investment funds.

Investment

Resist the temptation to buy high and sell low. Stick to your investment plan and don’t let emotions influence your decisions. It may take time for your investments to pay off, but if you’re patient and stay the course, you’ll likely be rewarded in the end.

Go to top

The Top Benefits of CBD Muscle Balm

When you think of CBD, chances are you don’t think of it as a muscle balm. Most of the time, CBD and general cannabis products are lumped together by consumers believing that cannabis containing products and specific CBD products are the same thing. CBD is one of many active ingredients in the hemp plant, including it’s more famous relative THC. Believe it or not, CBD is actually a powerful natural remedy that can help soothe and relieve sore muscles. In this post, we’ll take a closer look at the top benefits of using CBD muscle balm to treat muscle pain and inflammation. So if you’re looking for an all-natural way to ease your muscle soreness, keep reading to find out more about CBD muscle balms! 

What is CBD Balm? 

For those that don’t know or haven’t heard of it before, CBD balm is a topical ointment used on the skin to treat muscle soreness, tight joints and inflammation. It’s usually mixed with other topical compounds known to help relieve muscle pain such as peppermint, tea tree oil and eucalyptus. The important thing to note about CBD is that it is extracted from the hemp plant, meaning that the best extraction methods contain a fragmented amount of THC (no more than .03%). At such low levels, THC remains inactive and acts as an aid for the CBD to absorb through your skin more effectively. Extractions that pull small amounts of THC and hemp compounds are called full spectrum extracts, and these are the ones you want to look for when selecting a CBD product. 

Does It Work? 

CBD products do work! It all depends on the type of product you choose, what you’re looking for it to do and the formula of the brand you’re using. Users report CBD balms to feel soothing and relaxing, the exact effects expected when using this kind of product. Make sure you search for full or broad spectrum CBD products, as these are directly extracted from the hemp plant itself and contain terpenes and other compounds found in the hemp plant. These extraction methods can have an effect on the user’s experience, so make sure you research the ingredients in your products (especially when shopping online). 

How Does it Work? 

CBD balms are different from products like inhalants, edibles and supplements. They are designed to target specific, local areas of the body and are meant to be topically applied. This means that you won’t feel any effects of the CBD other than the local area you applied it to. This also means that you will feel a faster acting sense of relief, about five to ten minutes as opposed to the 30-60 minutes it will take to feel the effects of a tincture, edible or consumable product. These can be great for anxiety, depression and stress but for muscle aches, topical solutions are much more effective in the short term to relieve symptoms of pain or muscle strain.

Is it Safe and Legal? 

Yes! CBD is 100% safe and legal. CBD is great especially for individuals who live outside of a state where marijuana sales are legal. For people living in those states, CBD products are available at any local dispensary. Luckily for those who don’t live in states who have legalized it can find CBD products online or in certain health and supplement stores. Because CBD doesn’t contain active amounts of THC, it doesn’t get the user high and therefore is legal to sell and distribute on a national level. This makes CBD balms a fantastic solution for anyone experiencing chronic joint pain, muscle pain or for athletes that need treatment options for their activity related injuries.

CBD balms are an effective, soothing solution for anyone experiencing chronic localized pain. The benefits of using these products include more than just the relief they provide to your body; they also come with a number of psychological and emotional perks like increased focus or improved sleep quality. They’re totally legal, no matter where you live—so if you want something that’s safe and quick-acting without any intoxicating effects, this is it!  These days there are so many different formulations of CBD balms available on the market that finding one that suits your needs should be easy as pie – but how do you know which ones work best? Take the time to research your ingredients and make sure you select a broad or full spectrum CBD product – these contain small, inactive amounts of THC ensuring that the product will bind with your body’s endocannabinoid system.

Go to top

Carbon Pricing: The Best Policy that Nobody Wants

By Philip Rossetti

Although carbon pricing is lauded by economists as an efficient climate policy, impediments to its adoption at the federal level in the United States are fundamentally political in nature. The more likely driver of carbon pricing implementation in the United States is as a remedy to fiscal concerns, rather than as a result of successful environmental policy advocacy.

Introduction

With Democrats’ victory in the Senate early 2021, there was resurgent hope among many carbon price (aka carbon tax) proponents, hoping that the policy would be an easy pass through budget reconciliation provisions and finally overcome Republican opposition to the policy. Surely, it was hoped, there would not be a repeat of Democrats’ failure to pass the Waxman-Markey climate bill, especially as carbon pricing has had surging popularity among business interests and even oil companies. Alas, again there has been no legislative momentum on carbon pricing.

This has been disheartening for carbon pricing proponents, especially economists who point out that the policy could abate billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide at a minimal cost. Carbon pricing has already been tried in many economies around the world and has not been met with the economic catastrophe that some carbon pricing opponents ascribe to the policy. But the failure of carbon pricing to garner political attention yet again should not be a surprise, and indeed it comes with many caveats. Carbon pricing is an important policy opportunity for climate change, but it is not easy to align the merits of good policy with political needs.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Carbon Pricing

A common refrain from economists is that a price on carbon is among the most efficient ways of abating greenhouse gas emissions—but why is this? The answer requires some humility, especially among policymakers and climate conscious individuals. A carbon price works based on the fundamental economic principal that prices matter, and individuals respond to change in prices. We see this at work all the time. Cost plays a huge factor in people’s purchasing decisions from everything to a house, to a car, to a can of vegetables. Economists know a carbon price can reduce emissions because people respond to prices, and thus a higher cost associated with pollution is going to reduce the demand for the polluting product.

A carbon price as a policy is also particularly efficient because of consumer choice and the free market. If you had only one car manufacturer and then you impose a carbon price, the cost of cars may go up, but it wouldn’t result in much pollution reduction because consumers would have to either eat the cost of the carbon price or forgo the utility of owning a car. But, because we have competition among goods and services, the carbon price delivers an incentive for producers to cut pollution inputs in their products to lower their costs relative to their competition. This means the carbon price stimulates, rather than inhibits, innovation and cost reduction in the economy–making it less harmful to growth than government mandates.

A carbon price as a policy is also particularly efficient because of consumer choice and the free market.

A carbon price is also an effective climate policy because it allows for consumers to pay the carbon price in scenarios where avoiding the carbon emission is cost prohibitive. For example, low-carbon aviation fuels have an estimated emission abatement cost of $260 to $4,800 per ton of carbon dioxide avoided, but the estimated benefit per ton of avoided emission is about $51 per ton, so in such instances polluters can pay the tax rather than having to forgo the utility of air travel.

And last but not least, a carbon price has some potential for economic benefits that can mitigate the economic harm caused by what is essentially a tax on economic inputs. A carbon price is sometimes called a “Pigouvian Tax” because by including the externalized cost of pollution in the price of a product, it creates a natural incentive for a more efficient ordering of capital in the market. The revenues from a carbon price, which would be about $1 trillion over ten years, could also be used to cut taxes that have a greater economic harm than a carbon tax would, resulting in a net improvement to economic growth. The Tax Foundation estimates that an efficiently implemented “revenue neutral” carbon tax would improve economic growth in the United States by 0.8 percent (for comparison, long term projected growth is 1.6 percent).

With all that said, it seems like carbon pricing should be a no brainer policy but is not. One of the biggest problems with carbon pricing is that the efficient implementation outlined above is essentially never seriously considered. A poll on the preferred use of carbon price revenues found that the majority would want to see the revenues used for additional subsidies, and the least liked option for revenue use was corporate tax cuts—what economists would expect to be the most efficient implementation of a carbon price. Using revenues from a carbon price for subsidies undermines the virtue of a carbon price because it negates the competitive elements of the policy, resulting in higher costs, and the subsidies rather than the price being the driver of behavior change (and thus a less efficient allocation of capital).

When carbon pricing was effectively proposed as cap-and-trade in the Waxman-Markey legislation, only about 300 pages of the 1400-page bill were related to cap-and-trade, the rest of the bill being regulatory expansion. Similar to how using revenues for subsidies directly contradicts the advantages of a carbon price, regulations also target the same abatement opportunities as a carbon price and thus make less efficient regulatory policy the driver of behavior, rather than price signals, and exacerbates costs by having duplicative policies. The result of a regulatory centric approach to climate policy is that some consumers will incur more cost to change behavior than the environmental benefit gained, diminishing the overall efficiency of the policy. Furthermore, Waxman-Markey planned to give away emission permits rather than auctioning them, meaning it would have been a de facto subsidy to polluters and, as one of President Obama’s economists put it, giving away the permits would be “the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.”

In short, a carbon price, if efficiently implemented, is an excellent policy for abating emissions. Unfortunately, such efficient implementation is not the default for carbon price proposals, and a cautious eye is needed when evaluating carbon pricing schemes.

What Makes a Price on Carbon Likely or Unlikely to be Implemented

The popularity of policy, though, is more based on perceptions than it is on reality. Many point to the successful implementation of carbon pricing in Europe as an example of success, but unfortunately the concerns of a typical European are often not the same as that of an American. The United States is characterized by a relatively rural population, energy intensive lifestyles often by necessity, and an abundance of fossil fuel resources that lower energy prices. Europeans, by contrast, typically live in areas of higher population density, and scarcity of fossil fuel resources creates an economic and energy security paradigm that favors alternative energy sources. A carbon price is not the natural policy preference for Americans.

fossil fuel

Advocates of carbon pricing have leaned on the notion that it is fundamentally an informational deficiency problem. In other words, if people know how effective a carbon price is, then surely they will support it, so the answer is to get as many people to know how good carbon pricing is to naturally lead to policy adoption. This approach, though, fundamentally misunderstands the opposition to carbon pricing.

Political constituencies are not so much influenced by arguments of economic efficiency, but rather by the visibility of policy impact. Perceptions matter more than reality. As an example, there is widespread support for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and fierce opposition to any amendment of its requirements, but research consistently shows that it is clean energy technology—not fossil fuels—that are impeded by NEPA. However, perceptions that NEPA is a key component of environmental protection make it difficult to reform.

When it comes to carbon pricing, Americans have a high visibility of how changes in energy prices affect their daily lives. Gasoline prices are seen daily, electricity bills come monthly, and homeowners in cold climates that use oil to heat their homes are acutely aware of just how important energy prices are to their comfort. Additionally, American politics are characterized by sympathy and concern for low-income households, and as energy expenditures make up a greater share of these household’s costs, there is a difficult-to-refute argument that a carbon price is punitive to poor Americans.

The costs of a carbon price are known, but the benefits—which are manifested globally and are future rather than current benefits—are less visible. Consequently, it is hard to sell Americans on the virtue of a carbon price, or that the costs are worthwhile or can be negated somehow.

The Political Outlook of Carbon Pricing in the United States

When it comes to the political viability of a carbon price in the United States, it is important to understand that most of the opposition comes from Republicans, but Democrats have now had two opportunities to implement a carbon price with single party control and failed to do so both times. Even though Republicans are usually blamed for carbon pricing failure, Democrats have not been consistent supporters of it either. It is clearly politically unpopular, and both parties tend to prioritize other climate policies in lieu of carbon pricing (Democrats favoring regulation and subsidies, and Republicans favoring innovation and energy exports). As an approach to climate policy, the outlook of whether a carbon price will be implemented at the federal level is bleak.

The costs of a carbon price are known, but the benefits—which are manifested globally and are future rather than current benefits—are less visible.

What should not be ignored, though, is the rather poor fiscal condition of the United States. The March 2021 Long-Term Budget Outlook, which does not even account for recent spending packages that have been signed into law, estimated that the 2021 deficit would be 10.3 percent of GDP (second only to WWII spending), and a debt of 102 percent of GDP. The fiscal outlook is worsening, not improving, with both deficits and debt expected to grow in the long term.

The more likely scenario for the adoption of a carbon price is not as a climate policy, but as a fiscal policy. Compared to other opportunities to raise roughly $1 trillion of tax revenue, such as corporate taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, etc., a price on carbon is likely to be among the least offensive. The bad news for carbon price advocates, though, is that both Republicans and Democrats have shown consistent disregard for fiscal constraint, and especially so during the pandemic. Exactly when the stars may align where politicians are finally forced to pay for their policies is unknown and will depend on the various economic circumstances that underpin growth and the near-term Congressional priorities.

Conclusion

In the end, despite carbon pricing’s merits as an economically efficient method of abating emissions, politics dictate that policy decisions are primarily based upon constituent demands rather than economic wisdom. Carbon pricing is inherently unpopular due to the high visibility of its cost impacts, while its potential benefits are harder to communicate and less understood, as are its comparative advantages to other climate policies. Given that yet again the opportunity to implement a federal carbon price as part of major legislative efforts has been passed over, proponents of carbon pricing would do well to recognize that it is much more likely to be adopted as a matter of fiscal prudence rather than environmental policy.

Go to top

About the Author

Philip Rossetti

Philip Rossetti is a Senior Fellow for Energy and Environment at the free-market oriented think tank The R Street Institute. Prior to joining RSI, he supported the minority staff of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, and before that was the Director of Energy Policy for the economically focused American Action Forum.

References

  1. Josh Siegel, “Chamber of Commerce says it is open to carbon pricing, in change of climate stance,” The Washington Examiner, January 19, 2021. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/us-chamber-carbon-pricing-climate-change; “API Outlines Path for Low-Carbon Future in New Climate Action Framework,” American Petroleum Institute, March 25, 2021. https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/news/2021/03/24/climate-action-framework
  2. Marc Hafstead, “Carbon Pricing Calculator,” Resources for the Future, August 10, 2020. https://www.rff.org/publications/data-tools/carbon-pricing-calculator/
  3. Carbon Pricing Dashboard, The World Bank. https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/map_data
  4. “Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends,” Climate Leadership Council. https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
  5. Philip Rossetti, “To Achieve Climate Goals, Embrace (Carbon) Markets,” The R Street Institute, April 27, 2021. https://www.rstreet.org/2021/04/27/to-achieve-climate-goals-embrace-carbon-markets/; Geoffrey Giller, “The Social Cost of Carbon Is Still the Best Way to Evaluate Climate Policy,” Yale School of the Environment, August 23, 2021. https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/social-cost-of-carbon-still-best-way-to-evaluate-climate-policy
  6. “Pigouvian Tax,” Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/tax-basics/pigouvian-tax/
  7. Impose a Tax on Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, Congressional Budget Office, December 9, 2020. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/56873
  8. Kyle Pomerleau and Elke Asen, “Carbon Tax and Revenue Recycling: Revenue, Economic, and Distributional Implications,” Tax Foundation, November 6, 2019. https://taxfoundation.org/carbon-tax/; An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2021 to 2031, Congressional Budget Office, July 2021. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57339
  9. “Americans willing to pay a carbon tax,” Climate Change Communication, October 12, 2017. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-willing-pay-carbon-tax/
  10. H.R. 2454, 111th Congress. https://www.congress.gov/111/bills/hr2454/BILLS-111hr2454pcs.pdf
  11. David Wessel, “Pollution Politics and the Climate-Bill Giveaway,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2009. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124304449649349403
  12. Philip Rossetti, “The Environmental Case for Improving NEPA,” The R Street Institute, July 7, 2021. https://www.rstreet.org/2021/07/07/the-environmental-case-for-improving-nepa/
  13. The 2021 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, March 4, 2021. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56977

Banning Binance and the Challenges of Regulating Crypto

By Nick Barnard

In June, various newspaper headlines (including the Financial Times) declared that the Financial Conduct Authority had banned the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange from the UK. This may come as a surprise to many UK investors who have been buying and selling cryptocurrency via Binance ever since.

This article examines the facts behind the sensational headlines, which are emblematic of the tussle between investors, financial institutions, cryptoasset service providers, and regulators that has existed ever since cryptocurrencies came to mainstream attention. At the heart of this tussle are questions about the cross-border regulation of cryptoasset companies, and the financial crime implications for investors and institutions who do business with Binance, and other cryptocurrency exchanges.

What is Binance?

Or perhaps more pertinently – where is Binance?

Binance is a somewhat transient cryptocurrency exchange, which in its short life since 2017 has been ‘based’ firstly in China, then Japan, then ostensibly in Malta and is now registered in the Cayman Islands. Such a peripatetic existence seems to matter little to those in charge. When questioned as to where his company was headquartered, its founder Changpeng Zhao declared ‘Wherever I sit, is going to be the Binance office. Wherever I need somebody, is going to be the Binance office.’

Such a response is entirely in keeping with the blockchain philosophy, where cryptoassets are feted as Utopian anarchy, owned and controlled by their communities and beyond the oppressive reach of Governments and regulators. For businesses providing cryptoasset and blockchain services, the appeal goes beyond ideology and into practicality, as crypto’s intangible nature liberates them from the conventional restraints of nationality, geography and even physical infrastructure.

Unfortunately for Mr Zhao, those with an interest in keeping cryptocurrency under control have yet to see the appeal. Given the known risks of money-laundering and consumer harm posed by cryptocurrency, regulators are unlikely to conclude that it is beyond their physical or conceptual remit simply because those involved have no interest in playing by the usual rules, and indeed often set out to avoid doing so. By declaring that Binance is nowhere, Mr Zhao has by omission acknowledged that it could be anywhere, thus giving every regulator a reason to worry and offering little by way of reassurance. As a cryptocurrency exchange, Binance also shoulders the burden of being an identifiable hub in an otherwise decentralised network, and so the inevitable target of regulatory attention. Whilst those dealing in cryptocurrency may enjoy some degree of anonymity, Binance has nowhere to hide. 

As a cryptocurrency exchange, Binance also shoulders the burden of being an identifiable hub in an otherwise decentralised network, and so the inevitable target of regulatory attention.

So if Binance has not been ‘banned’ in the UK, what has the FCA done to generate such exciting headlines? Here Mr Zhao’s rhetoric begins to unravel, at least in part. Whilst the core Binance cryptocurrency exchange may claim to be stateless, there are registered Binance entities across the world, some offering products and services such as derivatives in addition to currency trading. In the US, where the core Binance service is prohibited, there is an alternative regulated crypto-exchange on offer. A cynic might comment that, in fact, Mr Zhao will be happy to register a Binance office wherever is required in order to keep business moving. 

In the UK, Binance established its subsidiary Binance Markets in 2020 following the acquisition of an existing FCA-approved firm (EddieUK). Binance claims that Binance Markets had been intended to offer regulated cryptocurrency products (for example, derivatives and cryptocurrency-linked securities) to UK investors, but has never actually operated in the UK. Despite this, the FCA was eager to clamp down, issuing a Consumer Warning on 26 June 2021 that no part of the Binance Group is authorised to carry on regulated activities in the UK, whilst also noting that buying and selling cryptocurrency itself is not regulated. As such, consumers using the Binance exchange enjoy none of the protections attached to regulated products and services. At the same time, Binance published a notice at the request of the FCA agreeing that it was not authorised, but also reminding customers that its exchange services were unaffected and remained open for business.

The story developed on 26 August 2021 when a related Supervisory Notice was made public. This revealed that Binance Markets had fallen foul of the FCA’s ‘use it or lose it’ strategy, recently adopted to prevent firms from continuing to be authorised under Part 4A Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 where in fact no regulated activities are being performed. The FCA fears that such authorisation may give false credibility to unregulated activities; Part 4A permission can be withdrawn in the absence of misconduct if a firm has not performed any regulated activities in the previous 12 months. This was the case for Binance Markets, which not carried out any regulated activities in the UK since its acquisition of EddieUK. The Supervisory Notice reported that responses to FCA enquiries concerning the structure and activities of the firm and wider Binance Group had been incomplete and in some cases Binance Markets had refused to provide information at all. As a result, the FCA concluded that the firm was ‘not capable of being effectively supervised’, and so withdrew its permission to carry on regulated activities and directed it to display the consumer warning described above.

Binance

So in practice, the FCA’s Supervisory Notice means little in the short term. A business which never traded has been banned from trading, whilst Binance’s main business continues unhindered. However, the FCA’s stance represents a stumbling block for any of Mr Zhao’s expansion plans, whilst the subsequent reporting reflects the lack of understanding and general suspicion attached to Binance and cryptoassets generally.

Whilst its core exchange service might battle on in the majority of jurisdictions, the frosty reception given to Binance and its subsidiaries by regulators globally may ironically scupper their efforts to remain independent. In particular, in the absence of its own entity approved under the UK Money Laundering Regulations, Binance remains reliant upon regulated institutions to act as the intermediary between the mainstream fiat economy and the brave new world of crypto.   

In some cases, this bridge is already ablaze, with many UK banks implementing payment restrictions in the wake of the Supervisory Notice, whilst Barclays, HSBC and Santander have prohibited customers from transferring funds to Binance altogether. In a similar vein, from September 2021, Google will only permit advertising of financial products and services that are FCA-approved, thus debarring Binance (and the majority of other crypto-service providers) from promoting to UK customers, irrespective of whether the services concerned are regulated. 

Where banks and other regulated institutions remain willing to act as gatekeepers between the UK and Binance (wherever it may be), investors should tread carefully. Until it resolves its difficulties with the FCA, the risk profile of Binance is unlikely to improve. At the milder end, traders may find their business is no longer welcome as institutions de-risk away from crypto. At best, accounts will be closed, incurring the administrative inconvenience of establishing a new banking relationship elsewhere, of which options are increasingly limited for crypto-related transactions. Things may get worse if the institution, spooked by the FCA’s Supervisory Notice, chooses to play it safe and make a Suspicious Activity Report to the National Crime Agency before releasing the balance of funds. Again, at best this will result in a delay whilst the NCA considers whether to consent to the transfer.  If the NCA decides to investigate further and requests an extension to the moratorium period, there may be a delay of a month or more. In the worst-case scenario, the funds could become subject to an Account Freezing Order, and thereafter be at risk of forfeiture.

Whilst this may seem an extreme or excessive outcome, it is in fact entirely realistic. Crypto was an AML red-flag long before the FCA’s recent action.

Whilst this may seem an extreme or excessive outcome, it is in fact entirely realistic. Crypto was an AML red-flag long before the FCA’s recent action. As demonstrated by those institutions which have already blacklisted Binance, and the borderline inaccurate reporting on the effect of the Supervisory Notice, both the regulated sector and the media are suspicious, confused or both. It is difficult to explain the novel and fast-moving processes involved to compliance officers and investigators who are only just catching up with crypto. This is made harder by the offshore nature of the trading and related data, and the absence of any ‘real world’ commercial activity to back up the transactions. As such, it may be a challenge to dispel the low threshold of suspicion required to prolong a money-laundering investigation, whether that be in the form of a Suspicious Activity Report moratorium extension or an Account Freezing Order. The consequence is that those using Binance for entirely lawful (if perhaps unusual and often misunderstood) purposes may find that the immediate problem is not the availability or legality of its services, but negotiating the fiat gatekeepers. Whilst Binance and cryptocurrency generally have thrived on their perceived freedom from conventional regulation, such virtues will become curses if traders simply encounter a different set of risks and barriers through AML regimes and processes.

Plainly there is a huge market for cryptocurrency trading, which Binance has succeeded in dominating. However, the increasing regulatory pressure from all sides indicates that the room and time available to grow is limited, at least in its current form. As demonstrated by its attempts to secure FCA authorisation, which in December 2021 Mr Zhao confirmed remains his ambition, Binance finally appears to be embracing rather than shunning regulation, at least in part. Such approval may prove vital for Binance to continue expanding, by providing it with the kind of credibility needed to appeal to mainstream investors, who are unlikely to take an interest if they fear becoming embroiled in a money-laundering investigation, alongside the risks of fraud and market volatility for which crypto is already notorious, as well as authorisation to promote its services to those audiences. The trick for Binance will be doing so in a way that preserves at least some of the freewheeling magic that has made cryptocurrency a success so far. 

Go to top

About the Author

Nick Barnard

Nick Barnard is a Senior Associate at Corker Binning, specialising in advising and representing individual and corporate clients in a range of criminal and regulatory matters. In recent years, Nick has acted in some of the most high-profile and complex investigations into fraud, bribery, tax offences, money laundering and asset forfeiture in the UK and abroad. Nick also has expertise in general crime matters, having provided advice from the police station to the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts on offences including murder, rape and grievous bodily harm to VAT fraud, drink-driving, possession of indecent images and misconduct in public office.

What Will Happen if You Won’t Pay Yearly Offshore Company Fees?

Owners of offshore corporations are well aware that yearly fees are required to continue their activities in the jurisdiction. In case you forget to pay yearly fees, the firm will be deregistered, causing many headaches and business disruptions. Payment of a minor fee to the government and a registered representative of the nation in exchange for considerably lower taxes is well worth it. An offshore company serves as a connection between the authorities of the nation, the bank, and the offshore’s owner. Making the activities a lot easier. The costs of renewal can be different for each unique situation. In the end, it is based on the amount of work needed and the general fees in the jurisdiction. Usually, you know the fee amount in advance.

Depending on the nation’s regulations in where the offshore business is established, the state charge or registration tax can have different rules and consequences. Adding to the bill, there are many extra fees that an organization incurs each year on certain conditions in order to improve the efficiency of doing business in a particular nation or jurisdiction, like legal pieces of advice and judicial brawls. Payments for nominees, directors, and shareholders, a legal address, as well as many more. Do not feat, reminders about the payment of fees or charges are sent to the business roughly one to two months prior to the end of the statutory time limit for making the payment.

The consequences of not renewing an offshore company or bank account are significant. Foreign corporations must strictly follow the payment dates. Fines are automatically collected and are added to the bill in the majority of nations. Non-payment of penalties may result in the loss of the firm’s solvency certificate as well as withdrawal from banking activities and even might result in litigation against beneficiaries or severe financial losses for the company. While the severity of sanctions varies from nation to country, deregistration is the biggest problem. If the fine is not paid within the stated time period, the company will be irreversibly deleted from registries. The same registration authority that helped you set up the company is responsible for ensuring that fees are paid on time and for resolving any disputes that may arise. It is usually better to continue using the services of the same firm. They usually supervise paperwork’s timeliness, produce renewal documents, and stay up to date on the most recent changes in national and international laws about offshore firms.

Annual company audits are not obligatory, but it is important to have perfect Offshore Bank Account compliance, as it is the most important aspect and the main reason for having an offshore company. In most cases, it is not needed however, it may be required in other nations.

A business can lose its good name and finally be removed from the company register in the nation where it was founded if it fails to comply with local rules or fails to make the appropriate payments. Keep in mind that this is a costly and time-consuming problem to have, so don’t go overboard with it and pay all fees on time.

Go to top

AmourFactory Review: All About Its Features, And Costs

When looking for a place to meet beautiful ladies from overseas, AmourFactory might be one of your stops.

What is AmourFactory? It’s a dating website where men and women search for various types of relationships: from casual online chatting to something more romantic. The site’s creators took care of users′ needs and provided them with a bunch of communication tools and other extra services.

How good are those features, and are they even enough? What’s the price of dating on Amourfactory.com? Get answers to these and other questions in this detailed Amour Factory review.

? Pros

? Pros
Validated members AmourFactory doesn’t have an app
Effective interaction tools Free members are limited in using the whole range of site’s tools.
NewsFeed with all the latest members′ actions on the site
People section to explore the users′ base
Flowers and presents delivery
Ability to set up a real date

 

►Claim Special Bonus: 20 Free Credits At AmourFactory

 ✅AmourFactory In 10 Seconds

  • AmourFactory offers a vast selection of single girls from Eastern Europe.
  • With the Let’s Talk feature, you’ll never hesitate to take the first step.
  • You can explore all the female members in the People section.
  • NewsFeed allows you to monitor all the posts users share.
  • Sending photos in chat will make your communication more colorful.
  • Amourfactory.com has a rich library of presents you can send to a lady.
  • There’s an option to request contacts or set up a real date.

►Sign Up At AmourFactory NOW And Get 20 Free Credits

Registration at AmourFactory.com

Sign-up is mandatory at Amour Factory. Without a profile, you won’t be able to surf the site, browse ladies personal pages, communicate, etc.

AmourFactory Sign-Up

To register, indicate your name, gender, birthdate, valid email and create a strong password. Tick the box that you understand and agree with the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The next step is to answer a few questions of the quiz that are aimed to fill in your profile with needed details. Some of the questions are:

  • “Do you have experience in online dating?”
  • “What is your goal on the Amour Factory dating site?”
  • “Describe yourself in 3 words.”
  • “What are your hobbies?”
  • What is your go-to guilty pleasure?” (from singing out loud in the car to falling asleep watching TV)

After this, you’re to do another questionnaire about your preferences in girls. Indicate the preferred age range, her type of personality (introvert or extravert), and what matters to you more in the long run (beauty or brains).

Finish the sign-up by adding your profile picture. It’s recommended not to leave your personal page without a photo if you want to get more attention from ladies. Though, you can skip this stage and upload a picture later.

The last stage is to verify your newly made account by clicking the verification link you get on the email.

►Sign Up At AmourFactory NOW And Get 20 Free Credits

AmourFactory Search
AmourFactory Special Features

There’s a pool of main tools that aim to help you communicate with women on Amourfactory.com and a variety of extra services that add emotions to that interaction. Let’s review them in detail.

Chat

This is the most popular way of interaction all international dating sites provide. On AmourFactory, you can chat with all the ladies in real time. Spice up your conversation with colorful stickers or send your photos. A woman can send you a photo or a video in turn.

Mails

This is the option for those who prefer letters and enjoy expressing their thoughts and emotions in longreads. One letter should be no more than 3500 characters (with spaces) long. You can attach your photos or any other picture to it and receive the same from a lady you correspond with.

Chat-At-AmourFactory

Let’s Talk

Amour Factory team understands that you don’t always know how to start a conversation so that you impress a girl and catch her attention. That’s why the Let’s Talk feature was created. These initially are icebreakers you use when initiating the chat with a woman. Profit from those offered by the site, or create your own templates and use them later with other ladies.

Letstalkfeature AMF

People

This is the section where you explore all the beautiful females on Amourfactory.com. You’re given profile photos you’re to “like” if you enjoy what you see and don’t mind knowing that woman closer, or “skip” if you don’t like a girl. If you press “like,” a lady will get a notification about that and can initiate contact first if she likes you as well.

Winks and Likes

The easiest and fastest way to show your interest in a particular woman. Both Winks and Likes are free of charge, and they are the best for the flirting stage or when you don’t want to write first.

People Feature AMF

►Sign Up At AmourFactory NOW And Get 20 Free Credits

Presents and flowers delivery

If your communication with a lady comes to a point when simple chats and letters aren’t enough to keep the fire of feelings burning, benefit from the presents’ delivery offered by the platform. There’s a catalog of gifts and flowers where you choose anything you like: from roses to expensive jewelry and gadgets.

Requesting contacts

Eventually, your communication might need a new twist, and that’s when requesting direct contacts could be appropriate. This is your chance to keep in touch with a lady via any other way except for AmourFactory. But it’s still a woman who decides whether to disclose it to you.

Setting up a date

This is a whole new level of your interaction with a beautiful single lady. You can ask a platform to assist you in arranging a real-life date in the girl’s country.

NewsFeed

This is the best way to explore all the female members as well as monitor what’s happening on the site. Here, you get to know what posts users share, read their thoughts, and enjoy real-life photos.

AMF NEWSFEED

How Much Does AmourFactory Cost?

Basic services on Amourfactory.com are available for all users at no cost. It includes creating an account, surfing the platform inside out, viewing female profiles, sending Winks and Likes, sending photos in emails, etc. But for more, you’ll need to buy credits that are sold in packs.

All AmourFactory reviews claim the prices for credits are quite affordable and average for the majority of Russian dating sites:

  • $2.99 for 20 credits (only the first payment, then it’ll cost $9.99)
  • $19.99 for 50 credits
  • $44.99 for 125 credits
  • $69.99 for 250 credits
  • $149.99 for 750 credits

There’s a fixed price for every feature on Amour Factory dating site. For example, one minute of a live chat will cost you 2 credits, sending the first mail to a particular woman is 10 credits, each following—30 credits. The gifts′ cost is stated in the presents’ catalog, but their delivery is 100 credits. All the prices are mentioned on the website, so you know how much you pay for each tool.

►Claim Special Bonus: 20 Free Credits At AmourFactory

Final thoughts about Amour Factory

From this AmourFactory review, it’s obvious the platform is good for a foreign girlfriend search, friendship, and simple online communication. The site provides all the means for that and for a fair price.

Pay Amourfactory.com a visit to make sure it’s able to satisfy your needs and expectations.

FAQ

Is AmourFactory real?

Yes, Amour Factory is a real website you can use for online dating, friendship, and chatting. Moreover, the majority of girls have the “Validated” badge on their personal pages that talk about them providing copies of their IDs when registering.

Is AmourFactory legit?

Using Amour Factory for the reasons mentioned above (dating, friendship, chatting) is absolutely legal.

Is Amour Factory free?

As a free member of Amourfactory.com you can create an account and fill it in with all the needed info, use the Search, surf the website inside out, browse ladies′ profiles, send Winks and Likes, open the first letter from women. All the other services will cost you a certain amount of credits.

What payment methods does AmourFactory accept?

Use your credit or debit card, from VISA or MasterCard, to buy credits on Amourfactory.com. For even faster translations, they suggest Google Pay.

Does AmourFactory have an app?

There’s no application of the website, either for iOS or Android. But you can still enjoy all the site’s features on the go with the help of its mobile version that operates smoothly on all kinds of devices.

How to delete my Amour Factory account and cancel a subscription?

You can either make a pause in using AmourFactory or delete your profile forever.

For the first option, head to the Profile Settings, click the “Deactivate Profile” button, confirm the action with entering your email. After this, your profile will be hidden from other users and won’t get any notifications.

To delete your profile permanently, contact the support team.

Go to top

How To Keep Your Grocery Budget Under $300 Per Month

While it may seem like an unreasonable task to keep your grocery budget under $300 a month, it’s easier than you may think. Everybody’s lifestyle and habits are different, but these are some tips that can help you save money on your monthly groceries. 

It can also help you become more mindful of what items you may not be using or consuming on a regular basis, and encourage you to reassess your go-to grocery list. These are some things you can do to create better habits and stick to a $300 monthly grocery list. 

Meal Prep

One of the first things you can try to do if you find yourself reaching for snacks or struggling to assemble a meal during the week is to prepare ahead. There are different ways to meal prep, and you can start by allocating a slot of time to make healthier snacks for the week, and even dice vegetables so that dinners are more simple to assemble. 

Depending on what type of lifestyle you lead, it can be cost-effective to meal prep because it makes it much easier to resist the temptation to choose the convenient option. Fast food delivery or collection will eat into your grocery budget, so it’s worth avoiding it as much as possible. 

Meal prepping can also help you save money on snacks because you will have some ready in the refrigerator or kitchen cabinet. By focusing your efforts on creating healthier snacks and meals, you will save money on junk food items over time. 

Another option that can be cost-effective for couples or people who live alone is a meal prep service. However, these easily become less value for money if you find yourself buying supplies, snacks, and alternatives on top of this. 

Buy What You Need

Do not underestimate the power that preparation and planning can have on your budget. Try to create a meal plan for the week or month, and buy the appropriate ingredients. This can allow you to get a little creative with recipes, and even try new things. 

Try to assess your last grocery list, and think about what you could have gone without. Cutting out things that are not as necessary is a great way to get on top of your spending habits. 

Coupons

Most stores have their own loyalty program, and it can be helpful to sign up to them. This is because you can save money by cashing in points earned through shopping there. Make sure that you make the most of store cards, and ensure you are getting your rewards. 

Another thing you can do is find coupons to reduce the total bill. Make the most out of deals like two for one, and things on clearance, as well. You can find manufacturer, store, and particular brand coupons online, in store, or even in local newspapers. 

Consider Buying In Bulk

Certain products such as household cleaning products can be better value for money when they are purchased in bulk. You could consider heading to your local wholesale outlet or warehouse to get some essentials. 

While this isn’t the most cost-effective way to purchase groceries and some items, it can help reduce your overall grocery budget by preventing it from being spent on laundry detergent, toilet paper, and other essentials. 

You may also find that coupons encourage bulk purchases, and most grocery stores have deals for multiple items. It could, therefore, be more cost-effective to buy certain items in bulk. However, you should take a close look at the price per unit, and see if you are getting a better or worse deal than you would if you were purchasing the product with your regular groceries. 

Reusable Alternatives

You could also consider reusable items where possible. These can save you money in the long run, and help reduce your total household waste. Cleaning products are surprisingly easy to make using household supplies like lemon and vinegar. 

You could bake your own animal treats for your cats or dogs, or invest in reusable rags in place of paper towels. Being able to throw them in the washing machine and use again makes them much more cost-effective than regularly buying more paper towels. 

Personal care, makeup pads, and paper towels are some simpler swaps you can try out and see how they do the same job without adding to your $300 grocery budget. 

Summary

Everybody’s situation is different, which is why it’s worth trying out a few different options to see what works best for you. Figuring out how to save money on groceries can be challenging, but taking the time to think about what your household really needs, and planning ahead, can be some of the most useful starting points to a $300 grocery budget.

Go to top

1...742743744...1,131Page 743 of 1,131

EDITOR'S PICK OF THE WEEK

CFO's new mandate. CFO explaining the presentation

The Performance and Transformation Orchestrator: The CFO’s New Mandate in the Age of AI

Anglea 0
By Terence Tse CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value. A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
Read more

WISE DECISION MAKER GUIDE

POWER INFLUENCERS

Emerging Trends

BUSINESS AND INNOVATION

FINANCE & BANKING

The Future of Global Trade

© 2025 The World Financial Review | Empowering communication globally