If anything, the current government has restricted the use of this law to a handful of agencies. One bureaucrat I know of -- in the Postal Department -- had been abusing this for a few years.
In the contrary, being a business journal, BBL must remain accurate in reporting and analysis of business. Biased business reporting will directly impact reader trust, this revenues.
Yes, business news is my favourite because to make money you have to be right about things. The guests on Bloomberg TV are just incredible compared to any other media sources, top financiers, economists and etc.. who are comfortable with math, science, history and economics.
I've heard this argument before, though with respect to the WSJ.
I don't really believe it. There is still a bias because "reader trust" depends on what the readers want to read, yes?
That is, most of the readers of Bloomberg, and of the WSJ, are - to use Marxian terms - aligned with the interests of capital owners, and not workers.
Labor is an important part of business, yes?
Yet a look at the Bloomberg home page shows no mention of union or worker rights issues. The word "worker" exists in the headline link "Jaguar's New Evoque Rides to Rescue of UK Workers" but the actual article is titled "Jaguar Land Rover's New Evoque SUV Rides to Rescue of U.K. Plant Amid Brexit Pinch", with no mention of workers.
Why would Bloomberg cover more about the labor aspect of business if its readers don't want to know more about it, or are actively against it?
I don't consume print business news but watch video format. And they do seems to be politically biased.
Give an examples I see CNBC tilting towards current administration. If not blatant, in more subtle ways like omission and directing the discussions away from critique.
Some Fox Business programs are more or less seems extensions of Fox News.
Bloomberg spends more times critiquing the current administration. So who knows whats their agenda.
Also, when coming to trust, it is pretty difficult to pin it. And user memory seems to not last more than a day. It is not like users going to remember what business advice somebody provided a year ago.
All reporting is always biased. Every word you select is a direct product of bias, and the choice between multiple sentence phrasing changes emotional direction of the reader.
This is not the first time. Huawei was banned from supplying for India's National Broadband Network in 2012, and has again been banned from supplying for India's 5G revamp.
Not all employees would be in on the espionage attempts either. It'd have to be a very limited circle that knows about it.
That is bordering on fake news. Huawei was not part of the inital group of companies invited by DoT. I have no idea why Huawei was exculed earlier and then invited later.[1] Bu then again, that's Indian babudom for you.
> Not all employees would be in on the espionage attempts either. It'd have to be a very limited circle that knows about it.
My point was entirely about what would be in any company's rational self-interest and the findings of Western countries that evaluate Huawei equipment. Honestly, I wish the Indian governemnt would do something similar with all vendors.
I buy Huawei gear and dislike my government attempting to limit my free market choices. Cisco was (is) just as vulnerable, people just don't talk about it because they have so many lawyers. https://artkond.com/2017/04/10/cisco-catalyst-remote-code-ex...
Free market choices in this case have hidden costs. Huawei was selling hardware with user manuals from cisco because they were exact copies. When IP is stolen, countries lose incentive to invest in R&D. Note almost every major Bell-labs era research center has been shut down or dramatically weakend, the most recent being Dow/Dupont.
P(my business becoming a billion dollar business) (~0.0005%) * (1-P(me saying "no" to letting my business become a billion dollar business) (~0.0005%)) is still 0.00000499997. Nothing to worry about, Budman.
OR
Has Budman just written this article as psychological warfare against any soft targets who might be competing against his future billion dollar business? The plot thickens.
It's anything but "capitalism at work" if "capitalism" has anything to with "free markets". The Chinese Government has been graying out, if not altogether fudging, their economic indicators and propping up domestic investors. Now it has moved to outright rigging of the market through selective bans and directives (no short selling, no selling if you hold >5%, no trading at all on certain stocks, and so on).
This current rout is simply a continuation of the previous one in July when similar curbs were placed to halt the plunge.
Once again, even if their tactics work they'll only help bring about yet another plunge.
All in all, the western demand is dying out since most countries are trying to in-source materials and goods (instead of importing from China) and domestic asset bubble has nowhere to pop and the lies invested in that bubble have nowhere to hide.
