jollibee 5th avenue caloocan

jollibee 5th avenue caloocan By James Royal, Ph.D., Bankrate.com Cryptocurrencies are enormously volatile, but that volatility can create opportunities for profit if you’re looking to trade these digital assets. Cryptos such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have risen a lot since their debut — but they’ve also experienced tremendous boom-bust cycles along the way. Experienced traders have been speculating on cryptocurrencies for years, but how can you get started if you’re new to the crypto market? Here’s how to start investing in cryptocurrency and the significant risks you need to watch out for. 5 steps for investing in cryptocurrency First things first, if you’re looking to invest in crypto, you need to have all your finances in order. That means having an emergency fund in place, a manageable level of debt and ideally a diversified portfolio of investments . Your crypto investments can become one more part of your portfolio, one that helps raise your total returns, hopefully. Pay attention to these five other things as you’re starting to invest in cryptocurrencies. As you would for any investment, understand exactly what you’re investing in. If you’re buying stocks, it’s important to read the annual report and other SEC filings to analyze the companies thoroughly. Plan to do the same with any cryptocurrencies , since there are literally thousands of them, they all function differently and new ones are being created every day. You need to understand the investment case for each trade. Related Articles In the case of many cryptocurrencies , they’re backed by nothing at all, neither hard assets nor cash flow of an underlying entity. That’s the case for Bitcoin , for example, where investors rely exclusively on someone paying more for the asset than they paid for it. In other words, unlike stock, where a company can grow its profits and drive returns for you that way, many crypto assets must rely on the market becoming more optimistic and bullish for you to profit. Some of the most popular coins include Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana , Dogecoin and Tether (a stablecoin) . So before investing, understand the potential upside and downside. If your financial investment is not backed by an asset or cash flow, it could end up being worth nothing. A mistake that many new investors make is looking at the past and extrapolating that to the future. Yes, Bitcoin used to be worth pennies, but now is worth much more . The key question, however, is “Will that growth continue into the future, even if it’s not at quite that meteoric rate?” Investors look to the future, not to what an asset has done in the past. What will drive future returns? Traders buying a cryptocurrency today need tomorrow’s gains, not yesterday’s. The prices of cryptocurrencies are about as volatile as an asset can get. They could drop quickly in seconds on nothing more than a rumor that ends up proving baseless. That can be great for sophisticated investors who can execute trades rapidly or who have a solid grasp on the market’s fundamentals, how the market is trending and where it could go. For new investors without these skills — or the high-powered algorithms that direct these trades — it’s a minefield. Volatility is a game for high-powered Wall Street traders, each of whom is trying to outgun other deep-pocketed investors. A new investor can easily get crushed by the volatility. That’s because volatility shakes out traders, especially beginners, who get scared. Meanwhile, other traders may step in and buy on the cheap. In short, volatility can help sophisticated traders “buy low and sell high” while inexperienced investors “buy high and sell low.” If you’re trading any asset on a short-term basis, you need to manage your risk , and that can be especially true with volatile assets such as cryptocurrency. So as a newer trader, you’ll need to understand how best to manage risk and develop a process that helps you mitigate losses. And that process can vary from individual to individual: Newer traders should consider setting aside a certain amount of trading money and then using only a portion of it, at least at first. If a position moves against them, they’ll still have money in reserve to trade with later. The ultimate point is that you can’t trade if you don’t have any money. So keeping some cash in reserve means you’ll always have a bankroll to fund your trading. It’s important to manage risk, but that will come at an emotional cost. Selling a losing position hurts, but doing so can help you avoid worse losses later. Finally, it’s important to avoid putting money that you need into speculative assets. If you can’t afford to lose it — all of it — you can’t afford to put it into risky assets such as cryptocurrency, or other speculative assets, for that matter. Whether it’s a down payment for a house or an important upcoming purchase, money that you need in the next few years should be kept in safe accounts so that it’s there when you need it. And if you’re looking for an absolutely sure return, your best option is to pay off high-interest debt. You’re guaranteed to earn (or save) whatever interest rate you’re paying on the debt. You can’t lose there. Finally, don’t overlook the security of any exchange or broker you’re using. You may own the assets legally, but someone still has to secure them, and their security needs to be tight. If they don’t think their cryptocurrency is properly secured, some traders choose to invest in a crypto wallet to hold their coins offline so they’re inaccessible to hackers or others. Remember that investing in cryptocurrency can be part of a broader investment strategy, but shouldn’t be your only one. Other ways to invest in cryptocurrency While investing directly in cryptocurrency is popular, traders have other ways to get into the crypto game, some more directly than others. These include: Each of these methods varies in its riskiness and exposure to cryptocurrency, so you’ll want to understand exactly what you’re buying and whether it fits your needs. Cryptocurrency investing FAQs In theory it takes only a few dollars to invest in cryptocurrency. Most crypto exchanges, for example, have a minimum trade that might be $5 or $10. Other crypto trading apps might have a minimum that’s even lower. However, it’s important to understand that some trading platforms will take a huge chunk of your investment as a fee if you’re trading small amounts of cryptocurrency. So it’s important to look for a broker or exchange that minimizes your fees. In fact, many so-called “free” brokers embed fees — called spread mark-ups — in the price you pay for your cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is based on blockchain technology . Blockchain is a kind of database that records and timestamps every entry into it. The best way to think of a blockchain is like a running receipt of transactions. When a blockchain database powers cryptocurrency, it records and verifies transactions in the currency, verifying the currency’s movements and who owns it. Many crypto blockchain databases are run with decentralized computer networks. That is, many redundant computers operate the database, checking and rechecking the transactions to ensure that they’re accurate. If there’s a discrepancy, the networked computers have to resolve it. Some cryptocurrencies reward those who verify the transactions on the blockchain database in a process called mining. For example, miners involved with Bitcoin solve very complex mathematical problems as part of the verification process. If they’re successful, miners receive a predetermined award of Bitcoins. To mine Bitcoins , miners need powerful processing units that consume huge amounts of energy. Many miners operate gigantic rooms full of such mining rigs in order to extract these rewards. As of October 2024, running the Bitcoin system burned as much energy per year as the country of Poland. If you’re looking to invest in Bitcoin, you have a variety of ways to do so, and you can work with a number of companies, including: If you’re looking to buy Bitcoin, pay particular attention to the fees that you’re paying. Here are other key things to watch out for as you’re buying Bitcoin . What are altcoins? An altcoin is an alternative to Bitcoin. Many years ago, traders would use the term pejoratively. Since Bitcoin was the largest and most popular cryptocurrency, everything else was defined in relation to it. So, whatever was not Bitcoin was lumped into a catch-all category called altcoins . While Bitcoin is still the largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization by far, it’s no longer the only game in town. Other altcoins such as Ethereum and Solana have grown in popularity, making the term altcoin somewhat outmoded. Now with a reported 15,000 or more cryptocurrencies in existence, it makes less sense than ever to define the industry as “Bitcoin and then everything else.” Bottom line Cryptocurrency is a highly speculative area of the market, and many smart investors have decided to put their money elsewhere. For beginners who want to get started trading crypto, however, the best advice is to start small and only use money that you can afford to lose. Bankrate’s Brian Baker contributed to an update of this story. ©2024 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The judge ruling over Elon Musk’s ~$55 billion CEO pay package, which some Tesla shareholders claimed was obtained without following proper governance rules, has decided to reject Tesla’s attempt to reinstate it with a shareholder vote. Delaware Supreme Court could be next. In 2018, Tesla shareholders voted for Elon Musk to get a historic new CEO compensation package that could be worth $55 billion for the executive if Tesla achieved remarkable growth in valuation and profits, which it did. However, some shareholders argued that Musk unfairly secured this extremely generous compensation plan by misleading shareholders about the fact that the plan was being put together by an independent board and negotiated in good faith. They filed a complaint in court in Delaware. The case went to trial in 2022, but it took a long time for the judge to give her decision. Earlier this year, Delaware Chancery Court Chief Judge Kathleen St. J. McCormick sided with the shareholders after testimonies from everyone involved in the pay package negotiations, or lack of negotiations, and a thorough investigation of how it came about. She determined that Musk was in control of the board during the time it granted him the pay package while the board members who approved the package were also granted historically large compensations, which they ended up partly reimbursing as part of . McCormick found many governance irregularities, including the fact that the board members who supposedly negotiated the package were not independent of Musk, and even his personal lead on the compensation was his own divorce lawyer, who he had recently hired to be general counsel at Tesla. The judge rescinded the compensation package, which included over $50 billion worth of Tesla stock options that the CEO had yet to exercise. She asked Tesla to go back to the drawing board, renegotiate the pay package in good faith, and present it properly to shareholders. Instead, Tesla disagreed with the judge’s findings around governance issues and decided to present the same package while including the judge’s decision in the updated proposal and having Tesla’s shareholders vote on it again. In June, Tesla shareholders voted to reapprove the package, albeit at a lower percentage than the original vote. Tesla’s legal team believed the vote would “ratify” the compensation package and force the judge to vacate her decision to void the pay package. However, both Tesla’s lawyers and most corporate law scholars agreed that this would require a completely new way to address ratification. McCormick listened to both sides this August, and we were awaiting her decision by the end of the year. Today, the judge released her decision and she sided against Tesla’s argument again: “The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law.” Beyond the ratification problem, the judge also said that she believes Tesla again misrepresented the situation to shareholders in the statements made around the new vote: “Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement.” On top of her ruling on the compensation, she also ruled against the lawyers for the shareholders, who were asking for a ridiculous $5 billion in Tesla stock as their legal fee. Instead, she awarded them $345 million. Tesla is likely to contest the ruling, which could move the case to the Delaware Supreme Court. As I wrote last summer, . Even if you believe Musk deserves this package, Tesla’s approach to reinstating it was boneheaded and didn’t follow the law as I, and seemingly the judge and most Delaware corporate law experts, understand it. Tesla, and more specifically Elon Musk, it’s hard to differentiate the two lately, which is part of the problem, are showing no intention to address their governance issues. Let’s be clear: Elon could get paid somewhat easily here. Even as much or close to this amount. However, it needs to do it through the proper governance and respect the process. Instead, Elon prefers to lie to shareholders and present the situation as politically motivated lawfare. It’s nonsense. and subscribe to the . Tesla is a transportation and energy company. It... Fred is the Editor in Chief and Main Writer at Electrek. You can send tips on Twitter (DMs open) or via email: fred@9to5mac.com Through Zalkon.com, you can check out Fred’s portfolio and get monthly green stock investment ideas. Get interesting investment ideas by Fred Lambert ChargePoint Home WiFi Enabled Electric Vehicle (EV) Charger(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Nick Lehr , The Conversation (THE CONVERSATION) For the past few years, right-wing media have argued that the U.S. is plagued by a masculinity crisis , whether it’s former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson warning of collapsing testosterone levels in his 2022 documentary “ The End of Men ” or Sen. Josh Hawley decrying what he called the left’s project to “deconstruct” men and “define traditional masculinity as toxic.” Rhetoric aside, there may be a real vein that these pundits and politicians are tapping into. Deaths of despair , which are caused by drugs, alcohol or suicide, are disproportionately experienced by men . Meanwhile, many of the traditional markers of manhood – earning enough money to raise a family, buy a home or even rent an apartment – are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain . What does it mean for society if young men sense that their masculinity is under threat? Or for our politics if young men see less hope for the future? In 2021, psychologist Adam Stanaland and his colleagues conducted an experiment exploring masculinity anxiety in young men between the ages of 18 and 40. They found that statements as simple as “you are less masculine than the average man” could provoke aggression among the study’s participants. For their next study, they turned to adolescent boys, with a couple of key questions in mind: When does masculine anxiety start to appear? And what fuels it? In the findings, which they published in July 2024, they were able to show that boys in late puberty – but not those in early puberty – would respond aggressively when their masculinity was challenged. Not all boys in late puberty reacted this way; those most prone to aggression tended to care a lot about what other people thought about them. Their parents were more likely to have lower incomes, less formal education and associate masculinity with traits such as power and dominance. They were also much more likely to live in counties that supported Donald Trump in 2020. In an interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Stanaland discusses some of the broader economic and social forces that may have influenced his team’s findings and explores how they relate to the results of the 2024 election. In your more recent study, you broke your adolescent participants down into two groups. There was this early puberty group and a late puberty group. And you found that the threats to masculinity only really started to have an effect in that later puberty group. Can you talk about why that might have been the case? In prior research , we had already detected a pattern: The pressure to act stereotypically masculine predicts aggression in young adult men in the U.S., particularly when they feel like their manhood is under threat. So we started to wonder – OK, well, when does this pattern start? We thought about age. But age is somewhat of a rough predictor of development, right? It’s just a number. Although age corresponds with social changes, such as changing schools and navigating new social situations, boys go through puberty at different ages. For example, changes in secondary sex characteristics, such as height, body type and voice – these are going to affect how other people treat you. As boys’ bodies start changing, there’s going to be much more of an expectation for them to act in stereotypically masculine ways, just like adult men do. There are also vast cognitive changes going on during this time . You’re able to grasp social pressures with much more nuance than you could before. And part of that is realizing, “Oh shoot, if I don’t defend my manhood, then I won’t have friends, I won’t fit in, my parents might disapprove.” In our research, puberty captured these nuances better than age. Age did predict these things, but puberty was just a much stronger predictor. How did you threaten the boys’ masculinity? Half of the participants were threatened and the other half were not, at random. We had everyone take two quizzes: a “Boy Questions Quiz” and a “Girls Question Quiz.” For the half whose masculinity we threatened, we would tell them they did poorly on the guys quiz – “Well, you missed more questions than other guys usually do. Based on your quiz results, it seems like you’re more like the average girl than the average guy.” This was age-adapted from past work on masculinity threats to adults, because we wanted to be able to build on those findings. Then you used a word completion task – for example, having boys complete the fragment “GU_” – to indicate whether they responded aggressively to threats to their masculinity. Those who wrote “GUN” as opposed to, say, “GUM” were said to be reacting aggressively. How do you know that this task is connected to real-world aggression? This measure has been used in seminal research on masculinity and aggression , so we wanted our findings to directly align with that work. That research and others have found that this task is associated with actual violent behavior. However, we tried to be very careful to say that we weren’t measuring aggressive behavior. Think of cognition as a first step. People who are thinking aggressively are going to be more likely to act violently or aggressively. Not everyone who is thinking aggressively is going to act on it, but cognition can predict it. This measure is also great because it’s implicit – our participants didn’t know that we were measuring aggression. They were simply given this word completion task, which we presented as a game, and how they performed indicated how aggressively they were thinking in the moment. In the study, you found that parents’ beliefs were a strong predictor of whether their sons reported being pressured to be stereotypically masculine. Specifically, it was parents’ endorsement of hegemonic masculinity – what you define as the belief that men need to be powerful, gain status and have authority over women. Yes. We asked boys to respond to statements like, “My parents would be upset if they saw me acting like a girl.” And we found that this fear of upsetting their parents indicated whether they would endorse statements such as, “I’m like other guys because I want other people to like me.” We also found that a fear of upsetting peers could pressure certain boys to feel as if they needed to “act like a man.” We just didn’t have data from peers to look at. So we couldn’t really try to understand, within peer groups, what exactly was going on. We did, however, have data from parents, including the types of beliefs about masculinity that they endorsed, as well as certain social and demographic variables reported by parents. Two data points for the parents stood out to me. Having less income and less formal education – which is also tied to less income – strongly predicted whether they possessed beliefs about hegemonic masculinity. Do you see any connection between economic anxiety and masculine anxiety? There’s research showing that people who are under more economic stress – who experience economic hardship – more readily cling to racial stereotypes . This work has argued that poverty leads to stereotyping because high-status people are motivated to maintain the status quo when they believe that their position in society is threatened. Or this could be an example of cognitive depletion : The greater your anxiety over paying the bills, the less you’re going to be able to ponder gender and race. We observed that working-class parents were more likely to endorse these rigid, masculine ideas, especially about men being strong, powerful and dominant over people of other genders. And they’re the ones whose sons reported the most pressure to be stereotypically masculine. And I think economic anxiety and poverty are a key part of this story. In times of prosperity, or in societies that are more socialist in their orientation – where you’re guaranteed basic health care and education, for example – do men feel less pressure to be on top, because they feel more economically and socially secure? I don’t know. It’s an interesting avenue for future research. I know that voting-age men weren’t the subject of your most recent study, but I wonder about the political implications of masculine fragility as young people come of age. Trump picked up a larger percentage of male voters under 30 than any GOP candidate had since 2008. In what ways did you see Trump tap into masculine anxiety on the campaign trail? I think we, in academia, expected Gen Z to really just go all in for Harris, and it just doesn’t seem to be like that’s the case, especially among Gen Z men who are working class. You saw this play out when Trump appeared on several podcasts whose hosts lean into that strong, macho persona, especially in the weeks leading up to the election . In our two studies, we found that pressures to be masculine can predict aggressive responses among boys in later adolescence and young men – times of their lives when they are really trying to figure out what kind of man they will be in their relationships, at work and in their day-to-day lives. Coupled with rising economic uncertainties, these celebrities and politicians can give these men an outlet to demonstrate their masculinity, burnish their status and make them feel like they belong. So much status in our society is tied to wealth. Might teens and young men – who are at the bottom of the totem poll, in terms of wealth – be latching on to more visceral expressions of power and masculinity? I think it’s all wrapped up in that. Men start experiencing these pressures to be the provider in their family, to get their relationships and careers going, to make their way up the ladder at work. A lot of these goals are becoming more difficult to attain. And so what we’re seeing is that in order to gain that status – or even out of fear of losing that status if they have it – boys and men will go to great lengths. Obviously, aligning with people – celebrities, politicians, business leaders – who have those same values will become more enticing. What are your thoughts about how much of an influence media consumption can have on the development of certain beliefs about masculinity? We don’t have great measures of peers or other factors like that. But we do have this measure where we asked parents for their ZIP codes, and we mapped that to the proportion of support for Trump in 2020, so not this past election. And we saw that it wasn’t necessarily parents’ self-reported political identity – so how liberal or conservative they are – that predicted their masculinity beliefs. It was this county-level, community-level variable. So if you think about that finding, you would imagine that it’s not just the “physical counties” that boys are in. Digital spaces – social media spaces that boys are living in – are probably having an effect, too. Remember, during late puberty, teens are trying out different identities. For whatever reason, some of these more conservative online spaces have become really appealing to certain boys and men. There is definitely some important ongoing work in this area, specifically on the manosphere . Is there anything else that you’d like to add? These pressures to be stereotypically masculine come from parents, peers and the community. And they don’t seem to be changing or dissipating as quickly as we in academia thought they might. For example, you might think of Gen Z as this liberal group that’s super into social justice. And that just doesn’t seem to be the case, especially among certain men and boys from working class backgrounds. So I think we should be a lot more attuned to that lack of change – the social and economic sources of these pressures, how to address them, and what they mean not just for voting behavior but also for some of the more problematic behaviors associated with men and masculinity . This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/is-masculine-anxiety-spurring-support-for-trump-among-gen-z-241655 . Get any of our free daily email newsletters — news headlines, opinion, e-edition, obituaries and more.

Trump voices support for Hegseth, says he's "doing very well" President-elect Donald Trump took to social media Friday to defend his embattled pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth. CBS News political reporter Olivia Rinaldi has the latest on Hegseth's effort to be confirmed for the job.The Memo: Social media sympathy for killing of health insurance CEO sparks pushbackMEXICO CITY: Mexico’s president discussed migration and drug trafficking with US President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday — two issues he had raised as justification for raising import tariffs on America’s southern neighbor. Claudia Sheinbaum said she had had “an excellent conversation” with Trump, just hours after her economy minister warned that the cost to US companies of Trump’s tariffs would be “huge.” “We discussed Mexico’s strategy regarding the phenomenon of migration,” Sheinbaum said on X, adding she had told Trump that caravans of migrants “are not arriving at the northern border because they are being attended to in Mexico.” Earlier on Wednesday, Sheinbaum said Mexico would retaliate if US President-elect Donald Trump followed through with his proposed 25 percent across-the-board tariff, a move her government warned could kill 400,000 US jobs and drive up prices for US consumers. “If there are US tariffs, Mexico would also raise tariffs,” Sheinbaum said during a press conference, in her clearest statement yet that the country was preparing possible retaliatory trade measures against its top trade partner. Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard, speaking alongside Sheinbaum, called for more regional cooperation and integration instead of a war of retaliatory import taxes. “It’s a shot in the foot,” Ebrard said of Trump’s proposed tariffs, which appear to violate the USMCA trade deal between Mexico, Canada and the US. In her talks with Trump later, she said they discussed “strengthening collaboration on security issues” as well as “the campaign we are conducting in the country to prevent the consumption of fentanyl.” Trump on Monday said he would impose tariffs of 25 percent on Mexican and Canadian imports and 10 percent on goods from China. “This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social page. The Republican, who won an election in which illegal migration was a top issue, has vowed to declare a national emergency on border security and use the US military to carry out a mass deportation of undocumented migrants. Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said Wednesday some “400,000 jobs will be lost” in the United States if Trump followed through on his threat. He cited a study based on figures from US carmakers that manufacture in Mexico. Ebrard said the tariffs would also hit US consumers hard, citing the US market for pickup trucks — most of which are manufactured in Mexico. The tariffs, the minister said, would add $3,000 to the cost of a new vehicle. “The impact of this measure will chiefly be felt by consumers in the United States... That is why we say that it would be a shot in the foot,” Ebrard told reporters, speaking alongside Sheinbaum at her regular morning conference. The proposed tariffs would hit the automotive sector’s top cross-border exporters especially hard, Ebrard added, namely Ford, General Motors and Stellantis. Ebrard noted that 88 percent of pickup trucks sold in the US are made in Mexico and would see a price increase. These vehicles are popular in rural areas that overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Mexico and China have been particularly vociferous in their opposition to Trump’s threats of a trade war from day one of his second presidential term, which begins on January 20. Sheinbaum has declared the threats “unacceptable” and pointed out that Mexico’s drug cartels exist mainly to serve drug use in the United States. China has warned that “no one will win a trade war.” During his first term as president, Trump launched full-blown trade hostilities with Beijing, imposing significant tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods. China responded with retaliatory tariffs on American products, particularly affecting US farmers. The United States, Mexico and Canada are tied to a three-decade-old largely duty-free trade agreement, called the USMCA, that was renegotiated under Trump after he complained that US businesses, especially automakers, were losing out. Many analysts regard Trump’s tariff threats as more of a negotiating tactic than trade policy. “The lack of a clear link between this threat and questions related to trade suggests the new president plans to use tariffs as a negotiating strategy to achieve goals largely unrelated to trade,” said David Kohl, chief economist at Julius Baer. Mexico’s automotive industry is the country’s most important manufacturing sector, exporting predominantly to the United States. It represents nearly 25 percent of all North American vehicle production. Analysts at Barclays said they estimate the proposed tariffs “could wipe out effectively all profits” from the Detroit Three automakers. “While it’s generally understood that a blanket 25 percent tariff on any vehicles or content from Mexico or Canada could be disruptive, investors under-appreciate how disruptive this could be,” they wrote in a note on Tuesday. Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team, said the tariffs would protect US manufacturers and workers from “unfair practices of foreign companies and foreign markets.” Hughes said Trump would implement policies to make life affordable and more prosperous for his country. GM and Stellantis declined to comment. Ford did not comment on how the threatened tariffs would affect its business but said it manufactures more vehicles in the United States than most major automakers. Mexico’s automotive industry group AMIA said it would prepare for any possibility and wait to see what formal actions are taken. The Institute of International Finance, a trade group for the global financial services industry, warned Mexico-US relations would be challenging going forward. “The imposition of tariffs, eventually leading to increased protectionism, and other policies affecting exchange rates and commodity prices could have significant implications for the region,” it said in a note. The USMCA is up for review in 2026. Katia Goya, director of international economics at Grupo Financiero Banorte, said it was likely the three USMCA countries would seek wholesale renegotiation of the pact rather than just rubber-stamp it to continue in its current form. “The effect of a trade-conflict situation is that it will mean lower economic growth in the United States, higher unemployment and higher inflation,” Goya said. Ebrard said USMCA trade amounted to $1.78 trillion in the first nine months of this year. “We can fragment and divide with tariffs,” Ebrard said. “Mexico does not want conflicts and divisions, but to build a stronger region.”

Azma accuses PTI leaders of exploiting ‘Pashtun Card’ for political gainsMassive Changes at Lattice Semiconductor: What You Need to Know

CHICAGO — A Cook County judge who made a controversial decision to release a man on electronic monitoring weeks before he killed his estranged wife is not hearing domestic violence cases due to threats he has received, according to a statement from the chief judge’s office. Judge Thomas Nowinski on Oct. 9 denied a Cook County prosecutor’s petition to detain Constantin Beldie, 57, on accusations that he threw her to the ground and held her in his car, finding that the state didn’t meet its burden under the law for Beldie to be held in jail. Six weeks later, Beldie killed Lacramioara Beldie, 54, before he was found dead, according to police, setting off an outcry from advocates against domestic violence who called for Nowinski to be reassigned. In a lengthy statement released by Chief Judge Tim Evans Tuesday evening, Evans said the death revealed “gaps in policies and procedures” the office is seeking to address to better protect victims of domestic violence. He also said he is reaching out to incoming State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke to “strengthen collaboration” between the two offices. “My office is currently investigating to determine whether any employee failed to follow policies and procedures in this case,” the statement said. “We pledge to provide additional training to all judges who hear domestic violence cases and petitions for orders of protection, including the Pretrial Division judges who hear these cases on weekends.” Evans, though, in the statement, indirectly pointed to the prosecutors on the case, and said that a “preliminary examination of this case indicate the court was provided incomplete information.” A court transcript of the Oct. 9 proceeding showed that Nowinski criticized the case work, calling it “a little sloppy.” He wrote that judges make “difficult decisions with the best information they have.” “While the higher courts have authority to review those decisions, interdivisional judicial transfers and assignments are never a result of a judge’s independent decision-making,” the statement said. But because of anonymous threats, Evans said, Nowinski is not hearing cases involving domestic violence or orders of protection. Nowinski also faced sharp criticism because he denied an emergency protective order for the mother of 11-year-old Jayden Perkins against Crosetti Brand, who is accused of stabbing Jayden to death in an attack on his mother. Evans said his office is working to strengthen electronic monitoring protocols, including for technology that allows victims who have sought an order of protection to install software on their phone. ©2024 Chicago Tribune. Visit at chicagotribune.com . Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Florida St. 92, UMass 59