Businessman Pankaj Jain is so worried about the impending launch of a new sales tax in India that he is thinking of shutting down his tiny textile factory for a month to give himself time to adjust.

Jain is one of millions of small business owners who face wrenching change from India’s biggest tax reform since independence that will unify the country’s $2 trillion economy and 1.3 billion people into a common market.

But he is simply not ready for a regime that from July 1 will for the first time tax the bed linen his 10 workers make, and require him to file his taxes every month online.

On the desk in his tiny office in Meerut, two hours drive northeast of New Delhi, lay two calculators. Turning to open a metal cabinet, he pulled out a hand-written ledger to show how he keeps his books.

“We will have to hire an accountant – and get a computer,” the thickset 52-year-old told Reuters, as a dozen ancient power looms clattered away in the ramshackle workshop next door. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government says that by replacing several federal and state taxes, the new Goods and Services Tax (GST) will make life simpler for business.

To drive home the point, Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan has appeared in a promotional video in which he weaves a cat’s cradle between the fingers of his hands – symbolizing

India’s thicket of old taxes. With a flourish, the tangle is gone and Bachchan proclaims: “One nation, one tax, one market!”

Not so simple

By tearing down barriers between India’s 29 states, the GST should deliver efficiency gains to larger businesses. HSBC estimates the reform could add 0.4 percent to economic growth.

Yet at the local chapter of the Indian Industries Association, which groups 6,500 smaller enterprises nationwide, the talk is about how to cope in the aftermath of the GST rollout.

“In the initial months, there may be utter confusion,” said chairman Ashok Malhotra, who runs one firm that manufactures voltage stabilizers and a second that makes timing equipment for boxing contests.

A big concern is the Indian GST’s sheer complexity – with rates of 5, 12, 18 and 28 percent, and myriad exceptions, it contrasts with simpler, flatter and broader sales taxes in other countries.

The official schedule of GST rates runs to 213 pages and has undergone repeated last-minute changes.

“Rubber goods are taxed at 12 percent; sporting goods at 18 percent. I make rubber sporting goods — so what tax am I supposed to pay?” asks Anurag Agarwal, the local IIA secretary.

Grace period?

The top government official responsible for coordinating the GST rollout rebuts complaints from bosses that the tax is too complex, adding that the IT back-end that will drive it – crunching up to 5 billion invoices a month – is robust.

“It is a technological marvel, as well as a fiscal marvel,” Revenue Secretary Hasmukh Adhia told Reuters in an interview.

The government will, however, allow firms to file simplified returns for July and August. From September they must file a total of 37 online returns annually – three each month and one at the year’s end – for each state they operate in.

One particular concern is how a new feature of the GST, the input tax credit, will work. This allows a company to claim refunds on its inputs and means it should only pay tax on the value it adds.

The structure will encourage companies to buy from suppliers that are GST-compliant, so that tax credits can flow down a supply chain.

That spells bad news for small firms hesitating to shift into the formal economy. The government estimates smaller companies account for 45 percent of manufacturing and employ more than 117 million people.

Adhia played down the risk of job losses, however, saying this would be offset by new service sector jobs.

Demonetization 2.0

The prospect of disruption is drawing comparisons with Modi’s decision last November to scrap high-value bank notes that made up 86 percent of the cash in circulation, in a bid to purge illicit “black money” from the system.

The note ban caused severe disruption to India’s cash-driven economy and slammed the brakes on growth, which slowed to a two-year low in the quarter to March.

“It could throw the business out of gear – it can affect your volumes by at least 30 percent,” said the head of one large cement company in the Delhi region.

Back in Meerut, Pankaj Jain worries that hiring an accountant and charging 5 percent GST on his bedsheets could eat up to two-thirds of his annual profits of 400,000-500,000 rupees ($6,210-$7,760).

“I know my costs will go up, but I don’t know about my income,” he said. “I might even have to shut up shop completely and go into trading.”
…

European regulators fined Google a record 2.42 billion euros ($2.72 billion) for abusing its dominance of the online search market in a case that could be just the opening salvo in Europe’s attempt to curb the company’s clout on that continent.

The decision announced Tuesday by the European Commission punished Google for unfairly favoring its own online shopping recommendations in its search results. The commission is also conducting at least two other probes into the company’s business practices that could force Google to make even more changes in the way it bundles services on mobile devices and sells digital advertising.

Even so, Europe’s crackdown is unlikely to affect Google’s products in the U.S. or elsewhere. But it could provide an opportunity to contrast how consumers fare when the company operates under constraints compared with an unfettered Google.

The fine immediately triggered debate about whether European regulators were taking prudent steps to preserve competition or overstepping their bounds to save companies being shunned by consumers who have overwhelmingly embraced an alternative.

Margrethe Vestager, Europe’s top antitrust regulator, said her agency’s nearly seven-year investigation left no doubt something had to be done to rein in Google.

“What Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation,” Vestager told reporters Tuesday.

The fine was the highest ever imposed in Europe for anti-competitive behavior, exceeding a 1.06 billion euros penalty on Silicon Valley chip maker Intel in 2009.

The penalty itself is unlikely to leave a dent in Google’s finances. Parent company Alphabet Inc. has more than $92 billion (82 billion euros) in cash, including nearly $56 billion (50 billion euros) in accounts outside of the U.S.

The findings in Europe contrasted sharply with those reached by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in a similar investigation of Google completed in 2013. The FTC absolved Google of any serious wrongdoing after concluding that its search recommendations did not undermine competition or hurt consumers.

Leading up to that unanimous decision, though, some of the FTC’s staff sent a memo to the agency’s commissioners recommending legal action because Google’s “conduct has resulted – and will result – in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets,” according to a memo inadvertently released to The Wall Street Journal two years ago.

Google’s misbehavior in Europe boiled down to its practice of highlighting its own online shopping service above those of its rivals. Merchants pay Google for the right to show summaries of their products in small boxes displayed near the top of search results when someone seems to be interested in a purchase.

Meanwhile, Google lists search results of its biggest rivals in online shopping on page 4 – and smaller rivals even lower, based on the calculations of European regulators. That’s a huge advantage for Google when 90 percent of user clicks are on the first page.

Google says consumers like its shopping thumbnails because they are concise and convenient.

The commission’s decision “underestimates the value of those kinds of fast and easy connections,” Kent Walker, Google’s general counsel, wrote in a blog post.

Europe’s investigation did not present any concrete evidence that consumers had been financially damaged by Google’s online shopping tactics, said Ibanez Colomo, a law professor at the London School of Economics.

“The only harm being alleged here is that competing services have suffered a decrease in traffic coming from Google,” Colomo said on a call organized by the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a tech lobbying group.

Alphabet is mulling an appeal of Tuesday’s penalty, but even if that is filed, the Mountain View, California, company will still only have 90 days to comply with an order to stop favoring its own links to online shopping. If it does not, Alphabet faces more fines of up to 5 percent of its average daily revenue worldwide. That would translate into roughly $14 million (12 million euros), based on Alphabet’s revenue during the first three months of the year.

Rather than comply, Google could shut down its shopping service in Europe.

If that happens, “it will mean consumers in Europe are going to be worse off than consumers in the rest of the world,” predicted David Balto, a consumer advocate and antitrust expert who formerly served as the FTC’s policy director. “Consumers rarely benefit when bureaucrats put their thumbs on the economic scales to tip them one way or the other.”

Google’s critics applauded the EU for standing up to the company after the FTC backed down.

“Some may object to the EU moving so aggressively against U.S.-based companies, but these authorities are at least trying to deal with some of the new competitive challenges facing our economy,” said the News Media Alliance, a group representing U.S. newspapers whose revenue has plunged as more advertising flowed to Google during the past decade.

Other antitrust experts believe the fine levied on Google means European regulators are more likely to rein in other U.S. technology companies such as Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix as they win over more European consumers at the expense of homegrown companies.

“We already have been in an information trade war,” said Larry Downs, who studies antitrust issues as project director at Georgetown University’s Center for Business and Public Policy. “But I think it just went from being a cold war to a hot war with Europe.”
…

President Donald Trump on Tuesday hailed an energy revolution marked by surging U.S. exports of oil and natural gas.

Trump cited a series of steps the administration has taken to boost energy production and remove government regulations that he argues prevent the United States from achieving “energy dominance” in the global market.

“Together, we are going to start a new energy revolution — one that celebrates American production on American soil,” Trump said in a statement, adding that the U.S. is on the brink of becoming a net exporter of oil, gas and other energy resources.

The self-proclaimed “energy week” follows similar policy-themed weeks on infrastructure and jobs.

At the White House, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said the administration is confident officials can “pave the path toward U.S. energy dominance” by exporting oil, gas and coal to markets around the world, and promoting nuclear energy and even renewables such as wind and solar power.

“One of the things we want to do at [the Department of Energy] is to make nuclear energy cool again,” Perry said.

The focus on energy began at a meeting between Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with U.S. natural gas exports part of the discussion. Trump is expected to talk energy Wednesday with governors and tribal leaders, and he will deliver a speech Thursday at the Energy Department.

Arctic, Atlantic drilling

Trump signed an executive order in April to expand oil drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, reversing restrictions imposed by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Trump has also pushed to revive U.S. coal production after years of decline. Coal mining rose by 19 percent in the first five months of the year as the price of natural gas edged up, according to Energy Department data.

U.S. oil and gas production have boomed in recent years, primarily because of improved drilling techniques such as fracking that have opened up production in areas previously out of reach of drillers.

A report released in January by the Energy Information Administration said the country is on track to become a net energy exporter by 2026, although the White House said Tuesday that net exports could top imports as soon as 2020.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke also focused on energy as he addressed the Western Governors’ Association in his hometown of Whitefish, Montana.

Zinke said increased offshore drilling could provide more than enough revenue to offset an $11.5 billion maintenance backlog in national parks.

“There’s a consequence when you put 94 percent of our offshore off limits. There’s a consequence of not harvesting trees. There’s a consequence of not using some of our public lands for creation of wealth and jobs,” he said.

Despite Trump’s withdrawal from the global Paris climate accord, Perry said the U.S. remains committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. He called nuclear power a key element to fight climate change.
…

President Donald Trump on Thursday will lay out his plan for reducing regulations to boost already-abundant U.S. production of oil, natural gas and coal and export it around the world, creating American jobs and helping allies.

Trump will deliver an address on his administration’s new mantra of “energy dominance” at the Energy Department, officials told reporters. They declined to give details on how he would tweak existing regulations that have not stopped a surge in exports.

“We’ve gone from the age of scarcity now to the age of abundance when it comes to American energy,” Mike Catanzaro, a White House energy policy aide, told reporters.

“We want to use those abundant resources for good here at home and for good abroad as well,” Catanzaro said.

Trump’s speech comes a week before he meets in Warsaw with leaders of a dozen central and eastern European nations who are eager to see more U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) in their markets as an alternative to Russian gas.

Trump is stopping at the summit on his way to the G20 in Hamburg, Germany, where he is expected to meet face-to-face for the first time in his presidency with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Shipments of LNG will play a big part in the “energy dominance” strategy, Energy Secretary Rick Perry told reporters, but so will exports of coal and U.S. technology that helps reduce emissions from coal-fired plants, he said.

Perry said he discussed the potential for U.S. coal exports to Ukraine with President Petro Poroshenko during his visit to Washington last week.

The Trump administration believes in an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy, Perry said – borrowing the energy catch-phrase of the Obama administration.

U.S. domestic energy prices have plunged in recent years because of the natural gas boom, crowding out competing sources of power, including coal and nuclear. Dozens of nuclear power reactors are in danger of shutting down over the next several years as a result.

The Trump administration wants to make sure the United States remains “technologically and economically engaged” in the nuclear industry, Perry said. “If we do not, then China and Russia will fill that void,” he said.

But he said the administration would not be “wildly supportive” of subsidizing any sectors of the energy industry.

Perry said energy supports in the tax code would be examined as the administration and Congress look at tax reform later this year.

“I think we’ll have a good healthy conversation about the energy sector and tax incentives, subsidies – all of that needs to be on the table and we need to have a conversation about it,” Perry said.
…

New York City real estate companies’ attempts to rename a Harlem neighborhood “SoHa” have enraged longtime residents of the historically black enclave, who say the move erases the community’s rich cultural history.

The neighborhood served as home and inspiration to generations of leading African-Americans, including activists W.E.B. Du Bois and Malcolm X, who dubbed it “Seventh Heaven.” Artists such as poet Langston Hughes and singers Harry Belafonte and Ella Fitzgerald also lived there.

The “SoHa” name, echoing the high-priced, largely white Manhattan neighborhood of SoHo in lower Manhattan, has begun appearing in real estate listings for apartments located between 110th Street and 125th Street, and Realtor Keller Williams boasts a “SoHa Team” of agents on its website.

Keller Williams did not respond to a request for comment.

Harlem’s U.S. Congressman Adriano Espaillat vowed to introduce a House resolution to protect Harlem from being renamed.

“#WeRHarlem! And we refuse to be called by any other name! #NY13 #HarlemStrong,” @RepEspaillat wrote on Twitter on Monday.

The tweet accompanied a photograph of the famed Apollo Theater, where Fitzgerald made her singing debut at age 17 on Amateur Night in 1934.

Espaillat said the congressional resolution he plans to introduce this week “supports imposing limitations on the ability to change the name of a neighborhood based on economic gain.”

“I along with leaders and constituents of this community stand united to vigorously oppose the renaming Harlem in yet another sanctioned gentrification,” he said in an email. “This is an incredibly insulting attempt to disown Harlem’s longtime residents, legacy, and culture.”

Jamie McShane, a spokesman for the Real Estate Board of New York, an industry association, said the group supports existing state regulations, which prohibit real estate brokers from using “a name to describe an area that would be misleading to the public.”

Harlem is not the only historically black U.S. neighborhood to have its image challenged by eager real estate agents.

Further north, parts of the South Bronx have been christened the “Piano District,” a reference to its former instrument manufacturing base.

In Washington, D.C., real estate firms have recast the Shaw neighborhood around historically black Howard University as North End of Shaw.

Both sparked outrage among longtime residents, particularly after developers who pushed the Piano District name change threw a “Bronx is Burning” themed Halloween party in 2015 that focused on the neighborhood’s 1970’s decay, complete with a bullet-riddled car sculpture.
…

Making agriculture profitable and “cool” for young people in Africa is key to lifting millions out of poverty and stemming migration to Europe, said the president of the African Development Bank (AfDB).

Akinwumi Adesina was named the winner of this year’s World Food Prize on Monday for his decades-long work to boost food production in his native Nigeria, increase access to credit for small farmers across Africa and transform the continent’s agriculture.

Kenneth Quinn, president of the Des Moines, Iowa-based World Food Prize Foundation, said the $250,000 award reflected Adesina’s “breakthrough achievements” as Nigeria’s minister of agriculture and his critical role in the development of the nonprofit Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

Adesina, 57, told Reuters he was humbled by the award but felt his work to ensure Africa could feed itself was “uncompleted business.”

Almost 30 percent of the 795 million people in the world who do not have enough to eat are in Africa, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

“When I look at Africa today, I see that many rural areas unfortunately have become zones of economic misery,” Adesina said in a phone interview ahead of the award’s announcement.

No sector has greater potential to revive those areas than agriculture, but investments are needed to make it attractive for young people, many of whom risk their lives migrating in search of better opportunities in Europe, Adesina said.

“We must make agriculture cool for young people,” he said. “The key is to make agriculture a business. Agriculture is not a way of life, is not a development activity, it’s a business.”

Africa has 65 percent of the world’s uncultivated arable land but imports food for $35 billion every year, a bill that is expected to swell to $110 billion by 2025, he said.

“It makes no sense. That is food Africa should be producing, processing, selling and exporting,” he said. “Africa in the future should not only feed itself, but it must contribute to feeding the world.”

Toward this end, agriculture must become more industrialized, with farmers gaining better access to seeds, fertilizer, credit, power and infrastructure, he said.

Farmers should be supported to transform from producers of raw materials, such as cocoa and cotton, to manufacturers of finished goods such as chocolate and garments, which have less volatile prices, Adesina said.

To accelerate growth, the AfDB aimed to invest $12 billion in the energy sector, hoping to leverage another $50 billion from the private sector, he said.

Last year, AfDB had invested $800 million to support young agro-entrepreneurs in eight countries and planned to extend the scheme to 30 nations, he added.

Adesina called on governments and institutional investors, such as pension and insurance funds, to “see the gold” in African agriculture and invest in it to unlock its potential. He said he was convinced the future billionaires of Africa would come from agriculture.

“I don’t believe that the future of African youth lies at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea,” he said. “The future of African young people lies in a more prosperous and inclusive Africa, and there is no other sector that has greater power to create growth than the agricultural sector.”

Adesina was named winner of the World Food Prize, regarded as the equivalent of a Nobel Prize for agriculture, in a ceremony on Monday at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington.
…

The Federal Reserve’s little-known role housing the assets of other central banks comes with a unique benefit to the United States: It serves as a source of foreign intelligence for Washington.

Senior officials from the U.S. Treasury and other government departments have turned to these otherwise confidential accounts several times a year to analyze the asset holdings of the central banks of Russia, China, Iraq, Turkey, Yemen, Libya and others, according to more than a dozen current and former senior Fed and Treasury officials.

The U.S. central bank keeps a tight lid on information contained in these accounts. But according to the officials interviewed by Reuters, U.S. authorities regularly use a “need to know” confidentiality exception in the Fed’s service contracts with foreign central banks.

The exception has allowed Treasury, State and Fed officials without regular access to glean information about the movement of funds in and out of the accounts, those people said. Such information has helped Washington monitor economic sanctions, fight terror financing and money laundering, or get a fuller picture of market hot spots around the world.

Some 250 foreign central banks and governments keep $3.3 trillion of their assets at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, about half of the world’s official dollar reserves, using a service advertised in a 2015 slide presentation as “safe and confidential.”

The Bank for International Settlements, other major central banks and some commercial banks offer similar services, and clients usually have more than just one account. But only the Fed offers direct access to U.S. debt markets and to the world’s reserve currency, the dollar, making the U.S. central bank the top provider of this so-called custodial banking business.

In all, the people interviewed by Reuters identified seven instances in the last 15 years in which the accounts gave U.S. authorities insights into the actions of foreign counterparts or market movements, at times leading to a specific U.S. response.

In one relatively recent case, data from these foreign accounts offered U.S. authorities a sense of the mood in Moscow in March 2014, after Russia’s invasion of Crimea prompted the United States to respond with economic sanctions.

When foreign holdings at the New York Fed plunged about $115 billion, U.S. officials confirmed what others could only suspect, according to two former Fed officials: Russia’s central bank had pulled its funds.

While the Kremlin’s public response was defiant, Fed and Treasury officials concluded Moscow feared the United States would freeze Russia’s assets even though the account was not included in the narrow scope of the sanctions, according to one former official.

After about two weeks, Russia’s central bank returned most of the money to its Fed account, but the incident made officials monitor the account more closely for signs the sanctions had forced Moscow to draw down its reserves, the same source said.

It was unclear what effect the sanctions had.

The Bank of Russia said it would not comment on “details of its operations and interaction with partners.” The Russian Embassy in Washington did not respond to an emailed query.

No promise

The Fed acknowledged the practice of disclosing account intelligence, but declined to comment on individual clients.

“While our account agreement does provide for the sharing of information with the U.S. government in limited circumstances, we require a clearly demonstrated need for the information and a commitment that the information will be treated confidentially,” said a New York Fed spokeswoman. “This exception has been used on rare occasions and on a limited basis for such issues as compliance with sanctions requirements and anti-money laundering principles.”

The insights into the Fed operation come at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump threatens new economic sanctions on countries that could again be monitored through the foreign accounts. It also comes as U.S. intelligence-gathering has come under intense public scrutiny, with agencies investigating Russian meddling in last year’s election and possible collusion with Trump’s campaign. The Senate this month backed new sanctions on Russia in part to punish it for the meddling, while the Treasury added individuals and entities to those sanctioned over Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

According to a draft account agreement the New York Fed published online last year, the Treasury or any other U.S. government agency or Fed bank must have “a need to know such information” to access it.

Seven people with direct knowledge of instances in which this exception was used told Reuters there was no working definition of the “need to know,” and that New York Fed lawyers would usually decide case by case.

The level of scrutiny by U.S. authorities and lack of clarity over what would constitute a “need to know” surprised some former foreign central bankers who spoke to Reuters.

The Bank of France, which also maintains foreign accounts, guarantees “full confidentiality” for its clients unless information is needed in a criminal investigation, said Christian Noyer, who was governor from 2003 to 2015. “It’s only in that case,” he said in an interview. “It’s not just to look at them and to know that.”

Less surprising was the fact that the United States leveraged the Fed’s position at the center of global finance, they said.

“The kinds of powerful central banks that can offer these services … will want to use that power in ways that benefit their public remit,” Patrick Honohan, governor of the Central Bank of Ireland from 2009 to 2015, told Reuters.

Edwin Truman, who headed the Fed Board of Governors’ international finance division for more than two decades before joining the Treasury in 1998, said the Fed’s clients should not expect absolute secrecy.

“There is no promise to clients that the information in their accounts will not be shared with U.S. official circles,” Truman, now a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview.

A Treasury spokesman said the department monitors transactions and collects data from all financial firms “both routinely and in the course of investigations [and] has the ability to request information from banks beyond the ‘need to know’ provision.” He declined to comment on interactions with the New York Fed.

Treasury calling

The U.S. officials interviewed by Reuters included executives and division heads, and people directly involved in discussions in which the confidentiality exception was used to analyze accounts that otherwise only a select group of Fed officials monitors.

Most spoke on the condition of anonymity. Day to day, a team of about a dozen New York Fed analysts oversees the accounts. This low-profile unit, called Central Bank and International Account Services (CBIAS), came under the spotlight last year when it transferred $81 million from the Bangladesh central bank’s account into the hands of hackers in one of the largest cyber heists ever.

The unit manages mostly Treasury and agency debt. It also oversees more than 500,000 gold bars that have accumulated in underground vaults since the New York Fed first opened accounts for Britain and France a century ago.

The requests for information became more frequent after the passage of the 2001 U.S. Patriot Act, mostly from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a Treasury division enforcing sanctions and targeting terrorist financing, money laundering, and weapons and drugs trafficking. The Department can also subpoena confidential information.

Among the requests since then have been inquiries about the accounts belonging to Turkey, Iraq, Russia and others, often to help determine whether official funds were being used to finance sanctioned groups or individuals, according to three of the sources. A few countries of keen interest to the U.S. government have little or no funds at the New York Fed — such as Iran, which is sanctioned, and Saudi Arabia, which is not.

An official at Turkey’s central bank said “operations are routinely carried out according to a correspondent banking agreement with the New York Fed, which is the standard operational procedure in correspondent banking.”

Iraq’s central bank stands out among those subject to U.S. scrutiny because of the extent of cooperation between Baghdad and New York. Earlier this month, based on information and instructions from the Fed’s foreign accounts team, the Central

Bank of Iraq blacklisted a money exchange firm suspected of ties with Islamic State and al-Qaida. The Al-Kawthar money exchange firm, from the town of Qaim near the Syrian border, had its assets frozen in the action.

Fed officials rely on meetings and conference calls to advise the Iraqi central bank on how to track and freeze out local firms suspected of terrorist connections or of helping Iran bypass sanctions, an Iraq central bank official told Reuters.

“We have direct contact with the foreign assets monitoring office in the Fed,” the official said. In freezing the assets of Al-Kawthar, Iraq’s central bank followed Fed “verification procedures,” added the official, who declined to be named.

The U.S. Treasury announced the sanctions against Al-Kawthar on June 15, citing $2.5 million in money transfers it allegedly made to a firm linked to Islamic State facilitators. The owner of the money exchange firm was not available to comment.

Sometimes, a peek into the Fed accounts has provided the Treasury insight into market upheaval. At the height of the global financial crisis in 2008, Treasury officials asked the New York Fed whether one of its clients was behind plummeting demand for short-term debt of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, according to a former CBIAS official.

An analysis of the accounts showed that China’s central bank had curbed purchases, and that intelligence factored into the U.S. government’s decision to seize the agencies in September 2008, the person said.

The People’s Bank of China declined to comment.

In some cases, the Fed team handling the foreign accounts would activate the “need to know” clause if it spotted something unusual, two former Fed officials said.

Since the 2010 Arab Spring uprisings, for example, the New York Fed has made several inquiries with the State Department about Yemeni and Libyan assets, according to one of these officials.

The Fed team, which ranks accounts by levels of risk, sought clarity on whether the governments or insurgents were in control of those countries’ central banks, the official said.

A State Department official said it “maintains contact with counterparts in the Federal Reserve system to share information on political and security developments” so they can “better evaluate and understand foreign governmental structures, leadership, and financial risk.”

Representatives of Libya’s and Yemen’s central banks, as well as Yemen’s embassy in Washington, did not respond to requests for comment.

 
…

A study by aviation experts says the number of non-military drones will grow very quickly over the next 10 years, as investment soars and capability improves. Drones are unmanned aircraft, remotely controlled by a person on the ground, rather than a pilot on board the vehicle.

The Teal Group says around $2.8 billion will be spent on non-military drones globally this year, growing to $11.8 billion by 2026. The report says easing airspace regulations, major investment, and work by major technology companies means the civil drone market is ready “to take off.” While many drones are used by hobbyists, commercial drones are the fastest growing part of this market.

Commercial drones are used for aerial photography in real estate, university research, and for shooting Hollywood movies. Farmers use drones to get a perspective on which parts of their fields are short of water or fertilizer, and use other unmanned aircraft to spray chemicals. Construction and utility companies use unmanned aircraft for inspections, and some companies are working on solar-powered high-altitude drones that can park in the sky and serve as platforms for internet services in undeserved areas.

Drones cost less to operate than manned aircraft, and that is why some traditional aviation tasks as well as some new kinds of work are opening up to these vehicles. Drones are cheaper because they are usually smaller than traditional planes and cost far less to buy, maintain and fuel.

It takes less time and money to train people to operate drones. Flight instructors say it takes many months and tens of thousands of dollars to earn a license to operate manned aircraft for pay.

Alan Perlman, founder of Drone Pilot Ground School, said a commercial drone operator can earn a credential for a few hundred dollars in a few days. Perlman’s company trains new operators, and he told VOA that there are probably more than 40,000 licensed commercial drone pilots in the United States. Based on enrollment in his school, he thinks the number is growing rapidly.

In the United States, traditional manned aircraft are flown by more than 250,000 professional pilots, including both commercial and airline pilots, according to the Federal Aviation Administration. The government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that jobs flying manned aircraft will grow about 5 percent annually over the next decade. The FAA says it does not have studies under way to examine the impact of drones on employment.

Press reports say airline traffic is growing and increasing the demand for the highly trained and experienced pilots who fly airline passenger planes. Some stories describe a global shortage of these experienced pilots as demand grows for air travel, particularly in Asia.

It may be a different story for commercial pilots who fly manned aircraft for aerial photography or to spray chemicals on farmers’ fields. Drones have already been used for some of those activities, and as these devices become more capable, they may expand their reach. Government experts at the BLS are working to update the outlook for these and other kinds of jobs, but those studies will not be published until October.
…