The Bank of Japan’s new board member, Yukitoshi Funo, said Wednesday that policymakers must respond flexibly to changes in the economy while trying to achieve a 2% inflation target, signalling that he won’t be bound by a rigid time frame for meeting that goal.
The former Toyota Motor Corp executive also said Japanese firms must boost productivity and become resilient to currency volatility, suggesting that he won’t pay heed to calls from the business sector to sway yen moves with monetary policy.
Funo said that while achieving the BOJ’s price target is important, the appropriate way to hit the goal may change depending on external factors and changes in the economy.
“In corporate jargon, it’s plan, do, check and act,” Funo told a news conference upon joining the board on Wednesday.
“You always need to check your plan against reality when you’re trying to achieve a goal,” an approach that applies to policymakers too as the economy is a “living thing,” he said.
Funo joins a deeply fragmented board that voted to expand monetary stimulus last October by a 5-4 vote with dissenters openly voicing concern over the drawbacks of topping up an already massive stimulus program.
He replaced Yoshihisa Morimoto, a former utility executive who voted against last year’s surprise monetary easing, and his appointment may tilt the board more in favor of Governor Haruhiko Kuroda.
Funo said the BOJ’s massive stimulus was exerting its intended effect, suggesting that he is unlikely to rock the boat for the time being.
“His comments suggest he is supportive of Kuroda’s policy stance,” said Naomi Muguruma, senior market economist at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley.
But Funo added that it was “natural” to have split votes and differing views on policy within the board, a sign he won’t hesitate to speak up against the governor.
Little has been known on Funo’s views on monetary policy.
But more than four decades of experience at the auto giant, including heading its crucial U.S. sales operation, may bring a dose of real-world pragmatism to the BOJ, which is embarking on a radical stimulus experiment aimed at changing corporate and houshold behavior.
Funo’s first policy-setting meeting will be on July 14-15, when the board conducts a quarterly review of its long-term economic and price forecasts.
Some analysts have speculated that his background as a former Toyota executive suggests he will favor policies that will keep the yen weak and give Japanese exports a competitive advantage overseas.
Funo, however, sidestepped a question on whether further yen weakness was negative for the economy or whether he thought further monetary easing was necessary.
“Markets determine exchange rates. For that reason, it’s important for Japanese companies, and the economy, to become resilient to exchange-rate volatility,” he said.
The Bible prophecy of Isaiah 9:6, speaks of a “Prince of Peace.” Who is he? This text is a good example of how Missionaries approach the Jewish Bible with a preconceived agenda and ultimately see what is not there and do not see what actually is there. The result is a dramatic misreading and distortion of our Holy Scriptures. This video is part #9C of a 12-part lecture series entitled the “Counter-Missionary Survival Seminar”.
A famous blues song, “Corrine, Corrina,” is the subject of a new lawsuit filed in Georgia against Rod Stewart, Universal Music and Capitol Records.
The song was written by Armenter “Bo Carter” Chatmon about 1928 — long ago enough that it borders on being in the public domain. Since being recorded, the 12-bar song has become somewhat of a standard with covers by Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, Willie Nelson and Conor Oberst, among others.
Now, the heirs of the Chatmon estate are coming forward with copyright claims against Stewart over his inclusion of the similarly titled “Corrina, Corrina” as a bonus track on the 2013 album Time. The complaint asserts that the two songs are “nearly identical” and “contain substantially similar defining compositional elements, including, but not limited to lyrics, melody, rhythm, tempo, meter, key, and title.”
The lawsuit injects a bit of a racial dimension to musical appropriation by noting Chatmon was the son of an ex-slave and says that the song is protected by copyright registrations in 1929 and 1932 on two different versions of “Corrine, Corrina.”
“Defendants had access to the Carter Songs at the time they recorded and produced the Infringing Song due to the Carter Songs’ popularity and fame as well as its prominent publication since at least 1929,” states the complaint demanding statutory damages, actual damages and an injunction.
Rod Stewart’s Time success is noted — the album reached seventh on the Billboard charts in the U.S. and the top spot in the UK — as well as his performances of the song in concert. (Here’s the Stewart song.)
Curiously, besides nodding to the longstanding fame of “Corrine, Corrina,” the lawsuit makes no mention of whether the many musicians who have covered the song over the years have made licensing payments. In fact, the lawsuit avoids the word “cover” altogether, maybe because the law provides a compulsory license for those making cover versions. (In other words, no permission required, just a set royalty.) Then again, it’s not clear whether Stewart considers this to be a cover song.
The history of the old country blues standard and Stewart’s new song will be detailed in greater length as the case proceeds.
Because the media has protected Harper, refusing to investigate her or her long list of victims, amateur sleuths have taken matters into their own hands. Consequently, a sprawling list of claims and counter-claims now litter the internet, some of them true, some of them false.
This benefits Randi Harper. Because some of the allegations against her are flimsy — an inevitability if the media forces citizens to do its job for it — Harper can insist that none of them hold water by drawing attention to the most absurd. So it’s time to separate fact from fiction and finally set the record straight about Randi Harper’s history.
Zoe Ridolfi-Starr (@ZoeRidolfiStarr) is a liar and a feminist, but I repeat myself. A recent graduate of Columbia University (annual tuition $51,008), Ms. Ridolfi-Starr is an enthusiastic supporter of her classmate Emma Sulkowicz, whose false rape accusation against Paul Nungesser led to his filing a federal lawsuit against Columbia. Ms. Ridolfi-Starr bragged to the Columbia student paper of her accomplishments as the university’s“friendly neighborhood angry feminist”:
Organized to fight gender-based violence on campus, founder of No Red Tape. Helped create the Prison Resistance and Education Project and the Books Not Bars programs for incarcerated youth. Worked for reproductive justice on campus, got free emergency contraception provided at Health Services, and secured the creation of the Columbia Emergency Health Fund to subsidize, among other things, abortions.
What is “No Red Tape”? It’s about depriving male students of due process rights, so they can be expelled merely on the basis of an accusation, under the guise of “fighting sexual violence and rape culture at Columbia University.”
Ms. Ridolfi-Starr was the lead plaintiff in a federal complaint filed by 23 Columbia students against the university in April 2014:
The complaint alleges the Ivy League university discouraged students from reporting sexual assaults, allowed perpetrators to remain on campus, sanctioned inadequate disciplinary actions for perpetrators and discriminated against students based on their sexual orientation . . .
The students’ statement described the complaint in detail, but the group refused to release any copies, saying it wanted to protect those who do not want their names publicized. As a policy, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights does not release information to the public until after a formal investigation has been opened into a complaint.
“Columbia is more willing to silence and punish survivors and their supporters than serial rapists,” the students said in their statement. . . .
Zoe Ridolfi-Starr, a Columbia junior and lead complainant, told CNN on Friday that activists from universities across the country offered plenty of advice and support to the group, saying, “It’s absolutely a national issue.”
Ridolfi-Starr said she was sexually assaulted the summer after her freshman year at Columbia and said the primary goal of the complaint is to pressure the university to make reforms.
We are expected to take seriously the claim that brilliant young scholars at one of the most prestigious universities in the world — a school thatadmits fewer than 7% of those who apply — are brutal sex predators who perpetrate heinous assaults with such frequency that a “rape culture” prevails on the Columbia campus?
Excuse me if I take note of the distinct aroma of bovine excrementexuding from such claims. Sure, it’s possible that some of these National Merit Scholars and valedictorians are degenerate psychopaths. We must remember that the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, is a Harvard alumnus, so it is possible that some of these young brainiacs at Columbia are sunk into the depths of depravity. However, does anyone really believe that any significant number of rapists are to be found among bookish fellows whose parents pay more than $50,000 a year to send them to Columbia?
And while we’re at it, does anyone actually believe Zoe Ridolfi-Starr is a “sexual assault survivor”? If officials at Columbia University didn’t believe her, why should we? But we find this stated as a fact:
Colleges might soon be required to report cases of sexual assault to local law enforcement agencies.
Virginia, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey have all created preliminary versions of bills that will call for more collaboration between schools and police departments around the issue of campus rape. . . .
However, victims of sexual assault find the new proposal problematic. “If a survivor comes forward and says, ‘Hey I need help, I want to get this guy out of my classes,’ that’s very different from saying, ‘I want to involve myself in a lengthy arduous legal process,’”sexual assault survivor Zoe Ridolfi-Starr said.
Where is the documentation of this “sexual assault” of which Ms. Ridolfi-Starr is a “survivor”? She says she was assaulted, but what actually happened? Can we see the affidavits? While I don’t presume to know the truth of this matter, shouldn’t we be suspicious of people who claim to be victims of serious crimes, but don’t want police to investigate those alleged crimes? And how is it that Ms. Ridolfi-Starr has time to file a federal complaint against her university, but doesn’t have time for the “arduous legal process” of filing a police report about a sexual assault?
The stench of bovine excrement grows ever more noxious, when you realize that complaints like Ms. Ridolf-Starr’s are being employed as emotional leverage to pressure legislators into enacting laws that re-define rape on college campuses. Under the “affirmative consent” regime, every male college student who engages in heterosexual activity on campus is at risk of being expelled from school because if she says she was raped, the accused male will be required to prove that she consented. Exactly how does one prove such a thing? “Affirmative consent” policy shifts the burden of proof, requiring the male student to prove a negative (that it was not rape) and thereby effectively strips him of his due process rights, so if his ex-girlfriend gets mad at him — adios, amigo! Expelled. You’re guilty. You’re a rapist because she said so.
Oh, but don’t get the police involved. Ms. Ridolfi-Starr co-authored a column arguing against investigating rape as a crime:
As survivors of sexual violence and advocates for safe, just campuses, we know these efforts would harm students.
These proposals that effectively require survivors to engage with the criminal justice system fail to grasp the function of the campus system. Schools have a legal requirement under Title IX toprotect all students’ ability to access education without fear of gender discrimination, including sexual and dating violence.
Campus processes are designed to focus on what student survivors need in order to continue their education, and are better equipped to help survivors address concrete and often urgent needs that can result from gender-based violence.
“Survivors,” “survivors,” “survivors” — they keep repeating this word as if by repetition they prove what they merely claim.
As for a student’s “ability to access education,” feminists are advocating for policies to deny such access to male students, to have males expelled from colleges on the basis of accusations for which the accuser is not required to offer any evidence whatsoever, in a process that denies the accused male student the legal protections accorded to any common criminal. Any male student who would have sex with a female student under such circumstances is probably too stupid to be among the 7% of applicants admitted to Columbia University.
These policies are about criminalizing sex, period.
Feminists like Zoe Ridolfi-Starr have become accustomed to getting away with dishonesty for so long that they never expect anyone to call them on their bullshit. But some people say Zoe Ridolfi-Starr lies about rape, and until she can prove she’s telling the truth, I’ll call her a liar.
Please sue me, you liar.