646-ph

The Indian Railways is gearing up to configure Kavach 4.0 - an advanced automatic train protection system - across its key routes. Kavach 4.0 is a technology-driven solution developed by the Indian Railways to prevent accidents and ensure the smooth operation of trains by providing an additional layer of safety and control. The upgraded version of the Kavach, commonly referred to as Kavach 4.0, will be installed in all the locomotives which are currently operating the lower version of the Kavach. This updated version will be implemented by the Northeast Frontier Railway from Malda Town in West Bengal to Assam's Dibrugarh, spanning a length of approximately 1966 RKM. This step by the Indian Railways across its key routes is a broader initiative to modernize its infrastructure and enhance safety standards. By leveraging cutting-edge technology such as Kavach 4.0, the connectivity system will ensure smoother operations, minimizing human error and most importantly preventing accidents. The Kavach 4.0 system is built upon several critical technological components, including Station Kavach, which receives information from Loco Kavach and signalling systems to guide the locomotive and RFID tags, which are installed along the tracks at regular intervals and signal point to monitor the train’s location and direction. It is worth mentioning that Indian Railways has been taking significant measures of late to prevent train accidents. The rolling out of Kavach 4.0 shows the Indian Railway's commitment of making rail travel safer for passengers. This move is part of a larger plan to strengthen the railway network and boost safety measures across the length and breadth of the country.In recent years, Carter had received various hospital treatments, including when he revealed in August 2015 that he had brain cancer and was undergoing radiation treatment — an illness he recovered from, seemingly against the odds. In addition to being president, the 100-year-old was a U.S. Navy submarine officer, a farmer, a diplomat, a Nobel laureate, a Sunday school teacher and one of the world’s most well-known humanitarians. Carter won the presidency in 1976, following the Nixon and Ford administrations, at a time of grave political and social tumult not unlike our own. During his tenure, the Democrat prioritized human rights and social justice , enjoying a solid first two years, which included brokering a peace deal between Israel and Egypt dubbed the Camp David Accords . But his administration hit numerous snags — the most serious being the taking of U.S. hostages in Iran and the disastrous failed attempt to rescue the 52 captive Americans in 1980 . The blowback from the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics , held in the former Soviet Union in response to that country’s invasion of Afghanistan, may have also hurt Carter. Richard Moe, who served from 1977 to 1981 as chief of staff to Vice President Walter Mondale, offered an alternative view of Carter’s presidency in 2015 , citing numerous achievements. “ As worthy as Jimmy Carter’s post-presidency has been, it shouldn’t overshadow his time in office, which has been too often overlooked, and which stands in sharp contrast to what we see in the [ Trump administration],” Moe said. In November 1980, Republican challenger Ronald Reagan beat Carter, relegating him to a single term of office on a wave of staunch conservatism. “We told the truth, we obeyed the law, and we kept the peace,” said Vice President Walter Mondale at the end of Carter’s term . In the introduction of his 2015 book, A Full Life , Carter repeated the Mondale quote, adding, “We championed human rights.” As the years passed, a more nuanced image of Carter emerged, taking into account his post-presidential activities and reassessing his achievements. He founded the Carter Center in 1982 to pursue his vision of world diplomacy and received the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to promote social and economic justice. Carter said basic Christian tenets such as justice and love served as the bedrock of his presidency, and the ex-president taught Sunday school at Maranatha Baptist, his church in Plains, well into his 90s. Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, who is also a senior pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church where Martin Luther King, Jr. preached, wished the Carter family comfort as the former president entered hospice. "Across life's seasons, President Jimmy Carter, a man of great faith, has walked with God," Warnock tweeted. "In this tender time of transitioning, God is surely walking with him." Both Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter made plans to be buried at their family home in Plains , near “a willow tree at the pond’s edge, on a gentle sloping lawn, where they will be buried in graves marked by simple stones.” The Carters’ property has already been deeded to the National Park Service. With additional reporting from AFP.United States shares higher at close of trade; Dow Jones Industrial Average up 0.28%The ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in Lagos State says council election will hold in all the 20 local gov­ernment areas and 37 Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) in 2025. The APC Chairman, Pas­tor Cornelius Ojelabi, made this clarification in a state­ment on Sunday in Lagos, following speculations about the status of the 37 LCDAs in the state. “In recent times, the lead­ership of APC in Lagos State has been inundated by the media, party members and other stakeholders on infor­mation about the conduct of the forthcoming local govern­ment elections, most specially if elections will hold in the 37 Local Council Development Areas – LCDAs. “It has become expedient to clear the air on the needless and distractive speculation. “We wish to inform all and sundry that the local govern­ment elections will hold across the state in the 20 local government councils and the 37 Local Council Development Areas in the year 2025,” Ojela­bi said. According to him, since their creation, the LCDAs have not only been the clos­est to the grassroots, but also brought the desired develop­ments across the state. He said that the party had observed with keen interest the debates on the desirability of the existence of the LCDAs and the need to hold elections in their political offices. Ojelabi added: “Our posi­tion as a progressive party is that we cannot discoun­tenance the contributions of the LCDAs to the overall political and socio-economic development of the state. “Our landscape is dotted by several infrastructural projects by the LCDAs which include road, drainage and market construction, school and housing projects, prima­ry education and health facili­ties and various social service interventions among others. “The various collaborative efforts with the state govern­ment on refuse disposal, drain clearing and security are also pointers to their continuous relevance. “We hope this release will put paid to further specula­tions as regards the local gov­ernment elections in order not to unnecessarily heat up the polity.” He urged party members and all residents to continue to coexist peacefully “as we all strive to maintain the leading position of our state in the fed­eration.” Recall that the move by the House of Assembly to create Area Administrative Councils in replacement of Local Council Development Areas (LCDAs) through the proposed Local Government Administration Bill has been opposed by political stake­holders. The bill is titled ‘A bill for a law to provide for local gov­ernment’s system, establish­ment and administration and to consolidate all laws on local government administration and connected purposes’ is still being considered on the floor of the House. The Assembly during a re­cent public hearing said the bill was being considered to replace the current 37 Local Council Development Areas in the state (LCDAs) with Area Administrative Coun­cils. According to the House, the bill to restructure local government administration in the state followed the Su­preme Court judgment on financial autonomy for local governments.

Who truly has Beijing’s ear when it comes to economic policymaking? As China navigates a period of profound economic challenges, this question has taken on new urgency. While outsiders often perceive China’s economic policies as dictated in a top-down, insulated manner, the reality is more nuanced. Policy-making in Beijing frequently involves regular engagement with trusted experts through roundtables, study sessions, and advisory committees. The voices shaping economic strategy extend beyond the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s inner circle to include a select “brain trust” of economists whose ideas inform and influence key decisions. To understand China’s policy direction, it is crucial to identify this brain trust. Our project does just that by analyzing the perspectives of economists who have become integral to the policymaking process. These figures include chief economists at major financial institutions, respected academics, and former officials with deep experience in economic governance. By examining their insights, we aim to uncover where their views align, where they diverge, and what these dynamics reveal about China’s economic challenges and priorities. We selected these experts based on five dimensions: influence, prominence, rigor, political proximity, and expertise. Together, they offer a window into the intellectual framework underpinning Beijing’s economic decision-making. The debates among these experts shed light on the priorities shaping China’s economic policies and offer insight into the trade-offs Beijing must grapple with. Understanding these voices is critical – not just to predicting China’s next moves but also to grasping the constraints and opportunities within its evolving economic system. By unpacking the perspectives of China’s economic whisperers, we aim to shed light on the most pressing economic policy debates of recent months and delve into the areas where expert opinions converge and diverge. Stabilizing the Present: Monetary and Fiscal Moves The Chinese government has implemented unconventional monetary and fiscal policies in recent months in an effort to stabilize its economy. The People’s Bank of China’s (PBoC) new liquidity facility and the Ministry of Finance’s debt-restructuring plan exemplify a growing willingness to experiment with creative solutions. But are these measures bold enough to address the scale of the challenges? The PBoC’s Securities, Funds, and Insurance Companies Swap Facility (SFISF), launched in September, has drawn significant attention. By allowing financial institutions to swap illiquid securities for treasury bonds and central bank bills, it aims to inject 500 billion yuan into the capital markets. Economists such as Yugen Xun of Haitong Securities have lauded the move as a confidence booster, calling it a decisive signal of the PBoC’s commitment to stabilizing financial markets. Similarly, Yuanchun Liu of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics has interpreted the SFISF as a harbinger of more aggressive monetary interventions. However, foreign investors remain wary. Ziqiang Xing of Morgan Stanley was skeptical, noting that while the facility provides short-term relief, it falls short of the level of monetary expansion deemed necessary by many foreign stakeholders. The Ministry of Finance’s debt-swapping scheme, which aims to restructure 10 trillion yuan in hidden local government debt over five years, has similarly received mixed reviews. While Zhiheng Luo of Yuekai Securities praised it for reducing debt servicing costs and enhancing transparency, critics argued it merely delays a reckoning with the underlying fiscal imbalances. One area of consensus among economists is the likelihood of further monetary easing. Ming Ming of CITIC Securities predicted multiple cuts to the reserve requirement ratio and interest rates in 2025, while Qingyou Guan, an independent economist, advocated slashing mortgage rates to stimulate the real estate market. Ge Wu of Changjiang Securities warned that concerns about the yuan’s depreciation and declining deposit rates might constrain aggressive easing but argued that steady monetary expansions and interest rate cuts are nonetheless indispensable. Fiscal policy, by contrast, has revealed deeper divisions. Tao Wang of UBS supports targeted fiscal stimulus of 1.5–2 trillion yuan to spur growth. Meanwhile, Daokui Li, a former PBoC official, urged restraint, warning that large-scale government spending could jeopardize long-term fiscal sustainability. Shijin Liu, a former deputy director of the State Council’s Development Research Center, offered a compromise, emphasizing that any stimulus must prioritize improving public service quality and promoting equitable urbanization. This debate underscores the tension between addressing immediate crises and maintaining fiscal discipline. Searching for a New Growth Engine China’s economic growth has long relied on real estate, but the collapse of this model has sparked an urgent search for alternatives. The debate among experts centers on three interrelated priorities: systemic reform, technological innovation, and economic openness. Systemic reform is widely regarded as a prerequisite for sustainable growth. Xuetao Song of TF Securities advocated for strengthening corporate rights protections, improving public service quality, and curbing wasteful expenditures. For Xunlei Li of Zhongtai Securities, enhancing the social safety net is particularly urgent. He argued that raising household incomes and expanding access to education and healthcare will not only boost domestic consumption but also create new opportunities in the tertiary sector. Shanwen Gao of Essence International Financial Holdings echoed this view, emphasizing that policies to stimulate consumption are critical for economic rebalancing. Others contend that technology, rather than systemic reform, will drive China’s next growth phase. Justin Yifu Lin, a former World Bank chief economist, and Xiaonian Xu of CEIBS both stressed the need to improve corporate productivity and move beyond reliance on investment-led growth. Former IMF Vice President Min Zhu took this argument further, highlighting the importance of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), green energy, and data-driven tools in boosting productivity and fostering new industries. Zhu suggested that China could even lead the global transition to sustainable energy and digital economies if it fully embraces technological innovation. A third school of thought prioritizes greater economic openness. Xinli Zheng, a former deputy director of the CCP Central Policy Research Office, has been a vocal advocate for “institutional opening-up,” urging China to align with global regulatory standards and deepen its integration into international trade systems. Jianguo Wei, a former deputy minister of commerce, highlighted the potential of digital trade and agreements like the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement to attract foreign investment and position China as a leader in high-value global supply chains. Navigating the Trump Factor The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency adds another layer of complexity to China’s economic calculus. Trump’s first term saw a historic trade war that slowed China’s growth and disrupted global supply chains. His reelection raises the likelihood of renewed tariffs and heightened protectionism, forcing Beijing to rethink its economic strategy. Economists are divided on how damaging another round of China-U.S. trade tensions could be. Tao Wang estimated that a full-blown global trade war could shave 2 percentage points off China’s GDP – a significant hit for an economy already facing headwinds. However, Zhiwu Chen of HKU Business School noted a potential silver lining. He argued that heightened trade tensions could accelerate China’s pivot from export-driven growth to a domestic consumption model, as the government would be compelled to reallocate resources toward struggling consumer sectors. Most experts agree that Beijing will need to pursue a dual strategy: mitigating short-term risks while diversifying its trade relationships. Strengthening economic ties with Europe, particularly if EU-U.S. relations sour, is viewed as a key avenue for offsetting American protectionism. At the same time, China is likely to offer more favorable terms to foreign investors, as it did with Tesla, to attract the capital needed for domestic growth. Where Experts Diverge – and Why It Matters A striking feature of the current economic debate is the divergence between experts in financial institutions and those with policymaking experience. The former group tends to favor aggressive stimulus and easing measures to address immediate challenges, reflecting the priorities of capital markets. In contrast, academics and former officials often emphasize structural reforms and strategic investments as essential for long-term stability. These differences reflect deeper ideological divides over the role of the state in managing the economy. Should Beijing prioritize short-term interventions to stabilize markets and reassure investors? Or should it focus on building a more resilient economic foundation, even at the cost of slower recovery in the near term? Another source of contention lies in the balance between fiscal and monetary policy. While most agree that monetary easing will play a central role in the short term, the scale and scope of fiscal intervention remain hotly debated. The controversy underscores the challenges of navigating China’s unique economic pressures, where traditional tools may no longer suffice. What China’s Economic Whisperers Reveal About China’s Economy The varied perspectives among China’s leading economists offer a unique lens into the complexities of the country’s economy and its policymaking process. Points of convergence reflect the recognition of shared structural challenges, while divergences expose the competing priorities and uncertainties shaping China’s path forward. Together, these perspectives offer valuable lessons – not just for Beijing but for a global audience grappling with the ripple effects of China’s economic trajectory. The broad agreement on the need for monetary easing highlights a consensus that immediate stabilization is critical. Economists recognize the urgency of addressing liquidity constraints and restoring confidence in markets. This shared perspective underscores the fragility of China’s current economic framework, where even incremental measures like the SFISF are seen as essential lifelines. For policymakers abroad, this serves as a reminder of how interconnected China’s financial stability is with global markets. A wobble in Chinese liquidity sends ripples through supply chains, investor sentiment, and trade flows worldwide. At the same time, disagreements over fiscal policy and long-term growth strategies reflect the difficult balancing act China faces. The debate over whether to prioritize fiscal restraint or stimulus reveals an economy at a tipping point, struggling to reconcile short-term demands with the imperative of structural reform. Divergent views on the roles of systemic change and technological innovation further illustrate the challenge of building a sustainable growth model. For international observers, these debates point to a larger truth: the solutions that propelled China’s rise – heavy investment, real estate expansion, and export dependency – are no longer sufficient. Beijing must innovate within an increasingly constrained global and domestic environment. The divides also underscore the evolving complexity of China’s economic governance. Unlike earlier decades, when a clear policy consensus often emerged swiftly, today’s debates are shaped by diverse and sometimes conflicting views on China’s direction amid structural slowdowns and global headwinds. Economists focusing on market sentiments advocate bold, immediate interventions to reverse low confidence and sluggish recovery, while those with policymaking backgrounds promote more measured, wait-and-see approaches. This fragmentation reflects the complexity within China’s economic system and signals that China’s policymaking, while decisive, is far from monolithic – and that uncertainty is an inherent feature of its economic transition. Finally, the convergence on external risks – particularly the potential fallout from a renewed China-U.S. trade war – reveals a shared acknowledgment of how geopolitics increasingly shapes economic realities. The recognition that diversification and domestic consumption are critical buffers points to a China recalibrating its strategy for a less stable global environment. In the end, the convergence and divergence of China’s economic voices reveal a country navigating one of the most pivotal transitions in its modern history. While China’s decision-making process remains opaque, identifying these debates offers valuable insights into the trade-offs Beijing faces. For policymakers, investors, and analysts worldwide, understanding these dynamics is key to interpreting the complexities of China’s evolving economic strategy.None

AP News Summary at 9:36 p.m. ESTSuchir Balaji Was Murdered? ‘Sign of Struggle in Bathroom’, Parents of Indian-American OpenAI Whistleblower Demand FBI Probe Into Their Son’s Death, Dismissing Suicide Angle; Elon Musk Backs Them