Dis-Chem tumbles on news a property gain flattered its earnings jump
Shares of Dis-Chem felt pressure on Friday on news that a one-off gain boosted its performance in its 2025 year.
Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once.
Start your FREE trial now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Who is Julius Malema, the South African politician behind 'kill the farmer' chant?
JOHANNESBURG - Julius Malema, the South African politician who President Donald Trump wants arrested for repeatedly chanting "kill the farmer," is reportedly a Rolex watch-wearing Gucci revolutionary, often seen in snazzy, expensive clothes, who champions the poor from a luxury mansion in what is said to be South Africa's richest street. He has also called for the further arming of the terror group Hamas and has been accused of stealing millions of dollars from the very pensioners he is trying to get to vote for him. Trump confronted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa with a video of Malema shouting "Shoot to kill, Kill the Boer (the Afrikaner), kill the farmer," when the South African president, a neighbor of Malema's in Johannesburg, visited the Oval Office earlier this month. Trump has offered Afrikaner farmers, descendants of mostly Dutch settlers, refuge in the U.S., citing controversial and disputed claims that they are facing White genocide and forced land seizures. The self-styled commander in chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) Party, Malema, a Marxist-Lennist, was the head of the Youth League of South Africa's biggest party, the African National Congress (ANC), but he was kicked out for bad-mouthing its leadership. In last year's election, votes for the EFF slumped to under 10%, and both of Malema's sidekicks, party co-founders and men he described as "brothers," left him and joined a competing party. So it did not come as a surprise to many that, allegedly to spite President Trump, Malema just days later jumped up, literally, onto the stage at the very next rally he was due to appear at to yell "Kill the farmer, I repeat kill the farmer." In 2022, South Africa's Constitutional Court, the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled the chant is not hate speech, declaring it is only the words of a song. Malema sits on the Judicial Services Commission, a body which appoints the Court's judges. To Malema, critics say, the chant may be more than just song lyrics. At least twice he told reporters here, "We have not called for the killing of White people – at least for now." On another occasion, he demanded, "We will cut the throat of Whiteness." Some say Malema is running two strategies - one which follows the mantra "There's no such thing as bad publicity," and the other to act like a small child that makes a lot of noise, hoping to be noticed, but with little real effect. Analyst J. Brooks Spector told Fox News Digital that Malema "has crafted a political reputation as the 'bad boy' of South African politics." Spector, a former U.S. diplomat who lives in Johannesburg and is associate editor of the Daily Maverick, continued. "In a country with a third of its workforce unemployed, and higher among young people, and poverty still a fact of life for many more, his (Malema's) populism initially drew significant support and enthusiasm among voters. However, his popularity as a political leader has faded somewhat." Malema openly supports the terror group Hamas, telling a rally in 2023, shortly after the October 7 attack on Israel, "when you are oppressed, you only have one option, shoot to kill. There is nothing wrong with what Hamas is doing. The EFF is going to arm Hamas." He also shouted he intended to shut down the Israeli Embassy in South Africa. "We are going to remove this embassy," he yelled to loud cheers. Allegations also suggest that Malema and his then right-hand man, Floyd Shivambu, benefitted from "dodgy" deals with the South African VBS bank, which subsequently collapsed, leading to people losing their pension savings. "In 2018, the VBS scandal exposed widespread looting by bank officials and politicians, including senior leaders of the EFF, Floyd Shivambu and Julius Malema," the Opposition Democratic Alliance's (DA) Baxolile Nodada stated last August. On Friday, the DA's federal executive member and national spokesperson, Willie Aucamp, told Fox News Digital the DA "isn't letting the VBS scandal fade into the background. Not when over R2 billion ($111 million) was looted from pensioners, struggling municipalities, and poor communities. The DA has been leading the charge to expose those behind this daylight robbery, including Julius Malema, leader of the EFF." He continued, "The DA laid criminal charges back in 2018, but six years later, not a single charge has been prosecuted by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Justice for the victims of VBS is long overdue. The DA will continue pushing for the arrest and prosecution of every single person involved - Malema included." Speaking in Cape Town in July last year, Malema said "I will never be intimidated by VBS. No leader of the EFF received VBS money." But now that Malema is on Donald Trump's radar, the president might push back powerfully on Malema's links to Hamas and the VBS saga, Max Meizlish, senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Fox News Digital. "Like the ANC that courts Iran and supports Hamas, Julius Malema would be wise to not provoke Donald Trump. After all, Malema was clearly implicated in the VBS scandal and has openly called to "arm Hamas." Malema could very well find himself the target of Global Magnitsky Act sanctions — a tool which President Trump can wield unilaterally and at a moment's notice," Meizlish said.
Entrepreneur
an hour ago
- Entrepreneur
This $200 MacBook Air Handles Your Hustle Without Complaints
Disclosure: Our goal is to feature products and services that we think you'll find interesting and useful. If you purchase them, Entrepreneur may get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our commerce partners. One thing to keep in mind when getting a laptop to support your professional needs is that not every job needs the latest M-series MacBook. If your goal is reliable performance, decent battery life, and that always-satisfying Apple experience—without obliterating your tech budget—this refurbished Apple MacBook Air 13.3″ (from 2017) might be exactly what you're looking for. At just $199.97, it's a compelling option for entrepreneurs, frequent flyers, remote teams, or anyone needing a no-fuss, high-functioning laptop. Whether you're outfitting new hires, building a small remote team, or just need a travel-friendly workhorse for flights and coworking spaces, this deal checks all the right boxes. Powered by a 1.8GHz Intel Core i5 processor with 128GB SSD and Intel HD Graphics 6000, this MacBook Air can easily handle productivity apps, video calls, and browser-based work. The 13.3-inch Retina display (1440×900) gives you enough screen real estate for spreadsheets, docs, or Netflix—no judgment here. And with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and a 12-hour battery, you've got the flexibility to work wherever you find a signal and a seat. A business-savvy no-brainer Sure, it's not the newest model, but at this price, it's a smart choice for businesses that are looking to scale or support remote productivity without buying into another $1,000 machine. It's also ideal as a reliable secondary laptop for traveling professionals who'd rather not risk their $2,000 daily driver at airport security. It's been cleaned and inspected, and arrives with the possibility of some light scratching or minor blemishes. All in all, it's a legit Apple laptop with great performance, for just $200. You'll get what you need, save what you don't, and maybe even impress a client or two with how resourcefully you roll. Get a top-quality refurbished Apple MacBook Air for just $199.97 (reg. $999) with free shipping when you order through July 20. Apple MacBook Air 13.3″ (2017) 1.8GHz i5 8GB RAM 128GB SSD Silver (Refurbished) See Deal StackSocial prices subject to change.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Tariff Uncertainties, Part 4: A Little Q&A (Maybe It's About China?)
(Photo by GREG BAKER/AFP via Getty Images) This Spring, economists everywhere, amateur and professional, got a new study assignment: tariffs. An old-school, back-burner policy issue, the tariff question jumped out of the history books (the McKinley presidency, Smoot-Hawley 1930, etc.) and onto the front pages here in 2025. 'Liberation Day' created such a storm of controversy that, like so many of us, I was diverted from other plans and forced to deal with it, to learn the vocabulary, to recall the history, and to pick apart the complex uncertainties. The result for me has been three installments so far (here, here and here) with several more to come, I expect. In writing for Forbes, my general principle is to avoid editorializing (there is certainly more than enough of that out there) but the new tariff proposals are so bewildering that inevitably many of my friends and correspondents have wanted to know 'What-I-Think'. And so – A couple weeks ago I got a query from a reporter, who posed a number of questions about the Trump administration's tariff gambit – which I tried in good faith to answer, based on the current and highly imperfect state of my knowledge of the subject. It occurred to me afterwards that these brief and relatively unencumbered responses might serve as a preliminary and partial statement of my conclusions about some of this. One of the questions cited below referenced a recent and now quite widely cited paper by Stephen Miran, formerly of Hudson Bay Capital and now Trump's choice as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Titled 'A User's Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System,' it puts forward a provocative thesis: because the dollar is in effect the world's reserve currency, it is overvalued due to 'inelastic demand' for dollar-denominated reserve assets by foreign central banks and many others. In other words, there are many economic actors globally who need to hold dollars for various reasons unrelated to the real economic value of our currency or our economy. These buyers are willing to pay a premium to acquire dollar reserves, and the price of the dollar is bid up. This creates trade imbalances because U.S. dollar-priced exports are overvalued and become uncompetitive, whereas U.S. consumers' dollar-priced purchasing power for undervalued foreign imports is stimulated. QED, growing trade deficits. Miran's thesis invites a much more substantive assessment than what is provided here. In a future column, I expect to address the general question of 'elastic' or, as I prefer to call it, 'price-insensitive' demand for Treasury Bonds, which is a larger subject than the trade policy perspective alone would suggest. So what follows is the colloquial Q&A, more or less unedited, from my email exchange with that reporter. It may be in some respects clearer, and more concise, than the analyses comprising the more substantive columns mentioned above. (The reporter's questions are in bold.) I think it is best to assume that Yes, there is a plan – rather than dismissing it all because it may look disorganized or haphazard. Trump's tactical modus operandi is to keep people guessing and off balance. This studied unpredictability may be confusing to many and annoying to some, and perhaps it is intended to confuse and annoy. It certainly overturns the traditional 'diplomacy' model of patient, dignified, long-term multi-lateral convocations of bureaucrats laboring over detailed trade agreements (e.g., the 'Uruguay round' - which involved representatives from 123 countries, working for 7½ years, to produce 26,000 pages of trade agreement documentation – or the subsequent 'Doha Round' which has been grinding away since 2001 without reaching a conclusion). As to what that endgame is — My best guess is that Trump actually would prefer to end up with a global trade regime based on low and balanced tariffs. At the G7 summit in Canada in 2018, he shocked the other world leaders by calling for the elimination of all tariffs and trade barriers – 'No tariffs, no barriers. That's the way it should be' — I think he wants to equalize or 'reciprocalize' the trade landscape among major trading partners. (China may be an exception.) In any case, I think the era where the U.S. runs a kind of parallel Marshall plan by allowing highly asymmetric trade arrangements to continue is coming to an end, one way or another. I think the principal long-term financial impact will be on the value of the dollar. Traditional trade theory would say that as the U.S. tariffs are imposed the dollar should appreciate and exporting countries' currencies should depreciate. This is what happened with the first round of Trump tariffs in 2018. The dollar gained strength and the Chinese Yuan (for example) devalued. However, the initial currency movements now are in the opposite direction — a somewhat weaker dollar and some appreciation of currencies like the Korean Won and the Taiwanese dollar (which has been the most severely undervalued currency in the world). This would suggest that a strategic re-alignment of exchange rates may be underway, which would address the issues raised in the Stephen Miran paper (see below, Question 4). Some have said that the dollar's reserve currency status may be affected, perhaps diminished somewhat – which would have many ramifications, including a rise in the cost to the U.S. for financing its deficits. I'm not sure about that. Capital outflows from China are the thing to watch most closely. Unlike the other major currencies, the Chinese currency has not appreciated significantly since Liberation Day and is at or near its lowest point since 2007. Initially it dropped in value, and has recovered only a little, apparently with massive help from Beijing. Gain in value of major currencies vs the USDollar, April 1 to May 23 2025 The struggling economy in China, the effects of tariffs imposed by the U.S., the EU, Canada, and just about every other country in the world restricting Chinese exports, along with other domestic constraints will put pressure on the Yuan — and as it depreciates, capital flight risk will intensify. It is difficult to measure, especially given China's steady elimination of statistical measures related to the economy, but by most accounts capital has been draining from the country since 2020, and the pace is accelerating. This is the most serious risk for the Chinese regime right now, I believe. It is also probably the most important long-term effect of the tariff war. Capital Flight from China accelerating Miran's is a very important paper, with many interesting observations. I would simplify the basic argument as follows: just as the massive purchases of Treasury bonds by the Federal Reserve in course of the various rounds of quantitative easing drove up the price of Treasury bonds (duh!), the massive accumulation of dollars (and Treasurys) by foreign govts and others will have the same effect. Both sources of demand are price-insensitive – the purchasers have other reasons to want or need to hold dollars or Treasurys and don't care about the price per se. From this insight — which is so obvious once it is stated that I am chagrinned not to have made the connection myself! – many other interesting corollary observations flow. Short answer is No. Smoot-Hawley happened almost a century ago, in a very different economy, both in the U.S. and globally, and has no real bearing on tariff policy today. [Much more to say on that, for a future column perhaps – but the conclusion is solid.] This may well be the end of the WTO as we know it. The WTO was created to put order in the global trading economy. It was born out of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system, which was itself born out of the post-war 'Marshall Plan for trade' regime alluded to above [and described in detail in my first Tariff column]. The WTO is a manifestation of geopolitical idealism. But it has failed to create or manage a fair trade regime, despite its high aspirations. The proliferation of non-tariff trade barriers in particular has raged on, with the level of complaints surging from many countries (not just the U.S.), and mostly aimed at China. The Chinese have made it clear that they are going to follow a protectionist path (a self-sufficiency model, they might call it) ever since the unveiling (in 2015) of the 'China 2025' plan. The WTO should be revamped, or replaced, by a new regime with real enforcement powers, and the will to exercise them against bad actors. Well, we should begin any answer to that question by defining our terms. If globalization refers to the current highly asymmetric international trade regime, rife with not just tariff imbalances but massive currency manipulation and even more significant levels of government subsidy for 'national champions' to provide competitive advantages… well, yes, I think that form of globalization is on the way out. And to the extent that globalization focuses on manufacturing, that too is going to change. One thing that is under-commented generally is the role of services in global trade. As manufacturing (in the West) follows the path of agriculture downward in terms of employment and GDP share, due to inexorable technological progress, and we become even more committed to a service economy, the nature of 'globalization' will surely evolve. 'Fairness' will have different manifestations. And 'global trade as fair trade' — that high ideal is gestating, and it is hard to say exactly how it might emerge as a concrete reality. A truck passes by China Shipping containers at the Port of Los Angeles, after new tariffs on Chinese ... More imports was imposed by President Trump, in Long Beach, California on September 1, 2019. - Washington moved ahead Sunday with new tariffs on Chinese imports as it stepped up a high-pressure campaign aimed at coercing Beijing to sign a new trade deal even amid fears of a further slowing of US and world growth. (Photo by Mark RALSTON / AFP) (Photo credit should read MARK RALSTON/AFP via Getty Images) China is going to be the center stage of the next phase of global trade policy. Behind all the sound and fury attending Trump and his Liberation Day antics, there is a sober consensus cohering in the West (and Japan, Korea, India, even SE Asia) that China is the real problem for global trade. Tariffs against Chinese imports are going into place all over the world. The country's massive export subsidies, over-production, gross dumping policies, currency manipulation, and numerous forms of bad economic misbehavior are eliciting protectionist responses almost everywhere, which will crimp China's ability to stimulate its flagging economy through its accustomed export-driven channels. A weakening Yuan and accelerating capital flight will push them to the edge. China is in the weakest position to survive a trade war without serious consequences.
