Jeff Bezos-Lauren Sanchez wedding: I am ashamed, we will have to ....; says Venice Mayor as protesters target Amazon founder's wedding
The upcoming wedding of
Jeff Bezos
and
Lauren Sanchez
in Venice has polarized the city, with some residents protesting the event while others, including city officials, embrace it.
Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro
expressed strong support for the couple, stating, 'I want Jeff Bezos to be welcomed with open arms in Venice. Protesting against those who bring visibility and wealth to our territory is, in my opinion, a disgrace.' Brugnaro, speaking to reporters on Friday, added, 'We will have to apologize to Bezos. I am ashamed of those who behave like this. I hope that Bezos comes anyway. Not all Venetians think like these protesters," he told protestors.
At the Biennale of Architecture, a staple Venice event, sentiments aligned more with city officials. Görge Meyer, a visitor from Berlin, told CNN, 'It seems ridiculous that a city that lives off tourism like Venice wouldn't want an event like this, which will employ hundreds of people from waiters to water taxi drivers. All the guests and journalists will be staying at hotels, eating at restaurants and spending money.'
Gillian Longworth McGuire, an American travel writer living in Venice, noted the city's historical allure for high-profile weddings, saying, 'Venice just doesn't have a clear idea of what it is supposed to be sometimes. Is it a magical place carved out of a lagoon, built by merchants and fishermen, or a bachelorette party and mega wedding venue? The ethos of this city was always that it was the crossroads of culture and the world.'
Some locals bitter over Venice wedding
However, not all residents are welcoming. The 'No Space for Bezos' collective hung a banner with an X over Bezos's name on a belltower overlooking the Venice lagoon, which was removed Thursday. The group declared on Facebook, 'He's not welcome, not in Venice, not anywhere!' highlighting local resentment toward the event.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
The US marches toward state capitalism with American characteristics
A generation ago conventional wisdom held that as China liberalized, its economy would come to resemble America's. Instead, capitalism in America is starting to look like China. Recent examples include President Trump's demand that Intel's CEO resign; the 'golden share" Washington will get in U.S. Steel as a condition of Nippon Steel's takeover; and the $1.5 trillion of promised investment from trading partners Trump plans to personally direct. This isn't socialism, in which the state owns the means of production. It is more like state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises. China calls its hybrid 'socialism with Chinese characteristics." The U.S. hasn't gone as far as China or even milder practitioners of state capitalism such as Russia, Brazil and, at times, France. So call this variant 'state capitalism with American characteristics." It is still a sea change from the free market ethos the U.S. once embodied. We wouldn't be dabbling with state capitalism if not for the public's and both parties' belief that free-market capitalism wasn't working. That system encouraged profit-maximizing chief executives to move production abroad. The result was a shrunken manufacturing workforce, dependence on China for vital products such as critical minerals, and underinvestment in the industries of the future such as clean energy and semiconductors. The federal government has often waded into the corporate world. It commandeered production during World War II and, under the Defense Production Act, emergencies such as the Covid pandemic. It bailed out banks and car companies during the 2007-09 financial crisis. Those were temporary expedients. Former president Joe Biden went further, seeking to shape the actual structure of industry. His Inflation Reduction Act authorized $400 billion in clean energy loans. The Chips and Science Act earmarked $39 billion in subsidies for domestic semiconductor manufacturing. Of that, $8.5 billion went to Intel, giving Trump leverage to demand the removal of its chief executive over past ties to China. (Intel so far has refused.) Biden overrode U.S. Steel's management and shareholders to block Nippon Steel's takeover, though his staff saw no national security risk. Trump reversed that veto while extracting the 'golden share" that he can use to influence the company's decisions. In design and name it mimics the golden shares that private Chinese companies must issue to the CCP. Biden officials had mulled a sovereign-wealth fund to finance strategically important but commercially risky projects such as in critical minerals, which China dominates. Last month Trump's Department of Defense announced that it would take a 15% stake in MP Materials, a miner of critical minerals. Many in the West admire China for its ability to turbo charge growth through massive feats of infrastructure building, scientific advance, and promotion of favored industries. American efforts are often bogged down amid the checks, balances and compromises of pluralistic democracy. In his forthcoming book, 'Breakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future," author Dan Wang writes: 'China is an engineering state, building big at breakneck speed, in contrast to the United States' lawyerly society, blocking everything it can, good and bad." To admirers, Trump's appeal is his willingness to bulldoze those lawyerly obstacles. He has imposed tariffs on a broad array of countries and sectors, seizing authority that is supposed to belong to Congress. He extracted $1.5 trillion in investment pledges from Japan, the European Union and South Korea that he claims he will personally direct, though no legal mechanism for doing so appears to exist. (Those pledges are already in dispute.) There are reasons state capitalism never caught on before. The state cannot allocate capital more efficiently than private markets. Distortions, waste and cronyism typically follow. Russia, Brazil and France have grown much more slowly than the U.S. Chinese state capitalism isn't the success story it seems. Barry Naughton of the University of California, San Diego has documented how China's rapid growth since 1979 has come from market sources not the state. As President Xi Jinping has reimposed state control, growth has slowed. China is awash with savings, but the state wastes much of it. From steel to vehicles, excess capacity leads to plummeting prices and profits. The U.S. hasn't fared any better. Interventions made in the name of national security or kick-starting infant industries lead to boondoggles like Foxconn's promised factory in Wisconsin or Tesla's solar panel factory in Buffalo, N.Y. State capitalism is an all-of-society affair in China, directed from Beijing via millions of cadres in local governments and company boardrooms. In the U.S., it consists largely of Oval Office announcements lacking any policy or institutional framework. 'The core characteristic of China's state capitalism is discipline, and Trump is the complete opposite of that," Wang said in an interview. State capitalism is a means of political, not just economic, control. Xi ruthlessly deploys economic levers to crush any challenge to party primacy. In 2020 Alibaba co-founder Jack Ma, arguably the country' most famous business leader, criticized Chinese regulators for stifling financial innovation. Retaliation was swift. Regulators canceled the initial public offering of Ma's financial company, Ant Group, and eventually fined it $2.8 billion for anticompetitive behavior. Ma briefly disappeared from public view. Trump has similarly deployed executive orders and regulatory powers against media companies, banks, law firms and other companies he believes oppose him, while rewarding executives who align themselves with his priorities. In Trump's first term, CEOs routinely spoke out when they disagreed with his policies such as on immigration and trade. Now, they shower him with donations and praise, or are mostly silent. Trump is also seeking political control over agencies that have long operated at arm's length from the White House, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Federal Reserve. That, too, has echoes of China where the bureaucracy is fully subordinate to the ruling party. Trump has long admired the control Xi exercises over his country, but there are, in theory, limits to how far he can emulate him. American democracy constrains the state through an independent judiciary, free speech, due process and the diffusion of power among multiple levels and branches of government. How far state capitalism ultimately displaces free-market capitalism in the U.S. depends on how well those checks and balances hold up. Write to Greg Ip at
Mint
22 minutes ago
- Mint
Cow's milk, as well as Russian oil, fuels the US-India trade war
Donald Trump has beef with India for buying oil from Russia. But the American president's tariffs totalling 50% on many Indian exports—set to come into force later this month—are not just about geopolitics. Agriculture and dairy have been the most contentious issues in India's talks with America, which broke down this month. And it is over farming that India's equally combative prime minister, Narendra Modi, has chosen to fight back. 'India will never compromise on the wellbeing of its farmers, dairy and fishermen," he thundered in Delhi on August 7th, a day after Mr Trump's announcement. For Hindu-nationalist politicians like Mr Modi, the dairy industry has particular importance (the cow is sacred in Hinduism). But it is also a source of national pride, seen as a poverty-alleviating triumph of enlightened policymaking, technological advance and international co-operation. India is a milk superpower. For nearly three decades it has been the world's biggest producer and is now the source of about a quarter of the global total. Yet, from the point of view of India's trading partners, notably America, the industry seems to sum up all that is wrong with India. It is grossly inefficient, subsidised, polluting (all that methane) and heavily protected by high tariff barriers and a perplexing lattice of arcane non-tariff ones. Can these diametrically opposed views be reconciled? The answer matters a lot to India's trade diplomacy. It is not just America that complains about access to the Indian market. It is a sticking-point in negotiations with the European Union, too, and was one of the thorniest issues in the negotiations leading to a free-trade agreement with Britain signed last month. It may also have been the main reason why India pulled out of a big regional trade deal in 2019. Indian dairy still basks in the glow of a 'white revolution" launched in 1970. At the time Indians already had more cattle than any other country, but they consumed an average of about 100 millilitres of milk a day, far below recommended nutritional standards. Some of that had to be imported. By the turn of the century India had virtually doubled the availability of milk per person. Dairy practices had been modernised and the cross-breeding of cattle had boosted yields. A network of tens of thousands of co-operatives had been established, improving distribution and logistics, financed by the sale of skimmed milk powder and butter donated by the European Economic Community, the EU's forebear. Yields have continued to improve this century, but the structure of the industry remains unchanged. 'White Revolution 2.0", launched by the government last year, aims not to reform but expand it, with co-operatives increasing milk procurement by 50% over five years. Production will still depend on tens of millions of smallholders—families with a cow that grazes on their plot, produces dung and urine to be used as fertiliser, and provides milk for the family, sometimes with a surplus to sell. Himanshu (who goes by one name), a professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, points out that Mr Modi and Mr Trump are both very 'pro-farmer". But their farmers, including dairy farmers, could hardly be more different. India has about 200m cattle, of which the United States Department of Agriculture estimates 62m are dairy cows. Yet the average 'herd" consists of fewer than four, and the average landholding of just one hectare. A number widely used is that 80m families have one or more cows or buffaloes. America has just 24,000 dairy farms, with an average herd size of about 390. Co-operatives guarantee Indian farmers a buyer for their milk, and pay them bonuses when prices rise. A handful have become big national organisations—notably Amul, from Gujarat, home state of Mr Modi and his powerful cabinet minister, Amit Shah. So vaunted is the success of the agricultural co-operative system that in July Mr Shah unveiled plans to extend it to other businesses such as tourism, taxis and green energy. Proud as Indians are of their cows and their dairy farmers, they have to admit that both are, by international standards, woefully unproductive. The average American cow produces about seven times as much milk as her Indian competitor. India protects its dairy farmers with import tariffs comparable to those Mr Trump is now imposing on Indian exporters: 40% on most butter and cheese and 60% on powdered milk. Without these protections, says Shashi Kumar, boss of Akshayakalpa, a privately owned organic-dairy business in southern India that works with 2,200 small farmers, 'smallholder farms will collapse". It is not just tariffs that Mr Trump's negotiators object to. India excludes imports of all genetically modified crops except cotton, and in dairy there is a ban on what has become known as 'non-veg milk"—with a requirement that imported dairy products be certified to come from cows that had not been fed animal products such as bonemeal. The ban is often decried as a non-tariff barrier dressed up in politically correct Hindu-nationalist clothes. Vijay Sardana, a lawyer and agri-economist, points out it was in fact introduced in 2003, when he drafted the law in response to the BSE (mad-cow disease) scare in Europe. Still, the perception that the Indian government will use any available tactic to protect its farmers is probably justified. Harish Damodaran, the agriculture editor of the Indian Express, a newspaper, points out that twice in four years India's farmers have fended off attempts at reform. In 2021 their prolonged, angry protests in Delhi forced Mr Modi to repeal three laws introducing sensible deregulatory reforms. Mr Trump's effort to impose change through diplomacy may prove equally fruitless.
News18
22 minutes ago
- News18
Janhvi Kapoor & Sidharth Malhotra Turn Heads While Promoting ‘Param Sundari'
Janhvi Kapoor & Sidharth Malhotra Turn Heads While Promoting 'Param Sundari' | WATCH Last Updated: August 12, 2025, 07:38 IST Movies Videos Janhvi Kapoor and Sidharth Malhotra promoted Param Sundari on Monday at the sets of Super Dancer Chapter 5, looking their absolute best. Watch the video to know more. news | entertainment news live | latest bollywood news | bollywood | news18 | n18oc_moviesLiked the video? Please press the thumbs up icon and leave a comment. Subscribe to Showsha YouTube channel and never miss a video: Showsha on Instagram: Showsha on Facebook: Showsha on X: Showsha on Snapchat: entertainment and lifestyle news and updates on: homevideos Janhvi Kapoor & Sidharth Malhotra Turn Heads While Promoting 'Param Sundari' | WATCH CNN name, logo and all associated elements ® and © 2024 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company. All rights reserved. CNN and the CNN logo are registered marks of Cable News Network, LP LLLP, displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them. © Copyright Network18 Media and Investments Ltd 2024. All rights reserved.
