German lawmakers approved a significant spending plan that loosens the country’s strict debt rules to allow for increased investment in defense and infrastructure. This historic decision, led by Friedrich Merz, the prospective next chancellor, passed with a vote of 513 to 207 in the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament. The plan required a two-thirds majority (at least 489 votes) due to its amendments to Germany’s constitutional “debt brake,” which traditionally limits borrowing to 0.35% of annual GDP.

The package exempts defense and security spending exceeding 1% of GDP from these debt restrictions, covering areas like military enhancements, intelligence agencies, and aid to Ukraine. Additionally, it establishes a 500-billion-euro ($544 billion) fund, financed through borrowing, to revitalize Germany’s infrastructure over the next 12 years. This fund aims to address the country’s stagnant economy—Europe’s largest—by investing in critical areas such as transportation, energy, and housing, with 100 billion euros specifically allocated for climate-related initiatives at the insistence of the Greens party.

The approval came amidst growing concerns over the reliability of the trans-Atlantic alliance, particularly with doubts about U.S. commitment under President Donald Trump, and ongoing geopolitical tensions, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The vote was strategically pushed through the outgoing parliament before the newly elected one convenes on March 25, 2025, to avoid potential opposition from parties like the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Left Party, which hold significant seats in the new parliament and oppose aspects of the plan.

The plan amends Germany’s constitutional “debt brake,” which caps annual borrowing at 0.35% of GDP, to exempt defense and security spending that exceeds 1% of GDP. This allows for substantial increases in military funding without triggering the usual fiscal constraints. The exemption applies not only to the armed forces (Bundeswehr) but also to intelligence agencies, civil defense, and Germany’s contributions to international security efforts, such as aid to Ukraine.

The decision is driven by concerns over the reliability of the U.S. as a NATO partner, particularly with President Donald Trump’s administration raising doubts about trans-Atlantic commitments. Germany aims to strengthen its role within NATO and the European Union’s defense framework. Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, now in its third year, has heightened the urgency to modernize Germany’s military capabilities and support allies in the region. While exact figures for annual defense spending weren’t specified in the initial vote, the exemption enables Germany to surpass its previous NATO commitment of 2% of GDP—a target it first met in 2024 with a special 100-billion-euro fund established after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Unlike the 2022 special fund, which was a one-off measure, this plan integrates defense spending into a long-term framework. It leverages borrowing capacity freed up by the debt brake amendment, potentially drawing from the broader 500-billion-euro ($544 billion) fund established for infrastructure and climate initiatives over the next 12 years. The defense portion isn’t separately quantified in public statements, but its prioritization suggests a significant allocation, likely in the tens of billions annually, given Germany’s GDP of approximately 4 trillion euros.

The vote (513 to 207) in the Bundestag secured the necessary two-thirds majority to amend the constitution, reflecting broad support from Friedrich Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU), its Bavarian sister party CSU, and coalition partners like the Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens. Opposition came from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the Left Party, who criticized the militarization and debt increase. The outgoing parliament rushed the vote before the new session on March 25, 2025, to avoid complications from the AfD’s stronger presence in the incoming legislature.

The plan awaits approval from the Bundesrat, Germany’s upper house, representing the 16 federal states. Given the cross-party support in the Bundestag and the urgency of the security situation, passage is anticipated, though some states may negotiate adjustments. This defense spending overhaul marks a turning point for Germany, shifting from its post-World War II reluctance toward military engagement to a more assertive stance, aligning with its economic weight in Europe.

Tesla has been facing a rough stretch in recent weeks, with its stock price plummeting and key executives offloading millions of dollars in shares. Since early February, four top officers at the electric vehicle maker have sold over $100 million in stock, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Among those selling shares is James Murdoch, a longtime ally of Elon Musk and a Tesla board member since 2017. Murdoch exercised a stock option and sold shares worth approximately $13 million on March 10, the same day Tesla suffered its largest single-day stock decline in five years. According to SEC filings, the sale was made to cover the exercise price of stock options set to expire in 2025.

Kimbal Musk, Elon Musk’s brother and a fellow Tesla board member, also cashed out 75,000 shares worth roughly $27 million last month. Additionally, Robyn Denholm, Tesla’s board chair, sold over $75 million worth of stock in two transactions over the past five weeks. Denholm’s sales were executed under a prearranged trading plan adopted in July 2024, designed to prevent executives from being accused of trading on insider information.

The selloffs come at a particularly challenging time for Tesla. The company’s stock has fallen nearly 50% from its mid-December peak, a decline that has only accelerated in recent weeks. The situation has been compounded by weak demand, increasing competition, and growing investor unease over Musk’s political controversies.

“Whenever insiders, including directors, are selling shares, it’s not a positive signal,” said Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida. While prearranged sales like Denholm’s are common, the timing of the broader selloff has raised concerns among investors.

Tesla Chief Financial Officer Vaibhav Taneja also sold over $5 million worth of shares in recent weeks, including one transaction not tied to a predetermined sales plan, further fueling speculation about the company’s future performance.

Adding to Tesla’s woes, JPMorgan recently slashed its forecast for the company’s first-quarter deliveries. Initially projecting 444,000 units, the bank has now revised that estimate down to just 355,000 units—well below Wall Street’s broader consensus of 430,000. If the latest projection holds, Tesla will report an 8% year-over-year drop in deliveries for Q1 2025.

The downturn in Tesla’s sales is already evident across key global markets. In January and February, Tesla’s sales in Norway plunged 44.4%, while Germany saw an even steeper drop of 70.6%. Sales in Australia and China have also suffered, signaling that demand for Tesla’s vehicles is waning.

JPMorgan analysts have further lowered their price target for Tesla’s stock to just $120 per share, a drastic cut from the $249 price it was trading at last week. The downgrade reflects growing skepticism about Tesla’s near-term performance, with analysts describing the stock’s dramatic decline as “unprecedented in the automotive industry.”

“We struggle to think of anything analogous in the history of the automotive industry, in which a brand has lost so much value so quickly,” said Ryan Brinkman, an auto analyst at JPMorgan.

A key factor weighing on Tesla’s brand and stock performance is Musk’s increasingly polarizing political stance. His alignment with controversial figures and his vocal criticism of regulatory policies have alienated some investors and consumers. Experts warn that Musk’s politics, combined with the recent stock selloffs by Tesla’s board, are likely to contribute to a disappointing Q1 earnings report.

Investor confidence in Tesla has been further shaken by reports of growing discontent among customers, with some showrooms witnessing protests and instances of vandalism targeting Tesla vehicles and Supercharger stations. Analysts caution that unless the company can reverse its downward sales trend, Tesla’s market value and global dominance in the EV sector may continue to erode in the months ahead.

A fresh challenge has hit Nigeria’s oil sector as 12 March-loading crude cargoes remain unsold, highlighting weak demand for the country’s exports.

Traders reported that as of 10 March, buyers for these cargoes were still being sought, with much of the April export schedule also available, according to data from Argus. The sluggish sales come as Nigerian crude faces stiff competition from cheaper alternatives such as Kazakh-origin light sour CPC Blend, US WTI, and Mediterranean sweet crudes in Europe, where refinery maintenance season is set to begin.

The oversupply of competitively priced alternatives has pushed down the value of April-loading Nigerian cargoes, compounding the challenges for Africa’s largest oil producer. Industry analysts say this is a worrying trend for Nigeria, whose economy remains heavily dependent on oil revenues to stabilize foreign exchange reserves and fund government expenditures. The oil sector is already struggling with low oil output.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned earlier this month that global oil supply may exceed demand by approximately 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2025, posing a serious risk of oversupply in the market. This forecast adds to Nigeria’s concerns, as weakening global demand and rising production from non-OPEC sources threaten to put further downward pressure on oil prices.

Nigeria’s oil sector has long been constrained by issues such as theft, pipeline vandalism, and declining investments in upstream projects. However, the challenge of weak demand is relatively new, signaling that the country must rethink its oil market strategies. With many of its traditional buyers shifting to alternative suppliers, Nigerian crude is struggling to secure contracts. The West African country experienced something similar during COVID-19 when its tanks sailed for months in search of buyers.

Usually, traders see Nigeria’s crude as historically a strong seller in Europe and Asia, but the influx of competing grades at lower prices is forcing refiners to look elsewhere. Energy analysts note that the market dynamics are shifting, and unless Nigeria adapts quickly, the country risks being sidelined.

One major consequence of the current situation is the potential impact on Nigeria’s fiscal stability. Oil sales account for the bulk of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings, and with weak demand, the country may struggle to meet revenue targets. This comes at a time when Nigeria is already grappling with an economic crisis marked by high inflation, a weakening naira, and rising debt.

The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has repeatedly highlighted the vulnerability of Nigeria’s economy due to its overreliance on oil exports. Experts warn that failure to secure buyers for crude cargoes could have a cascading effect on government spending, exchange rate stability, and the broader economic outlook.

Furthermore, geopolitical factors are playing a role in the shifting oil market. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has led to changing trade flows, with European buyers reducing their dependence on Russian crude and instead sourcing oil from alternative suppliers such as the US and Kazakhstan.

However, given that Nigeria’s oil industry has been here before, and has historically found ways to navigate difficult market conditions, the government and Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) have been advised to adopt more aggressive marketing strategies and explore new buyers, particularly in Asia, where demand remains relatively strong. Additionally, the NNPC has been urged to speed up rehabilitation work at the refineries as strengthening local refining capacity could help reduce dependence on exports and create more value domestically.

People should relax on this matter: “The Nigerian Senate on Tuesday passed for a second reading a Bill seeking to amend the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, to mandate multinational social media companies to establish physical offices within Nigeria. The proposed legislation, titled “A Bill for an Act to Alter the Nigeria Data Protection Act, 2023, to Mandate the Establishment of Physical Offices within the Territorial Boundaries of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by Social Media Platforms, and for Related Matters, 2024” (SB. 648), was sponsored by Senator Ned Munir Nwoko (Delta North). The Bill was read for the first time on November 21, 2024.”

“Nigeria ranks first in Africa and second globally in daily social media usage, yet these multinational companies operate here without any physical presence,” Nwoko said. “This creates a gap in addressing regulatory concerns, managing content policies, and building local partnerships.”

The lawmaker outlined three key concerns arising from the absence of physical offices for these platforms: limited local representation, missed economic opportunities, and difficulty in legal redress.

“The lack of a local presence creates a disconnect between the platforms and their Nigerian user base,” he said. “Resolving user complaints, addressing regulatory concerns, or managing content moderation issues specific to Nigeria often takes longer due to the geographical and cultural distance.”

What is wrong asking online companies and especially social media companies to establish offices in Nigeria? Yes,  I understand the concern on censorship. But when you look at the big picture, we should be fair to the government, and by that I mean whatever it takes to build global revenue models of the future. If Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, etc think Nigeria is an important market, we expect them to open offices therein so that we can get our tax revenues as they serve our citizens.

But if they do not consider Nigeria as being vital, they should forget us, and local ones will evolve. On this one, the Senate is right. And this is not a free speech matter: this is an economic matter because in the near future, where we expect companies to deliver products and services via online means, nations will struggle to receive cross-border taxes even on trades done in their domains, by their citizens. President Trump is leading on this and I am happy Nigeria is learning.

Comment on Feed

Comment on blogger section of the bill

My response: From the section I copied which my post was based on, there was no blogger part. The problem is that you are reading that I support a BILL when my focus was supporting a component in a bill.  It is still a bill, pick areas you care and praise or otherwise. I do not need to get involved in all sections. That is how they will know what they throw out or otherwise.

Nigerian Senate Passes Bill to Mandate Social Media Platforms, and Bloggers, to Have Physical Office, Stirring Fresh Censorship Concern