- The 1793 Project Unmasked
The 1793 Project Unmasked
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 23:30Authored by Robby Soave via Reason.com,
Anyone who still doubts that woke progressives can pose a material threat to the pursuit of truth should consider the case of David Shor. A week ago, as protests over the unjust police killing of George Floyd took place in major cities across the country, Shor—a 28-year-old political scientist at the Democratic consulting firm Civic Analytics—tweeted some observations about the successes and failures of various movements. He shared research by Princeton University’s Omar Wasow, who has found that violent protests often backfire whereas nonviolent protests are far more likely to succeed. The impulse behind Shor’s tweet was a perfectly liberal one: He feels progressive reforms are more palatable to the public when protesters eschew violence.
But many progressive activists on social media didn’t care whether the impulse was liberal, or even whether it reflected reality. They denounced Shor as a racist for daring to scrutinize the protesters, even if his aim was to make them more effective. One activist accused Shor of using his “anxiety and ‘intellect’ as a vehicle for anti-blackness.” Then she tagged Civis Analytics, and invited the company to “come get your boy.”
Get him, they did. Civic Analytics promptly fired Shor.
Liberal writer Jonathan Chait blames Shor’s firing on “the spread of distinct, illiberal norms throughout some progressive institutions over the last half-dozen years.” Chait knows what he’s talking about: In 2015, he wrote an influential New York article titled “Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: How the language police are perverting liberalism.” Chait defined political correctness as “a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate,” and he arged that “the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.”
To understand why the “new p.c.” attained that influence, it’s necessary to revisit another influential magazine article from the same year: “The Coddling of the American Mind,” an Atlantic essay penned by the social scientist Jonathan Haidt and the civil libertarian attorney Greg Lukianoff. Their article was later expanded into a book, in which Haidt and Lukianoff blamed an increase in “safetyism“—an impulse to be sheltered not just from physical harm but emotional turmoil—for some of the new hostility to free speech. Their thinking has deeply informed my own writings about the censorious streak in campus activism: In my decade or so of covering higher education, I’ve reported hundreds of examples of progressive students citing their personal sense of safety as the reason they were demanding that punitive actions be taken against some other individual or entity that had offended them.
While some critics have dismissed the idea that the antics of safety-obsessed college students matter very much to the broader culture, I’ve long warned that the small number—proportionally speaking—of young people inclined toward these tactics could do serious damage elsewhere. As I wrote in my book Panic Attack, “It’s not impossible to imagine the same kind of thing happening in the workplace: picture a boss who is afraid to reprimand negligent young employees out of concern that they will say their PTSD is triggered.”
Recent events at The New York Times are an almost perfect demonstration of how this is playing out. Staffers angry about an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) claimed that its publication threatened their very lives. They specifically chose “running this puts black Times staff in danger” as their mantra because it invokes workplace safety. When the authority figure—the boss, the principal, the government—is responsible for ensuring safety, and safety is broadly defined as not merely protection from literal physical violence but also the fostering of emotional comfort, norms of classical liberalism will suffer. (One activist told me that for him, safety requires other people to affirm him.) The Times conflict ended with opinion page chief James Bennet out of his job.
He’s not the only one. UCLA recently suspended a lecturer, Gordon Klein, after he declined a demand that he make a final exam “no-harm”—that is, it could only boost grades—for students of color traumatized by the events in Minneapolis. Klein refused, in accordance with guidance from UCLA’s administration not to give students much leeway on exams. In response, the activists launched a change.org petition to get Klein fired, and the school suspended him. His irritated reply to the activists—that he would not give preferential exam treatment to students because of their skin color—has prompted UCLA to investigate him for racial discrimination.
University of Chicago economist Harald Uhlig, who had the temerity to criticize some of the more radical demands the protesters have made, is now being pressured to resign as editor of the school’s Journal of Political Economy. In this case, it’s not random students doing the pressuring, but some of the biggest names in economics: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers, and even former Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, who told the Times that “it would be appropriate for the University of Chicago, which is the publisher of the Journal of Political Economy, to review Uhlig’s performance and suitability to continue as editor.”
The Times article is a master class in guilt-by-insinuation. The authors could not find a single fact to support the notion that Uhlig is a racist or that he has used his position to thwart black scholars. But he holds some views that would be in conflict with the more progressive Black Lives Matter protesters—he doesn’t approve of rioting, and he criticized NFL players for kneeling—and that apparently is suspicious enough.
Chait’s piece on Shor includes another, equally powerful example: Intercept journalist Lee Fang, a man of the left by any measure, was denounced as a racist and publicly shamed by a colleague for daring to interview a black protester who criticized violent tactics. The colleague
called him racist in a pair of tweets, the first of which alone received more than 30,000 likes and 5,000 retweets.
A journalist friend of Fang’s told me he felt his career was in jeopardy, having been tried and convicted in a court of his peers. He was losing sleep for days and unsure how to respond. “All of us were trying to protect his job and clear his name and also not bow to a mob informed by an attitude that views that you disagree with are tantamount to workplace harassment.”
The outcome of this confrontation was swift and one-sided: Two days later, Fang was forced to post a lengthy apology.
Fang was plainly terrified, and not unreasonably fearful of losing his job and being branded a racist forever. The Volokh Conspiracy‘s David Bernstein called Fang’s forced apology “Maoist-style.” It’s a hyperbolic analogy, referencing the infamous “struggle sessions” of Mao Zedong’s totalitarian communism regime. Thankfully, the dissenters from woke orthodoxy are not being tortured or executed for wrongthink. But they do face tremendous pressure to avoid saying anything that might provoke an online mob, or an illiberal colleague, or an activist with different priorities—even if that thing they want to say is plainly true.
This new reality has important social consequences: for the individuals caught in the crosshairs, but also the institutions attempting to navigate these very treacherous waters.
Given that so many cancellations hinge on the accusation that safety is being undermined, I would suggest a different metaphor than Mao.
Mine is no less hyperbolic, but it puts the focus where my reporting—and Haidt and Lukianoff’s research—suggest it should be.
In 1793, the Committee of Public Safety took charge of the French Revolution on a promise to “make terror the order of the day.” Evidence-free show trials and ideological purges followed, consistent with the radical leaders’ belief that public safety requires public terror.
Needless to say, critics of today’s radicals do not live in terror of being sentenced to the guillotine. But losing employment and social standing is no small matter. Having a job is usually connected to having health care and economic security: the ability to afford food, housing, and medicine. While some people weather and overcome their cancellation—even profiting from it—others aren’t so lucky. We hear a lot about the cases where things worked out eventually (this Olivia Nuzzi piece is a must-read), but many cases never produce a sympathetic backlash that aids the cancelled. And being shamed online by thousands of people over a trivial offense is an unpleasant and exhausting experience, even if it doesn’t permanently impact your employment.
This is not to say that every person being cancelled at the moment is a martyr for the cause of free speech. Los Angeles magazine has a list of the recently cancelled. Several were accused of fostering unpleasant work environments. Were they guilty? Maybe so. Recentlty ousted Bon Apetit editor-in-chief Adam Rappaport, for instance, seems like an unpleasant person to work for. Food writer Alison Roman, on the other hand, was dragged on social media for 1) daring to criticize Chrissy Teigen, and 2) wearing an offensive Halloween costume more than a dozen years ago. The photo of Roman was circulated on Twitter by the journalist Yashar Ali, a friend of Teigen with a history of fiercely defending her. Ali claimed the costume was intended as a “chola” stereotype of Mexican-Americans; Roman countered that she was dressed up as Amy Winehouse. Ali deleted his tweet but said he thought it was fair game because Roman had a history of “being called out for appropriation.” (Twitter users immediately dug up a photo of Teigen in a culturally appropriative Halloween costume.)
Ironically, the same subset of people ostensibly exercised about emotional safety – the woke left – seem frequently inclined to level unsubstantiated accusations that inflict emotional harm. This makes it difficult to believe that these Twitter warriors’ true aim is the promotion of psychological comfort. Did any of them consider Uhlig’s mental health after the man was baselessly accused? Does anyone care about Roman, who probably did not expect her enemies to ransack her Myspace page for evidence of racism and then pillory her for a photo taken when she was 23? What about Shor, thrown to the wolves for making a reasonable objection to what one wing of the protesters was doing?
That sounds like terror, not safety. Call it the 1793 Project.
- When Will Life Return To Normal?
When Will Life Return To Normal?
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 23:00From battles on the front lines to social distancing from friends and family, COVID-19 has caused a massive shake-up of our daily lives.
After second-guessing everything from hugging our loved ones to delaying travel, Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh notes that there is one big question that everyone is likely thinking about: will we ever get back to the status quo? The answer may not be very clear-cut.
Today’s graphic uses data from New York Times’ interviews of 511 epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists from the U.S. and Canada, and visualizes their opinions on when they might expect to resume a range of typical activities.
Life in the Near Future, According to Experts
Specifically, this group of epidemiologists were asked when they might personally begin engaging in 20 common daily activities again.
The responses, based on the latest publicly available and scientifically-backed data, varied based on assumptions around local pandemic response plans. The experts also noted that their answers would change depending on potential treatments and testing rates in their local areas.
Here are the activities that a majority of professionals see starting up as soon as this summer, or within a year’s time:
The urge to be outdoors is pretty clear, with 56% of those surveyed hoping to take a road trip before the summer is over. Meanwhile, 31% felt that they would be able to go hiking or have a picnic with friends this summer, citing the need for “fresh air, sun, socialization and a healthy activity” to help keep on top of their physical and mental health during this time.
Public transport and travel of any form is one aspect that has been put on hold, whether it’s by plane, train, or automobile. Many of the surveyed epidemiologists also lamented the strain the pandemic has had on relationships, as evidenced by the social situations they hope to restart sooner rather than later.
The worst casualty of the epidemic is the loss of human contact.
– Eduardo Franco, McGill University
On the other hand, there are certain activities that they considered too risky to engage in for the time-being. A large share are putting off attending celebrations such as weddings or concerts for at least a year or more, out of perceived social responsibility.
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that 6% of epidemiologists do not expect to ever hug or shake hands as a post-pandemic greeting. On top of this, over half consider masks necessary for at least the next year.
The Virus Sets the Timeline
Of course, these estimates are not meant to represent every situation. The experts also practically considered whether certain activities were avoidable or not—such as one’s occupation—which affects individual risk levels.
The answers [about resuming these activities] have nothing to do with calendar time.
– Kristi McClamroch, University at Albany
While many places are trickling out of lockdown and re-opening to support the economy, some officials are still warning against prematurely lifting restrictions before we fully have a handle on the virus and its spread.
- Crimes Against Common Sense
Crimes Against Common Sense
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 22:30Authored by Diane Dimond, op-ed via The Epoch Times,
What the hell is going on in this country? When did we, the majority, stop speaking up for ourselves? Crimes against common sense seem to happen every week, yet most of us stay silent.
Or is it that the media only highlights those who scream the loudest, leaving the impression that what they demand must be implemented?
The most vocal citizens today are the self-righteous members of the so-called woke pack. You know, those who see themselves as the arbiters of all social and racial justice, and if you don’t believe as they do, you are the enemy.
The ideals of critical thinkers seem to go virtually unremarked upon.
So, I ask here, since when did it become acceptable for politicians to order police to abandon their station and allow demonstrators—some armed with guns—to occupy square blocks of an American city? Seattle’s mayor has explained away her occupying force as a “summer of love protest” group.
Does no one worry that this takeover of downtown Seattle might end badly or spread to other cities?
It is every citizen’s constitutional right to assemble and peacefully protest. But who in their right mind thought joining those recent, massive street demonstrations in the midst of a life-threatening pandemic was a wise idea? And now that we see a rise of COVID-19 cases in several states, many of the woke, bizarrely, point the finger of blame at opposition party politicians for not halting the spread of the disease.
Do we lack the common sense to see the coronavirus spike is our own doing?
The “cancel culture” that exists today pushes aside all clear thinkers who dare express an opinion or ask a clarifying question. “All white people are racist. … The rich are criminals. … All police are bad,” they say. Even television cops are to be condemned. TV producers of “Live PD” and “Cops” crumbled to demands and canceled their programs. The main police-dog character on the kid’s cartoon “Paw Patrol” was targeted for elimination.
Think of the negative effect all this anti-cop fervor will have on both children and future police recruiting.
But if you disagree with these new revolutionaries, who are determined to make the rest of us bend to their beliefs, you are bitterly attacked and ostracized.
Author J.K. Rowling of “Harry Potter” fame nearly fell victim to the cancel culture squad recently when she chided a headline that read, “People Who Menstruate.” She accurately pointed out that it is women who menstruate. Well, that brought howls of condemnation from the LGBTQ community and reminders that some people who have transitioned from female to male still have a monthly reminder of their assigned birth sex.
Since when does a tiny minority of a population get to decide how the rest of us think or express ourselves? Isn’t their hyperbolic response to contrary views exactly like the bullying they so frequently rail against?
And, OK, I will ask: Why isn’t it OK to stand up for all humanity and state the obvious that “all lives matter”? That statement does not denigrate black lives; rather, it places black lives on the same high platform as all others. I am weary of the word play and the twisted meanings given to innocent statements.
And, finally, let’s consider the recent move to destroy our history, as if it, too, could or should be erased. Protestors have demanded countless statues of Civil War leaders—including the emancipation president, Abraham Lincoln—be removed. Likewise for monuments depicting conquistadors who colonized the American west. Did some of those historical figures act in ways we consider abhorrent today? Absolutely, but pretending history didn’t happen is to bury our heads.
If you follow their line of thinking, we should stop teaching students about World Wars I and II because atrocities took place. The horrors of Hitler’s pogrom against Jews should never be mentioned. The Vietnam War, the civil rights struggle of the ’60s and Kent State all had decidedly ugly aspects. Do we ignore those events because remembering might make someone uncomfortable?
Students of this country’s history know the shortcomings of our system. Nothing is perfect, and adjustments are underway. But considering radical ideas like disbanding law enforcement, criminal takeovers of inner cities and controlling others’ conversations is just plain foolish.
- Nearly Half Of Americans Consider Selling Home As COVID Crushes Finances
Nearly Half Of Americans Consider Selling Home As COVID Crushes Finances
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 22:00As the virus pandemic has metastasized into an economic downturn, tens of millions of Americans have lost their jobs and are struggling to service mortgage payments.
New research offers a glimpse into struggling households, discovers out of the 2,000 American homeowners polled, over half (52%) of respondents say they’re routinely worried about making future mortgage payments and nearly half (47%) considered selling their home because of the inability to service mortgage payments.
The study, conducted by OnePoll and the National Association of Realtors, determined 81% of respondents had experienced unexpected financial stress due to the virus-induced recession. Over half (56%) reduced spending so they could service mortgage payments.
Since mid-March, or about the time when the lockdowns began, nearly half (47%) of homeowners have explored alternative ways of making money. About two-thirds of respondents (64%) started side projects, while 53% sold valuables to supplement income.
“The swift and unprecedented impact of COVID-19 left many people in a financial emergency, and we want to make sure struggling homeowners know they have relief options, especially during Homeownership Month,” said the National Association of Realtors President Vince Malta.
“Realtors and lenders can identify programs and aid designed to help meet loan obligations. Acting quickly may help homeowners stay in their homes and keep the money they have already invested into it,” Malta said.
From clothing (71%) and take-out (66%) to streaming TV services (46%) and groceries (45%), respondents said their spending habits had been significantly reduced so they could service mortgage payments.
In a separate report, more than 4 million homeowners are in mortgage forbearance plan – representing 7.54% of all mortgages, delinquencies are set to surpass the great recession, which peaked at 10%.
Oxford Economics said 15% of homeowners would fall behind on their monthly mortgage payments in a ‘tidal wave’ of delinquencies, which was similar to the prediction by Moody’s chief economist, Mark Zandi, who said that as many as 30% of Americans with home loans – or around 15 million households, may stop paying if the US economy remains closed through the summer or beyond.
Google search “sell home” rose during lockdowns.
All of this says a lot about the economy: households are struggling, they cant afford real estate, consumption will remain low, as the prospects of a V-shaped recovery this year continue to wane.
- Leaked Documents Reveal Right-Wing Oligarch Plot To Overthrow Mexico's AMLO
Leaked Documents Reveal Right-Wing Oligarch Plot To Overthrow Mexico's AMLO
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 21:30Authored by Ben Norton via TheGrayZone.com,
Mexico’s oligarchs and establishment political parties have united in a secret alliance to try to remove left-wing President López Obrador from power, with help from the media, Washington, and Wall Street. Leaked documents lay out their devious strategy.
Some of the most powerful forces in Mexico are uniting in a campaign to try to topple the country’s first left-wing president in decades, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. And they apparently have support in Washington and on Wall Street.
Known popularly as AMLO, the Mexican leader is a progressive nationalist who campaigned on the promise to “end the dark night of neoliberalism.” He has since implemented a revolutionary vision he calls the “Fourth Transformation,” vowing to fight poverty, corruption, and drug violence — and has increasingly butted heads with his nation’s wealthy elites.
López Obrador has also posed a challenge to the US foreign-policy consensus. His government provided refuge to Bolivia’s elected socialist President Evo Morales and to members of Evo’s political party who were exiled after a Trump administration-backed military coup.
AMLO also held a historic meeting with Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel, and even stated Mexico would be willing to break the unilateral US blockade of Venezuela and sell the besieged Chavista government gasoline.
These policies have earned AMLO the wrath of oligarchs both inside and outside of his country. On June 18, the US government ratcheted up its pressure on Mexico, targeting companies and individuals with sanctions for allegedly providing water to Venezuela, as part of an oil-for-food humanitarian agreement.
The value of the Mexican peso immediately dropped by 2 percent following the Trump administration’s imposition of sanctions.
These opening salvos of Washington’s economic war on its southern neighbor came just days after López Obrador delivered a bombshell press conference, in which he revealed that the political parties that had dominated Mexican politics for the decades before him have secretly unified in a plot to try to oust the president, years before his democratic mandate ends in 2024.
The forces trying to remove AMLO from power include major media networks, massive corporations, sitting governors and mayors, former presidents, and influential business leaders. According to a leaked document, they call themselves the Broad Opposition Block (Bloque Opositor Amplio, or BOA).
And they say they have lobbyists in Washington, financial investors on Wall Street, and major news publications and journalists from both domestic and foreign media outlets on their team.
El pdte. @lopezobrador_ difundió un documento llegado a Palacio (cuyo origen y autenticidad desconocemos) que propone la conformación de un bloque opositor para arrebatar la presidencia en el 2021, en el que participan partidos, empresarios, medios, intelectuales, periodistas. pic.twitter.com/zfXSlGdUYP
— Jesús Ramírez Cuevas (@JesusRCuevas) June 9, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
‘Broad Opposition Block’ BOA plot to demonize AMLO with media propaganda
In a press conference on June 9, the Mexican government published a leaked strategy document purportedly drafted by the Broad Opposition Block, titled “Let’s Rescue Mexico” (Rescatemos a México). The AMLO administration said it did not know the origin of the leak.
These pages consist of an executive summary of “Project BOA,” outlining what it calls a “plan of action” – a blueprint of concrete steps the opposition alliance will take to unseat AMLO.
The cover of the leaked document, the executive summary of the Project BOA plan, “Let’s Save Mexico”
One of the key points in the plan is the following: “Lobbying by the BOA in Washington (White House and Capital Hill) to stress the damage that the government of the [Fourth Transformation] is doing to North American investors.”
The lobbying strategy depends heavily on turning the US against AMLO: “More than comparing it with Venezuela,” the document reads, “BOA should highlight the very high mass migration of Mexicans toward the United States if the crisis of unemployment and insecurity gets worse.”
Then the BOA adds: “Repeat this narrative in the US and European media.”
The section of the BOA plan on lobbying in Washington and using the media to push anti-AMLO messaging
The leaked pages say that BOA has the “international press (USA and Europe)” on its side, along with “foreign correspondents in Mexico.”
The document even names specific media outlets, along with individual journalists and social media influencers, who could help spread their anti-AMLO propaganda. On the list are some of the top news publications in Mexico: Nexos, Proceso, Reforma, El Universal, Milenio, El Financiero, and El Economista.
The list of sympathetic anti-AMLO media outlets and journalists in the BOA document
The “plan of action” makes it clear that this powerful opposition alliance seeks to use its extensive control over the media to obsessively blame AMLO for “unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and corruption” in Mexico.
BOA even states unambiguously in its plan that it will use “groups of social media networks, influencers, and analysts to insist on the destruction of the economy, of the democratic institutions, and the political authoritarianism of the government of the 4T” (using an acronym for the Fourth Transformation process).
This makes it especially ironic that the BOA document reluctantly acknowledges that the López Obrador “government has managed to mitigate the economic impact of the health crisis of coronavirus by giving large amounts of public money to the affected, through social programs.”
The leaked pages likewise admit that AMLO has an approval rating of more than 50 percent — lower than his peak at 86 percent support in the beginning of 2019 or his 72 percent at the end of the year, but still impressive for a region where US-backed leaders like Chile’s Sebastián Piñera or Colombia’s Iván Duque have routinely enjoyed approval ratings of 6 percent and 24 percent, respectively.
#ConferenciaPresidente. Presentan un documento confidencial de un presunto Bloque Opositor Amplio (BOA) para desplazar a Morena y al gobierno actual en las elecciones del 2021. pic.twitter.com/ffoGXoWuVH
— Jenaro Villamil (@jenarovillamil) June 9, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Mexico’s establishment political parties and former presidents unite to oust AMLO
With backing from the US government and utter dominance of media narratives, the Broad Opposition Block plan is to unite all of Mexico’s establishment political parties.
Together, these parties could potentially run candidates under the BOA umbrella, according to the document. Their goal would be, in the 2021 legislative elections, to end the majority that AMLO’s left-wing party Morena won in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies.
After that, BOA states clearly that it plans to block reforms in the Mexican legislature, and ultimately impeach President López Obrador by 2022 — at least two years before his term ends.
Quite revealing is that the “Let’s Rescue Mexico” document does not mention anything about average working-class Mexicans and their participation in the political process. Nor does it acknowledge the existence of labor unions or grassroots activist organizations, which make up the base of AMLO’s movement and his Morena party.
This is not surprising, considering the BOA alliance lists some of the most powerful figures in the Mexican ruling class.
All the major political parties are included: the right-wing National Action Party (Partido Acción Nacional, or PAN), the center-right Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional, or PRI), the centrist Citizens’ Movement (Movimiento Ciudadano, or MC), and even AMLO’s former Party of the Democratic Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, or PRD).
The list of political parties included in the BOA document
BOA also includes the new political party México Libre, a vehicle for former right-wing President Felipe Calderón, a major ally of George W. Bush who declared a catastrophic “war on drugs” in Mexico, leading to tens of thousands of deaths.
Along with Calderón, BOA lists former President Vicente Fox, another right-wing US ally, as a coalition ally. Fox worked closely with the Bush administration during his term as president to isolate the leftist governments in Latin America, and even tried to undemocratically remove AMLO as mayor of Mexico City and ban him from running for president.
BOA also says it has support from the governors of 14 states in Mexico, along with opposition lawmakers in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, judges from the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), and officials from the National Electoral Institute (INE).
Wall Street investors and Mexican oligarchs back anti-AMLO alliance
Joining the entire Mexican political establishment in the Broad Opposition Block is a powerful financial oligarchy, both domestic and foreign.
Along with its “anti-4T lobbyists in Washington,” the leaked document says BOA has “Wall Street investment funds” behind it.
BOA adds that it is supported by “corporations linked to T-MEC,” using the Spanish acronym for the new “United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement” free-trade deal, known popularly as NAFTA 2.0.
The powerful business groups and corporations listed in the BOA document
Some of the richest capitalists in Mexico are associated with BOA. Named in the leaked document is the Mexican corporate behemoth FEMSA and oligarchs from its associated Monterrey Group, which the New York Times once described as a “a tightly knit family of wealthy and conservative businessmen.”
The BOA pages also point to Mexico’s powerful Business Coordinating Council (Consejo Coordinador Empresarial) and Employers Confederation of the Mexican Republic (Coparmex) as allies.
Opposition denies involvement in BOA, while turning up heat on AMLO
In the days after López Obrador’s press conference exposing the Broad Opposition Block, some of the prominent figures implicated in the alliance, such Felipe Calderón, denied involvement.
Some of these political and economic elites even claimed BOA doesn’t exist, seeking to cast doubt on the president’s scandalous revelation and accusing him of fabricating the scandal.
But their efforts are clearly part of a larger campaign by Mexican opposition groups to remove President Andrés Manuel López Obrador from power. As AMLO’s Fourth Transformation moves forward, their destabilization tactics have grown increasingly extreme.
López Obrador himself has warned of the radicalization of the right-wing opposition. As The Grayzone previously reported, the president made an ominous reference to the threat of a potential coup in November 2019.
Referencing Mexico’s former President Francisco Madero, a leader of the Mexican Revolution and fellow left-winger who was assassinated in 1913, AMLO tweeted, “How wrong the conservatives and their hawks are… Now is different… Another coup d’état won’t be allowed.”
Ahora es distinto. Aunque son otras realidades y no debe caerse en la simplicidad de las comparaciones, la transformación que encabezo cuenta con el respaldo de una mayoría libre y consciente, justa y amante de la legalidad y de la paz, que no permitiría otro golpe de Estado.
— Andrés Manuel (@lopezobrador_) November 2, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The next part in this investigative series by The Grayzone will show how far-right forces in Mexico are pushing for a coup against AMLO.
- "A Staggering Number": Over $18 Trillion In Global Stimulus In 2020, 21% Of World GDP
"A Staggering Number": Over $18 Trillion In Global Stimulus In 2020, 21% Of World GDP
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 21:00On Friday, we relayed the latest observations from BofA chief investment officer, Michael Hartnett who concluded that there is just one bull market to short – namely credit – “and the Fed won’t let you” by which he means all central banks. As the following table shows, the balance sheet of the G-6 central banks has exploded, with the Fed’s total asset expected to double in 2020 amid an avalanche of money printing.
And visually:
Of course, it’s not just central banks: as Hartnett also explained there is also the 2020 fiscal bazooka which has a way to go, with the massive fiscal stimulus unleashed post-covid taking 3 forms in 2020: spending, credit guarantees, loans & equity.
Hartnett also noted that according to BIS data, US & Australia lead spending (>10% GDP), Europe is using aggressive credit guarantees (e.g. Italy 32% GDP), while Japan/Korea are stimulating via government loans/equity injections.
But the most staggering fact was when one puts it all together.
According to BofA calculations, in addition to the record 134 rate cuts YTD, the amount of total global stimulus, both fiscal and monetary, is now a “staggering” $18.4 trillion in 2020 consisting of $10.4 trillion in fiscal stimulus and $7.9tn in monetary stimulus – for a grand total of 20.8% of global GDP, injected mostly in just the past 3 months!
And to think none of this would have been possible if officials had not collectively decided to shutdown the global economy in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
For the interested, here is a full breakdown of all the fiscal and monetary stimulus as compiled by BofA:
- Another 8-Year-Old 'Criminal Mastermind' Arrested
Another 8-Year-Old 'Criminal Mastermind' Arrested
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 20:30Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,
Are you ready for this week’s absurdity? Here’s our weekend roll-up of the most ridiculous stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity… and on occasion, inspiring poetic justice.
Eight year old boy arrested for asking if he could buy candy with fake money
At a parade in Switzerland, fake money was thrown around for children to collect.
The obviously fake cash is called “spirit money.” Featuring Chinese symbols, it is meant as an offering to the dead so they can prosper in the afterlife.
An eight year old Swiss boy later asked a shop clerk if he could use the play money to buy candy. To be clear, the kid did not try to trick the shopkeeper, or pass off the money as real.
A normal person would laugh, and politely explain that only central banks are allowed to use fake money.
Instead, this shopkeeper opted to call the police.
Again, a reasonable officer could have stopped it all there.
Instead, the boy and his ten year old brother were taken to the police station. Police took their mugshots, but did not charge them with a crime.
Police did however search the family’s home, where police found some other play money.
These cops essentially confiscated Monopoly money, as if they were busting a counterfeiting operation.
Click here to read the full story.
* * *
Police called over BB-gun in background during virtual class
Due to Covid-19 lockdowns, plenty of schools have been holding virtual video classes.
In one class, someone on the call took a picture of an 11 year old boy’s screen. It showed him in his bedroom with a BB gun in the background.
This anonymous snitch told the Principal, who compared this to bringing a weapon to school.
Yeah that makes sense– because a Boy Scout with a BB gun in his room is totally the same thing as a school shooter.
Then the school administration became involved, and alerted the police department.
Police went to the family’s home to search for an unsecured weapon.
If there is any silver lining to this story it’s that police concluded no laws had been broken, and left.
Just a reminder to be wary who you might be inviting into your child’s bedroom.
And if you’re already a member of our premium service Sovereign Man: Confidential, this might be a good time to check out our recent alert about homeschooling.
Click here to read the full story.
* * *
Hertz admits its stock is worthless, as it planned to sell half a billion dollars of new shares
The rental car company Hertz is going through bankruptcy.
But Hertz announced Monday in an SEC filing that the company would sell an additional $500 million worth of new shares. And the bankruptcy judge in the case approved!
Hertz then openly admitted that the stock would almost certainly soon be worthless. That’s because as Hertz goes through bankruptcy, senior debt holders will be paid back before the common stockholders.
But that hasn’t stopped people from buying the worthless stock, apparently hoping to “buy the dip”.
But after the plan received a little too much attention– and questions from the SEC– Hertz decided to drop the plan.
Click here to read the full story.
* * *
US National debt increased by nearly $1 trillion in the last month
In the past 30 days, the United States national debt has increased by nearly $1 trillion– screaming past $26.2 trillion total, or 128% of GDP.
That means the US government is borrowing over $23 million per MINUTE.
But that’s just the last 30 days. The US government has gone nearly $3 trillion further into debt since March 1.
That is over $9,000 for every man, woman, and child living in the United States. And all you received was a $1200 check…
Now the “Save our Country Coalition” has penned a letter to Congress stating that the federal budget is dangerously close to $10 trillion this fiscal year.
On an inflation adjusted basis, that means the government will spend more fighting Covid than it spent fighting every single 20th century war– plus the 21st century Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan– COMBINED.
The cost of World War I, World War II, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, The Gulf War, The Iraq War, and the War in Afghanistan combined, does not add up to this fiscal year’s budget.
Click here to read the full story.
* * *
On another note… We think gold could DOUBLE and silver could increase by up to 5 TIMES in the next few years. That’s why we published a new, 50-page long Ultimate Guide on Gold & Silver that you can download here.
- You Can Now Buy This Bankrupt Cruise Ship At Auction
You Can Now Buy This Bankrupt Cruise Ship At Auction
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 20:00Travel and tourism have been some of the hardest-hit sectors by COVID-19. The pandemic has been a massive blow to the cruise ship industry, with operators, shipowners, and shipyards feeling the pinch amid a collapse in sails. Now, a bankrupted cruise ship onwer is set to auction one of its vessels next week as there is no travel recovery in sight.
Bunny’s Adventure and Cruise Shipping Co. Ltd., the registered owner of RCGS Resolute, a five-star ice-strengthened expedition cruise ship that sleeps 184 in 88 cabins, will be auctioned off on Monday, June 22 in Curaçao, a Dutch Caribbean island.
RCGS Resolute According to Cruise Industry News, RCGS Resolute has been leased over the last several years by One Ocean Expeditions, a cruise operator specializing in polar expeditions that recently filed for bankruptcy in a British Columbia court. The vessel has had at least two different voyages interrupted by authorities attempting to collect unpaid bills.
RCGS Resolute aerial view With new management by Columbia Cruise Services, the vessel has been in Curacao for two months. The ship is operating with a skeleton crew, and ship owners are responsible for debts around $4 million.
Due to the virus pandemic and collapse in travel and tourism, this is probably the worst time to auction off a cruise ship, limited bidders could make the sale of the vessel at a steep discount.
If cheap enough, maybe Barstool Sports’ Dave Portnoy, since he’s such a big fan of cruise ship stocks (as we’ve previously noted Robinhood traders pile into cruise ship stocks), should look into the auction slated for next Monday.
What’s a couple of million to Portnoy, who routinely says he’s a better investor than Warren Buffett and claims trading is easy…
- Is US Oil Dominance Coming To An End?
Is US Oil Dominance Coming To An End?
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 19:30Authored by Arthur Berman via OilPrice.com,
-
U.S.’ energy dominance agenda is dead as the country’s shale industry is looking at a steep production decline.
-
The U.S. tight oil or shale rig count has fallen 69% this year from 539 in mid-March to 165 last week.
-
U.S. oil import dependence is set to grow in the next couple of years.
U.S. energy dominance is over. Output is probably going to drop by 50% over the next year and nothing can be done about it. It has nothing to do with the lack of shale profitability or other silly memes cited by people who don’t understand energy.
It’s because of low rig count.
The U.S. tight oil or shale rig count has fallen 69% this year from 539 in mid-March to 165 last week. Tight oil production will decline 50% by this time next year. As a result, U.S. oil production will fall from to less than 8 mmb/d by mid-2021.
What if rig count increases between now and then? It won’t make any difference because of the lag between contracting a drilling rig and first production.
The party is over for shale and U.S. energy dominance.
Energy Dominance is Over
Tight oil is the foundation of U.S. energy dominance. The U.S. has always been a major oil producer but it moved into the top tier of oil super powers as tight oil boosted output from about 5 to more than 12 mmb/d between 2008 and 2019 (Figure 1).
Conventional production has been declining since 1970. It fell from almost 10 mmb/d in 1970 to 5 mmb/d in 2008.
Figure 1. Tight oil is the foundation for U.S. Energy Dominance.
Conventional production has been in decline since 1970. Tight oil boosted U.S. production to more than 12 mmb/d in 2019.
Source: EIA and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
Tight Oil Rig Count and Oil Production
Rig count is a good way to predict future oil production as long as the proper leads and lags are incorporated.
It takes several months between an upward price signal and a signed contract for a drilling rig. It takes another 9-12 months from starting a well to first production for tight oil wells. With pad drilling, usually all wells on the pad must be drilled before bringing in a crew to frack the wells.
Tight oil horizontal production reached 7.28 mmb/d in November 2019 when the lagged rig count was 613 (Figure 2). That corresponded to 12.9 mmb/d of U.S. oil production—tight oil is about 55% of total output. Approximately 600 rigs are needed to maintain 7 mmb/d of tight oil and 12.5 mmb/d of U.S. production.
The horizontal rig count is now 165 so it is unavoidable that production will fall. The considerable lags and leads mean that production decline cannot be expected to reverse until well into 2021 assuming that it starts to increase immediately. That won’t happen because of constrained budgets and low oil prices.
Figure 2. 600 tight oil rigs to maintain 7 mmb/d tight oil/12 mmb/d total U.S. output.
May tight rig count was 207 so U.S. decline to 8 mmb/d by Q2 2021 is unavoidable. Production should increase this summer with shut-in re-activation then fall in Q4 2020.
Source: Baker Hughes, IEA DPR, Enverus and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
U.S. producers shut in most of their wells in May because oil prices had collapsed and storage had reached its limits. Tight oil production has fallen more than 1 mmb/d to 6.2 mmb/d and total U.S. output is around 10.5 mmb/d.
With the storage crisis now apparently averted and with somewhat higher oil prices, most tight oil wells are being re-activated. Production should increase until all shut-in wells are back on line and then, it will resume its decline.
Based on rig count analysis, U.S. oil production will probably be about 8 mmb/d by mid-2021 or more than 4 mmb/d less than peak November 2019 levels.
Killer Decline Rates Require Lots of Rigs
Lower U.S. crude and condensate production is unavoidable with rig counts where they are today. That is because tight oil decline rates are really high.
Figure 3 shows Permian basin shale play decline rates by year of first production. The average of all years is 27% per year. More recently drilled wells decline at higher rates because of better drilling and completion technology. The problem is that the wells don’t have greater reserves—they just produce the reserves faster. That means higher decline rates.
Figure 3. Permian basin annual decline rate is 27% for horizontal tight oil wells
Decline rates generally increase for wells drilled in more recent years because of higher initial production rates.
Source: Enverus and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
This is not a criticism of the plays or the companies. It’s just a fact.
And that’s why it’s critical to keep 500 or 600 rigs drilling all the time—to replace the 30% of output lost every year to depletion.
Production can be turned off and on as it was in May and June. Production cannot be increased without adding rigs and drilling new wells. Assuming there was infinite capital available to add rigs and drill wells, it would take several years to increase rig count to levels needed to maintain 2019 output levels.
Drilled, uncompleted wells (DUC) may be brought on to slow the rate of production decline somewhat. It is important to note, however, that completion accounts for at least 50% of total well cost. Capital constraints and low oil prices will affect the ability and enthusiasm of companies to complete DUCs.
After the last oil-price collapse, it took 2.5 years for tight oil rig count to increase from 193 in May 2016 to 618 in November 2018 (Figure 3). There were thousands of DUCs during the last oil-price collapse in 2014-2017 but they didn’t have much effect on production decline.
The current June rig count of 165 will continue to fall for several months because of low oil price & capital budgets.
Figure 4. It took 2.5 years for tight oil rig count to increase from 193 in May 2016 to 618 in November 2018.
June rig count of 165 will fall for several months based on oil price & capital budgets.
Source: Baker Hughes, IEA DPR, Enverus and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
Rigs Don’t Produce Oil, Wells Do
I’ve shown how rig count, lagged production and decline rates are used to estimate future levels of production. That approach is useful but the truth is that rigs don’t produce oil—wells do.
Another approach, therefore, is to compare the number of tight oil wells that were drilled and completed during each of the last 5 years to the corresponding average production rates for each of those years. Then, using year-to-date drilling and completion data, we can annualize and project what 2020 production is likely to be.
This approach suggests that 2020 tight oil production will be about 30% less than in 2019 (Figure 4). Since tight oil represented 56% of total U.S. output in 2019, we may then estimate that U.S. production will average about 8.7 mmb/d in 2020.
Figure 5. 2020 U.S. production will be less than ~8.7 mmb/d vs 12.3 mmb/d in 2019.
Number of completed tight oil wells expected to be ~30% less than in 2019. 8.7 mmb/d is about 25% less than EIA U.S. forecast for 11.6 mmb/d in 2020.
Source: EIA and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
That is similar to the estimate obtained from the rig count approach. It is, however, about 25% less than EIA’s 2020 forecast for U.S. crude & condensate production.
Energy Dominance and Green Paint
Much lower U.S. oil production is bad for Trump’s Energy Dominance anthem and its corollary that the U.S. is energy independent. It’s even worse for oil prices and the U.S. balance of payments once demand recovers. We will have to import even more oil than we do today and it will cost more.
The idea of U.S. energy independence is ignorant at best and fraudulent at worst. The U.S. imported nearly 7 mmb/d of crude oil and condensate in 2019 and more than 9 mmb/d of crude oil and refined products. That’s almost as much as China—the world’s second largest economy—consumes.
The U.S. is a net exporter in the same way that shale companies are making huge profits—by accounting sleight-of-hand.
The U.S. imports other people’s crude oil, refines it and then, exports it. If a country imports unpainted cars, paints them green and then exports them, is it a net exporter of cars? No. It’s an exporter of green paint.
The U.S. is screwed when it comes to near- to medium-term oil production. It’s not because of Covid-19. U.S. rig count began to decline 15 months before anyone had heard of Covid-19. Even if the road to economic and oil-demand recovery is faster than I believe it will be, it will take a long time to get back to 12 or 13 million barrels per day of production.
There are good reasons to expect that much lower U.S. oil production will eventually lead to higher oil prices. That may result in renewed drilling and another cycle of over-supply and lower oil prices. That is how things have developed in the past.
But a new phase of economic reality and oil pricing is unfolding and no one knows where it will lead. Lower demand may mean that reduced U.S. oil output is appropriate. The only thing that seems certain is that the U.S. will not be the oil super power it was before 2020.
-
- China To Gain Draconian Powers In Hong Kong Bill Unveiled Saturday
China To Gain Draconian Powers In Hong Kong Bill Unveiled Saturday
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 19:00Details of a bill unveiled on Saturday would grant China sweeping powers over the enforcement of a new national security law in Hong Kong.
According to Reuters, citing the official Xinhua news agency, Hong Kong will establish a local national security council led by city leader Carrie Lam and supervised by a central government commission controlled by Beijing. The new Hong Kong body will also include a mainland adviser.
New local police and prosecution units will be set up to investigate and to enforce the law, backed by mainland security and intelligence officers deployed to Beijing’s new commission.
Lam will also have the power to appoint judges to hear cases related to national security, an unprecedented move likely to unnerve some investors, diplomats and business leaders in Hong Kong
Currently senior judges allocate judicial rosters up through Hong Kong’s independent judicial system. –Reuters
“From these initial details, this new law presents unprecedented legal questions that we will have to confront in coming years,” according to University of Hong Kong law school professor and barrister, Simon Young, who added that he was troubled by the apparent “broad supremacy” of the new law.
Beijing and Hong Kong officials have sought to calm concerns over the new laws, insisting that only a small minority of “troublemakers” will be targeted (which, in China means anyone Muslims to pro-democracy dissidents).
Xinhua claims freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and human rights would be protected.
The details were unveiled after a three-day meeting of the top decision-making body of China’s parliament. It is unclear when the law will be enacted but political analysts expect it to take effect ahead of Sept. 6 Legislative Council elections in Hong Kong.
Under the new law, no institutions, organisations and individuals in Hong Kong should engage in activity endangering national security, Xinhua said. This was widely expected to raise concerns for some religious, human rights and foreign-backed groups that have long been based in Hong Kong but are not welcome on the Chinese mainland. –Reuters
Also included in the new law is a requirement that any Hong Kong government employees, or anyone running for public office must swear allegiance to the city and its mini-constitution.
Details of the law come after months of anti-Beijing protests over an extradition bill which would have allowed China to deport suspected criminals to be tried in mainland CCP courts. Beijing and local officials have blamed “foreign forces” for stoking the unrest.
- "I, Who Hates Shorting, Just Shorted the Entire Stock Market. Here's Why"
"I, Who Hates Shorting, Just Shorted the Entire Stock Market. Here's Why"
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 18:30Authored by Wolf Richter via WolfStreet.com,
I hate shorting. The risk-reward relationship is out of whack. It feels crappy. I lost a ton of money shorting the worst highfliers a little too early in late 1999. It’s just nuts to short this market that is even crazier than in late 1999. But this morning, I shared in a comment in our illustrious comment section that I’d just shorted the SPDR S&P 500 ETF [SPY]. My time frame is several months.
I’m sharing this trade so that everyone gets to ridicule me and hail me as a moron and have fun at my expense in the comments for weeks and months every time the market goes up. And I do not recommend shorting this market; it’s nuts. But here’s why I did.
The stock market had just gone through what was termed the “greatest 50-day rally in history.” The S&P 500 index had skyrocketed 47% from the intraday low on March 23 (2,192) to the close on June 8 (3,232). It was a blistering phenomenal rally. Since June 8, the market has gotten off track but not by much. It’s still a phenomenal rally. And it came during the worst economy in my lifetime.
There are now 29.2 million people on state and federal unemployment insurance. There are many more who’ve lost their work who are either ineligible for unemployment insurance or whose state hasn’t processed the claim yet, and when they’re all added up, they amount to over 20% of the labor force. This is horrible.
But stocks just kept surging even as millions of people lost their jobs each week. The more gut-wrenching the unemployment-insurance data, the more stocks soared.
Then there is the desperate plight many companies find themselves in, and not just the airlines – Delta warned of a host of existential issues including that revenues collapsed by 90% in the second quarter – or cruise lines – Carnival just reported a revenue collapse of 85% in Q2, generating a $4.4 billion loss, and it is selling some of its ships to shed the expense of keeping them.
These companies are in sheer survival mode, and they’re raising enormous amounts of money by selling junk bonds and shares so that they have enough cash to burn to get through this crisis.
This crisis hit manufacturers whose plants were shut down. It hit retailers and sent a number of them into bankruptcy court. It crushed clinics and hospitals that specialize in elective procedures. It shut down dental offices. It sent two rental car companies into bankruptcy court – Hertz and Advantage. It has wreaked untold havoc among hotels and restaurants, from large chains to small operations. And yet, stocks kept surging.
The situation has gotten so silly in the stock market that the shares of bankrupt Hertz [HTZ] – which will likely become worthless in the restructuring as creditors will end up getting the company – were skyrocketing from something like $0.40 a share on May 26 to $6.28 intraday on June 8, which may well go down in history as the craziest moment of the crazy rally.
There were stories of a new generation of stuck-at-home day-traders driving up the shares looking for their instant get-rich-quick scheme. And those that could get out at the top made a bundle (but HTZ closed at $1.73 today).
The smart folks at Hertz and their underwriters, Jefferies LLC, saw all these sitting ducks ripe for the taking, and they came up with a heroic plan to sell up to $1 billion in new shares into this crazy market, while informing investors that those new shares would likely become worthless in the bankruptcy proceedings.
The bankruptcy judge – likely shaking head in despair – approved it. As HTZ began plunging, the size of the offering was reduced to $500 million. This would have been like a donation to the company’s creditors, who now run the show.
Hertz would have likely been able to pull off this stunt in this crazy market, but then someone at the SEC woke up and asked some questions, which put the whole escapade on hold. But you can’t blame Hertz. They need money badly, and they’re just going where the easy money is.
Even during the crazy dotcom bubble in late 1999 and early 2000, the day-trader frenzy hadn’t reached these levels. But back in 1999, the economy was strong. Now this is the worst economy of my lifetime.
This kind of frenzy has been everywhere in recent weeks. They bid up nearly everything unless it filed for bankruptcy – and even then, they bid it up, as Hertz has shown. This would have been an inexplicable rally in normal times. But these are not normal times.
These are the times of record Federal Reserve money printing. Between March 11 and June 17, the Fed printed $2.8 trillion and threw them at the markets – frontloading the whole thing by printing $2.3 trillion in the first month.
And in this manner, the otherwise inexplicable frenzy became explicable: The Fed did it. And everyone was going along for the ride. Don’t fight the Fed. Spreading $2.3 trillion around in one month and $2.8 trillion in three months – in addition to whatever other central banks globally were spreading around – was an unprecedented event. And the fireworks probably surprised even the Fed.
Credit markets that had been freezing up for junk-rated companies suddenly turned red-hot, and speculators started chasing everything, including junk bonds sold by cruise lines and airlines though their revenues had plunged 80% or 90% and though they were burning cash at a stunning rate. The Fed’s newly created money went to work, driving up stock prices.
But over the past six weeks something new was developing: While the Fed was talking about all the asset purchase programs it would establish via its new alphabet-soup of SPVs, it actually curtailed the overall level of its purchases.
Then in the week ended June 10, the Fed’s total assets of $7.1 trillion increased by less than $4 billion. And in the week ended June 17, its total assets actually fell by $74 billion (you can read my analysis of the Fed’s balance sheet here). This chart of the week-over-week change in total assets shows how the Fed frontloaded its QE in March and April, and how it then systematically backed off:
And there is another big shift in how the Fed is now approaching the crisis. It’s shifting its lending and asset purchases away from propping up financial markets toward propping up consumption by states and businesses, and ultimately spending by workers/consumers via its municipal lending facility, its PPP loan facility, and its main-street lending facility. These funds are finally flowing into consumption and not asset prices.
So the superpower that created $2.8 trillion and threw it at this market, and that everyone was riding along with, has stopped propping up asset prices.
And now the market, immensely bloated and overweight after its greatest 50-day rally ever, has to stand on its own feet, during the worst economy in my lifetime, amid some of the worst corporate earnings approaching the light of the day, while over 30 million people lost their jobs. It’s a terrible gut-wrenching scenario all around.
And so I stuck my neck out, and I’m sharing this trade for your future entertainment when it goes awry, and you get to have fun at my expense and hail me as the obliterating moron that infamously shorted the greatest stock market rally of all times as it was floating weightlessly ever higher above the worst economic and corporate crisis imaginable.
* * *
- With Cross-Asset Correlation At All Time High, JPM Asks "Why Not Just Own Anything?"
With Cross-Asset Correlation At All Time High, JPM Asks "Why Not Just Own Anything?"
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 18:00In the latest weekly JPMorgan View report by John Normand, the strategist answers the four most common questions that have arisen after such strong market performance:
-
how much longer will the growth boom last;
-
how much of that recovery is already discounted in asset prices;
-
which wildcards, both negative and positive, are most material in coming months; and
-
why not just own anything when growth is improving, policy hyper-stimulative and cash holdings extraordinary.
Before we get to the answers, a quick rundown of where the markets are today: as JPM notes, after a torrid, 30%+ rally since the March 23 lows, indexes across FICC and Equities have been tracing a consolidation range this month rather than extending the price highs/spread lows generated since late March. (Oil, which is making new four-month highs, is an exception). Yet even this consolidation still leaves most markets with extraordinary retracements since March – every market but EM Currencies and Agricutural Commodites has retraced at least 50% of its crisis lossses, and several like Large Cap Equities and High Grade Credit have retraced at least 80%.
The staggering rally, however, is now in the rearview mirror, and the first question JPM clients have is…
1. How much longer will this “growth boom” last? According to Normand, what will matter for most asset prices over Q3 and possibly Q4 is “the near-term momentum rather than the medium-term malaise.” This judgement reflects a simple observation that most cyclical assets tend to rise in price/tighten in spread as long as the global business cycle is in an upturn which for now it is due to the tremendous drop in March and April.
Furthermore, JPM notes that price momentum can be particularly strong at turning points when valuations are cheap, defensive positioning more prevalent and upside data surprises more prevalent (JPM’s global surprise index has been rising since mid-May). But even as the surprise factor fades (these indices are generally designed to mean-revert in shorter cycles than the actual business cycle), market momentum can persist, albeit at a slower pace. These more gradual gains should reflect the eventual economic malaise – or incomplete recovery. Recall, however, that the anemic recovery of the post-Global Financial Crisis still delivered positive returns on most cyclical assets, even if the time required to reclaim pre-crisis price highs was much more extended than the path which followed most previous US recesions between 1970 and 2001.
2. Is the recovery priced in, or “what is the completeness of the growth/profits recovery.“ According to JPM, even if the budding business cycle upturn could extend for years because of extremely loose monetary policy, there are limits to what markets can achieve over shorter horizons due to lack of visibility beyond the next couple of quarters. That is why the bank has judged valuations from a few perspectives: (1) a long-term framework based on generally mean-reverting measures like forward P/Es for Equities, spreads for Credit and real (inflation-adjusted) levels of exchange rates, commodity pries and bond yields for the rest of the FICC universe; (2) a short-to-medium term framework that scores markets on the degree of retracements they tend to experience in the last month of recession and the first few quarters of an expansion.
- Long-term measures, where valuations for each asset class, sector or security are expressed in standard deviations from their multi-decade averages (chart 3), suggest that the cheapest markets are DM/EM Credit followed by Asian Equities; a few EM Bonds (Brazil, South Africa); non-USD currencies (ex CNY); and some Commodities (Oil, Agriculture). The apparent high valuations in US Large Caps are skewed by multiples for Secular Growth sectors (Tech, Com Services, AMZN within Discretionary), whereas other post COVID-19 beneficiaries like Healthcare look cheap.
Short-to-medium term measures, which compare recent market retracements to those that typically occur at business cycle turning points, suggest fair value if the global economy recovers lost output extremely quickly, but broad expensiveness if the malaise sets in. Credit and Equities tend to retrace about half their crisis losses by the time a recession ends, and can return to pre-crisis highs in prices/lows in spreads within the first year of the expansion if the recovery recoups lost output and profits within the first year (chart 4). So if the emerging recovery mirrors all previous recessions from 1970 to 2001, then markets are fairly valued. But if the recovery proves more anemic like the post-Global Financial Crisis years were due to impaired balance sheets, then markets have overshot. JPM thinks the GFC is the proper template and are therefore concerned about valuations, which is why its portfolio strategy is conservative.
(3) The wildcards, both positive and negative. This potential valuation problem makes more relevant the role of wildcards. Perhaps because market momentum has been so strong in recent months, the sources of downside risk in H2 seem more abundant than the sources of upside. Potential spoilers include:
- (a) growth upturn fizzles after three to six months, rather than the usual one to two-year upswing (as measured by PMI improvement) that normally follows a recession, due to a second wave of COVID-19 that motivates lockdown or just consumer/corporate caution;
- (b) fiscal cliffs in various countries from expiration of temporary stimulus measures, partially in Q3 but more so in 2021;
- (c) US credit cliff if Fed does not extend its facilities beyond Sep 30th;
- (d) material US sanctions on China/Hong Kong, SAR pre-November to boost Trump’s rating or post-November on Trump’s re-election;
- (e) Democratic sweep in US elections then corporate tax hikes; and (f) hard Brexit at end of 2020.
The most material ones to JPM are COVID infections because these are indeed rising in a few US states…
… the Democratic sweep because swing state polls favor both Biden versus Trump and Democrats versus Republicans in vulnerable Republican Sentate seats…
… and broader US sanctions on China because both the US public and both sides of the US political spectrum hold an overwhelming negative impression of China (66% of Americans have an unfavorable view of China, according to an April Pew Research Center poll). The bank then admits that it isn’t properly hedged against a second wave that triggers lockdowns, other than through a preference for the Tech and Healthcare sectors, because there is sufficient hospital capacity to accommodate the inevitable rise in infections as mobility increases. Normand then admits that he might tilt Equity allocations towards non-US market closer to the elections, but for now his position for the possibility of a Democratic sweep is through short USD positions and longs in Gold (the bank has also bee short CNH for a couple of months in anticipation of US-China tensions and view this trade as one to potentially hold into 2021).
* * *
This brings us to JPM’s punchline: does any of the above actually matter at a time when there has been an unprecedented liquidity injection in the markets? The answer is that while the rising tide has indeed lifted all boats, it can only do so much:
(4) The case for selectivity: According to Normand, “liquidity cannot paper over specific weaknesses indefinitely.” When the business cycle is turning higher, policy hyper-stimulative and downside risks manageable, the obvious investment strategy might be to own anything but cash, holdings of which remain extraordinarily high.
This indiscriminate approach would not have damaged absolute returns over the past few months given that all financial assets, but DM Bonds and the US dollar have rallied. Such high cross-asset correlations are typical at turning points in the cycle, when extreme positioning and liquidity dynamics drive both broad selling as the global economy enters recession then buying as the economy enters expansion. Massive central bank asset purchases can also boost correlations due to a combination of scarcity created by central bank asset purchases and rising growth expectations from central bank easing.
However, typically such high correlations mean-revert to their long-term averages within a few months, in part because the pace of QE slows and in turn allows country, sector and company-specific factors to reassert themselves. H2 should bring this sort of differentiation, which is why the April/May strategy of owning anything is unlikely to perform as well going forward. That would mean these choices:
But typically these high correlations mean-revert to their long-term averages within a few months, in part because the pace of QE slows and in turn allows country, sector and company-specific factors to reassert themselves. H2 should bring this sort of differentiation, which is why as JPM concludes, “the April/May strategy of owning anything is unlikely to perform as well going forward.“
-
- UN Deletes Pro-Antifa Tweet After Backlash
UN Deletes Pro-Antifa Tweet After Backlash
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 17:55Update (1755ET): And just like that, the UN has deleted their tweet professing support for Antifa.
They deleted the tweet: pic.twitter.com/I7NB55KT1e
— Amir Sariaslan (@AmirSariaslan) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
President Trump wants to label Antifa a terrorist organization, which he first announced late last month in response to mayhem unleashed related to the George Floyd protests, which in many cities included rioting, looting, and large-scale vandalism.
He had declared so via Twitter on May 31 in follow-up to Attorney General William Barr’s statement at the time: “The violence instigated and carried out by antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”
To the surprise of many, the United Nations has now issued a statement rebuking the White House attempt to impose the legal designation. Upon a UN statement being issued on Friday, counter-terrorism expert Max Abrahms at first thought it was a joke, but no it’s not The Onion:
UN #HumanRights experts express profound concern over a recent statement by the US Attorney-General describing #Antifa and other anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists, saying it undermines the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly in the country. pic.twitter.com/2Pz2dMyq8k
— UN Geneva (@UNGeneva) June 19, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The UN Geneva office cited unnamed experts associated with its Human Rights Council to express “profound concern over a recent statement by the US Attorney-General describing [Antifa] and other anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists, saying it undermines the rights to freedom of expression and of peaceful assembly in the country.”
This even after there’s been widespread uncertainty and debate over just who or what the group actually is. Or Antifa might more appropriately be seen as a loosely defined movement espousing radical Leftist ideology. But the new UN statement appears positively supportive given it clearly asserted that Antifa is composed of mere “anti-fascist activists”.
Anon Thread-
Why is #antifa waving a #UN flag? pic.twitter.com/19pdOMbvuK— ❌PaulaAndra Aigner (@silverbird458) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The unusual UN tweet and statement was widely mocked via conservative social media, for example with OAN journalist Jack Posobiec tweeting: “The United Nations is running cover for an international extremist group that has conducted violent insurrectionist attacks across North America and Europe.”
He further stated ironically: “Antifa doesn’t exist and also the UN just endorsed them.”
United Nations comes out in support of Antifa. Of course they support it. It’s just a precursor to UN peacekeepers on American soil to serve as international police. https://t.co/hs5SzKlESQ
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
And a number of others called for “defunding the UN”.
But more importantly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took the UN Human Rights Council to task, slamming the body’s ‘hypocrisy’ in lecturing Washington on race issues while being “a haven for dictators and democracies that indulge them.”
The @UN_HRC debate on policing and race in the U.S. marks a new low for that body. Our vigorous, ongoing civic discourse is a sign of our democracy’s strength and maturity. We were right to leave this joke of a “human rights” forum comprised of Venezuela & recently, Cuba & China.
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
“If the Council were honest, it would recognize the strengths of American democracy and urge authoritarian regimes around the world to model American democracy and to hold their nations to the same high standards of accountability and transparency that we Americans apply to ourselves,” Pompeo added.
* * *
Meanwhile, speaking of unusual and perhaps bizarre statements, one sheriff’s office in Louisiana issued this video “warning” to Antifa, which has also gone viral:
This message from Louisiana law enforcement officers to ANTIFA is the best thing you will hear today.pic.twitter.com/ywRN7Z4Q9j
— John D ● (@RedWingGrips) June 19, 2020
- DOJ Defends Idaho's Ban On Transgender Athletes From Competing In Women's Sports
DOJ Defends Idaho's Ban On Transgender Athletes From Competing In Women's Sports
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 17:30Authored by Janita Kan via The Epoch Times,
The Justice Department (DOJ) has defended an Idaho law that bars biological males from competing in all-women sports, arguing that the U.S. Constitution allows the state to recognize the physiological differences between the biological sexes in sports.
Idaho in March became the first state to sign a law—Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (Fairness Act)—that prevents biological males from participating in women’s sports that are affiliated with the state’s public school and higher education systems.
The law, which goes into effect in July, effectively bans transgender girls and women from competing in women’s sports and has drawn criticism from LGBT and civil rights advocacy groups.
The law’s passage prompted a transgender athlete, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Legal Voice, to sue the state governor, Brad Little, and other officials (pdf), arguing that the law “impermissibly discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and invades fundamental privacy rights.” Joining her in the lawsuit is a biological female who worries that competitors might decide to “dispute” her gender in order to keep her from playing soccer.
One of the athletes’ argument is that the law violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it singles out individuals who depart from sex stereotypes, transgender people, and intersex people for discriminatory treatment, according to their lawsuit.
“We’re suing because HB 500 illegally targets women and girls who are transgender and intersex and subjects all female athletes to the possibility of invasive genital and genetic screenings,” Gabriel Arkles, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement at the time the lawsuit was filed. “In Idaho and around the country, transgender people of all ages have been participating in sports consistent with their gender identity for years. Inclusive teams support all athletes and encourage participation—this should be the standard for all school sports.”
In a statement of interest on Friday, the DOJ disagreed with the athlete’s argument on the equal protection clause, arguing that the state does not need to abandon its efforts to protect biological women with equal opportunity to compete and participate in school athletics in order to accommodate the team preferences of transgender athletes.
“The Equal Protection Clause allows Idaho to recognize the average physiological differences between the biological sexes in athletics,” the department wrote (pdf). “Because of these differences, the Fairness Act’s limiting of certain athletic teams to biological females provides equal protection because the limitation is based on the same exact interest that allows the creation of sex-segregated athletic teams in the first place—namely, the goal of ensuring that biological females have equal athletic opportunities.”
The department also pointed out that providing transgender women and girls a special exemption to participate in women sports would in fact require the state to discriminate against straight biological males.
“Refusing to provide a special exemption for biological males if and only if they are transgender is hardly a denial of equal protection on the basis of sex, especially when such an exemption would harm biological females. Rather, Plaintiffs’ requested special exemption would actually require Idaho to engage in discrimination on the basis of gender identity, by compelling the State to discriminate against biological males whose gender identity reflects their biological sex,” the department wrote.
“Allowing biological males to compete in all-female sports is fundamentally unfair to female athletes,” Attorney General William Barr said in a statement.
The Idaho Attorney General office declined to comment on the statement of interest because of the pending litigation.
Chase Strangio, an attorney with the ACLU, said in a statement to The Epoch Times that the U.S. government is using an argument used by anti-trans advocates for years.
“Discrimination against women – including women who are trans – is discrimination. DOJ’s arguments will fail here just as DOJ lost its defense of anti-transgender discrimination this week in the Supreme Court,” Strangio said.
This statement of interest comes follows a Supreme Court ruling that extends Title VII’s protections to gay and transgender employees, by making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
The DOJ said in its filing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision does not alter its argument on the equal protection clause because the top court cases did not consider anything about the Constitution and that the Fairness Act does not discriminate on the basis of transgender status.
“In sum, the Fairness Act neither bars transgender athletes from competing in school athletics nor draws distinctions based on transgender status or gender identity. Instead, it draws distinctions solely based on biological sex, restricting all biological males from participating on athletic teams designated for biological females,” the DOJ said.
- Over A Third Of Americans Think Civil War Is Likely
Over A Third Of Americans Think Civil War Is Likely
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 17:00No one would have ever fathomed, that America – the greatest country in the world – with “the greatest economy ever” – could even be on the cusp of a civil war.
Except for Peter Turchin, who predicted a decade ago in the scholarly journal Nature that America would “suffer a period of major social upheaval” starting around the year 2020.
As race-driven/anti-police protests flourish nationwide – one-in-three Americans are warming up to the idea the country is on the brink of another civil war, according to Rasmussen Reports.
The latest findings found 34% of respondents said the country would experience a second civil war within five years, and that includes 9% of those who said it’s very likely.
Rasmussen noted, “This compares to 31 percent and 11 percent respectively two years ago.”
When examining between party lines, 40% of Republicans said civil war was “on the horizon,” while 28% of Democrats concurred. Around 38% of Independent voters said a civil war is possible in the next five years.
The survey of 1,000 likely U.S. voters was conducted on June 11 and 14 by Rasmussen Reports, also asked respondents about local governments and protesters removing Confederate monuments.
Rasmussen said,
“Thirty-nine percent (39 percent) of all voters believe the removal of Confederate symbols, names, and monuments throughout the country honoring those who fought in the first civil war will help race relations. Twenty-seven percent (27 percent) disagree and think it will hurt race relations instead.”
“These numbers are reversed from August 2017 when 28% said the removal of the symbols would help race relations, while 39% thought it would hurt instead. Little changed is the 28% who think the removal of public traces of the Confederacy will have no impact,” it noted.
Rasmussen continued, “Women and those under 40 are more supportive of the current anti-police protests and the anti-Confederacy drive than men and older voters.”
“Younger voters worry most about another civil war… Just 29 percent of blacks believe the current protests will lead to long-term, meaningful racial change in America, compared to 35 percent of whites and 48 percent of other minority voters,” it said.
Chaos in America’s inner cities have been brewing for some time – and was due to erupt, according to Turchin.
He looked at “declining wages, wealth inequality and exploding national debt” as social pressures that affected national stability. His model showed that the U.S. would reach a “boiling point” in 2020 — none of this should come as a surprise to Zero Hedge readers.
So does civil war become a self-fulfilling prophecy with a third of Americans believing severe domestic turmoil is ahead?
- "Silenced" – We Live In A Time When Our "Opinions Qualify As Crimes"
"Silenced" – We Live In A Time When Our "Opinions Qualify As Crimes"
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 16:30Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,
Currently, we’re living in an upside-down and backward world where the minority of people hold all the microphones, successfully shouting over a potential majority of people who don’t like the way things are going.
I truly believe that most Americans don’t hate their neighbors, don’t indulge in cruelty for the sake of cruelty, don’t indulge in cruel behavior toward those of other races than their own, and just want to live their lives with what happiness they can find. This is not to say that racism does not exist – it does and I’ve seen it in action. It also isn’t to say that there aren’t extremists who wallow in hatred – there are and on all fringes of the political spectrum.
The trouble happens when one of those fringes tries to silence everybody else. And it’s working.
How big independent sites are being silenced
Take the recent threats against ten websites in the United States, all of whom a new website in the UK is trying to get “defunded.”
We call on brands advertising on Fake News sites to stop funding Fake News. To be honest, I was very hesitant to write this article, because I, too, am dependent on ad platforms that go through Google. But too many people are silent while others are silenced so here goes.
Stop Funding Fake News was set up in 2019 by people who were concerned about the rapid rise in Fake News.
Since we launched, we’ve seen one of our target fake news sites completely shut down, and the capacity of several others reduce significantly as a result of us damaging their ability to raise revenue.
We are pro-truth, pro-balance and pro-responsible news. We invite brands and people to consider whether they want their adverts to appear next to hate and untruths. (source)
Here’s a list of the sites that SSFN considers “racist.” Whether they are or not isn’t the purview of this article.
You’ll note a common thread on the list of articles that SSFN deems offensive. It seems that only one point of view, as opposed to the balance they say they’re looking for, is acceptable in the eyes of SSFN and anything else must be piled on the pyre of all the virtual books being burned.
Demonetization or silence
Zero Hedge, probably the most popular and powerful alternative news site out there, was completely defunded by Google. Here’s what Zero Hedge had to say about the issue.
You see, the way it works is this. Ad networks bid on advertisements and based on statistics available through Google, these ads are placed on websites that contract with the ad networks. This is how my site and many other high-volume websites get the bulk of their advertising revenue. Keep in mind it’s pretty expensive to run a smaller site like mine, so I can only imagine the cost of running a far bigger site.
Advertisers are getting on board because their livelihoods, too, rely on being seen as holding the “correct” opinion. We’re all under mob rule.
The Federalist, another site on that list, was able to keep their site funded but only if they removed their comments section entirely. So not only do they have to change their reporting, but they also have to silence their readers. You may be thinking that it sounds like they caved – but you cannot run a large website without revenue unless you’re independently wealthy and you don’t mind just throwing money down a well never to be seen again. Most site owners are not in that position.
It’s a nerve-wracking time to be in this business. I debated for several days whether or not to write this article because my head could be on the chopping block next. My livelihood and that of the people who work with me are at risk.
But if we of the independent media don’t speak up, who will?
How can we do nothing while the entire conversation is being taken over by radical elements with which many Americans do not agree? The independent media is the last remaining bastion of alternative opinions. George Orwell wrote these chillingly prophetic words in his novel 1984.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” (source)
When we of the independent media are gone, Big Brother is totally in charge of all the information you receive.
Americans can only hold one opinion now.
Americans continue to be silenced or to be bullied out of their jobs based on who they voted for, forced to affiliate with groups that they may not actually support, or fall victim to a virtual mob during an internet witch hunt.
All because they dare, in America, alleged land of the free, to disagree with an opinion that is treated as fact.
You may recall after President Trump was elected how horribly anyone who voted for him was treated. Heaven forbid a person was to wear a red MAGA hat in public because to do so was risking a beating. We were suddenly cast into a world so extreme that our opinions could mean the difference between life and death in the workplace and on the streets.
If you don’t support groups like Antifa or the Occupy movement, you’re considered a “far-right extremist.” That’s the moniker used to describe Zero Hedge in most of the news coverage about their defunding.
For the record, I’m not even sort of “right.” I don’t support or endorse either major political party or any extremist groups. I weigh my opinions based on my personal ethics. Some of them may fall in line with the left, some may fall in line with the right, but I do not align myself with any groups. My opinions are entirely my own.
Freedom of speech is one of our most sacred rights in this country.
That includes the freedom for those with differing opinions to speak, have platforms, and hold some of the microphones. Silencing these websites through insidiously getting them defunded is anti-American.
I think CNN, for example, has been proven to be exceptionally biased time and time again, even going so far as to try and swing the last election for Hillary Clinton. It’s an undisputed fact that they literally colluded with her before the presidential debate.
Regardless of that, I don’t think they should be defunded. I think that they should be able to continue to operate and so should their opposition. That’s how you have a balance in the media.
And balance in the media is how we have balance in our nation.
Here’s what Tucker Carlson had to say about the silencing of Americans.
A few days, Tucker Carlson of Fox News tackled this topic.
He’s right – our information is being controlled and it doesn’t matter if you personally use Google or not. What does matter is this:
Google receives over 63,000 searches per second…which translates into at least 2 trillion searches per year, 3.8 million searches per minute, 228 million searches per hour, and 5.6 billion searches per day. (source)
That’s a whole lot of people who are getting their opinions from one company. That’s a whole lot of power. And that power is being misused to silence opposing points of view. We are at an incredibly dangerous turning point right now and everything we hold dear about America is at risk.
If you’re looking ahead and the future looks bright, that might be because you’re seeing the country on fire.
- Murders Spike In NYC As Residents Flee For Suburbs
Murders Spike In NYC As Residents Flee For Suburbs
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 16:05Pandemic and social unrest are some of the reasons why wealthy New Yorkers are fleeing the metro area for rural communities. Now throw violent crime into the mix, and it appears the flight to safety will only increase.
A byproduct of the virus crisis, now socio-economic implosion of the city, is a massive increase in violent crime, including murders, shootings, and burglaries (a rise in violent crime is standard in a recession, considering the US entered one back in February).
This video sums up why New Yorkers are getting the hell out of dodge as the city implodes.
During May, overall crime declined compared to the same period last year. But the New York City Police Department (NYPD) said murders in the city increase by 79%, shootings jumped by 64%, and burglaries rose 34%.
The surge in violent crime is expected to supercharge a trend of New Yorkers fleeing the metro for rural communities in New York and New Jersey. We’ve already detailed this emerging trend in several pieces:
-
Housing Market Outside New York City Booms As City Dwellers Flee
-
Pandemic-Weary New Yorkers Spark Housing Boom In Suburban New Jersey
The exodus of cities could become a nationwide trend in the early 2020s if social unrest and the virus pandemic don’t decrease in the near term. With coronavirus wave two likely here – a wave of city dwellers could be the next big seller that sends urban home prices in major cities tumbling, but as we’ve noted, result in surging home prices in some rural communities.
A large suburban home is becoming very attractive relative to having urban space in a post corona world. We’ve documented this phenomenon, in several pieces, is happening across several major metropolitan areas:
At the same time, corporations have devised a way for employees to work remotely. So as America’s inner cities burn – people now have the luxury to watch from afar, isolated in their rural McMansions.
Wait, so will the exodus from cities revive McMansions? The answer could be yes…
-
- US Attorney Berman To 'Immediately' Leave SDNY After Sacking
US Attorney Berman To 'Immediately' Leave SDNY After Sacking
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 15:40Update (1915ET): In a Saturday evening statement, Manhattan US Attorney Geoffrey Berman announced that he will be leaving his post “effective immediately” after Attorney General William Barr said President Trump had fired him earlier in the day – a statement Trump denied.
“In light of Attorney General Barr’s decision to respect the normal operation of law and have Deputy U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss become Acting U.S. Attorney, I will be leaving the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, effective immediately,” said Berman.
* * *
Update (1615ET): Speaking with the press before his Tulsa, Oklahoma rally, President Trump said he’s “not involved” in Berman’s firing, and that it’s “all up to Attorney General William Barr.”
President Trump just told reporters at the White House that he’s “not involved” with the firing of US Attorney Berman. Trump said it’s up to Attorney General Bill Barr
— Hunter Walker (@hunterw) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Trump on Barr’s claim Trump fired Geoff Berman: “That’s really up to him. I’m not involved” pic.twitter.com/yB0Fjc61Uv
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
Update (06/20/2020): President Trump has fired Geoffrey Berman, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, after he refused to tender his resignation.
Per a Saturday letter from Attorney General William Barr in which he accuses Berman of choosing “public spectacle over public service,” Barr writes: “Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so.“
According to Rep Don Beyer (D-VA), AG Barr “rushed so quickly to do damage control after being caught in a lie and an act of blatant corruption that he didn’t inform the Judiciary Committee Chair,” adding “What are they trying to cover up? This will not end here.”
Read the full letter below:
BREAKING: AG Barr to Berman: “Because you have declared that you have no intention of resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so.” https://t.co/xm4NcHXI7O pic.twitter.com/fi2aL2jNHv
— Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
Geffrey Berman is refusing to step down as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York after Attorney General William Barr asked him to resign, according to Bloomberg.
“I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was ‘stepping down’ as United States Attorney,” said Berman, adding “I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position, to which I was appointed by the judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
“I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate… …Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption.“
NEW: Geoff Berman statement:
“I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was ‘stepping down’ as United States Attorney. I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position” pic.twitter.com/L6PQCF9bdU
— erica orden (@eorden) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Reacting to the news, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said “This late Friday night dismissal reeks of potential corruption of the legal process.“
SDNY was pursuing several probes of the president’s business and his inaugural committee. It was also investigating Rudy Giuliani, an outspoken Trump supporter, and charged two of Giuliani’s associates. In his congressional testimony, Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, whose conviction on campaign finance violations and other charges was secured by SDNY prosecutors, said he was cooperating with them on matters he couldn’t discuss. -Bloomberg
According to a NYT anonymous source that cannot be verified, President Trump has been unhappy with Berman since he went after Cohen, and has been discussing Berman’s removal with a small group of advisers for some time.
Meanwhile, Berman’s predecessor just pointed out that he was fired in almost exactly the same way.
deja vu https://t.co/DXqtrzMsxD
— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
* * *
In a surprising move that inevitably will be denounced by President Trump’s political opponents as another “Friday Night Massacre”, the DoJ just announced that Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the southern district of New York, will soon depart.
Geoffrey Berman
A Republican who contributed to Trump’s campaign, Berman was considered a highly qualified pick to succeed Preet Bharara, the previous occupant of his Berman’s soon-to-be-former office, which also features heavily in the TV show “Billions” (it’s the position held by the show’s antagonist, a corrupt federal prosecutor).
AG Barr didn’t offer much in the way of an explanation, and Berman hasn’t said much either. Then again, we’re only just finding out about this, and it’s 10pmET on a holiday Friday.
But even more surprising than the news of Berman’s sudden departure is the news of who will take his place. Following a brief interlude, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton will become the next US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.
For those who aren’t familiar, Clayton is the same man who almost allowed Hertz and its creditors to sell hundreds of millions of dollars of stock to unsuspecting Robinhood day traders trying to flip their stimulus checks for quick cash with nary a word from the SEC.
But even more extraordinary than his handling of the Hertz situation is Clayton’s decision to allow Tesla CEO Elon Musk walk away from a dispute with the SEC in which the CEO flagrantly and blithely violated basic securities regulations involving disclosures of material information to the public (remember “funding secured?” and the tedious legal melodrama that ensued in which Musk, in full blown tantrum mode, was repeatedly appeased by government regulators seemingly robbed of all willingness to hold him accountable).
Indeed, the news elicited some late-breaking chuckles on twitter.
has @elonmusk approved this? @SEC_Enforcement $tsla $tslaq
“… Jay has been an extraordinarily successful SEC Chairman.” pic.twitter.com/Dn6Kg1gON0
— andykat (@hilinetrail) June 20, 2020
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
We imagine we’ll be hearing more about this tomorrow.
- "We Will Lose The Story Of The United States" By Not Honoring George Washington, Mount Vernon Warns
"We Will Lose The Story Of The United States" By Not Honoring George Washington, Mount Vernon Warns
Tyler Durden
Sat, 06/20/2020 – 15:40Authored by Nicholas Ballasy via JustTheNews.com,
In response to protesters tearing down a 100-year-old statue of George Washington and vandalizing it, Washington’s Mount Vernon warned that “we will lose the story of the United States” by failing to honor Washington, adding that without the founding father and former U.S. president, “there would be no United States” or U.S. Constitution.
The Mount Vernon estate is a historic home of Washington, the first U.S. president, and is located in Fairfax County, Va.
Protesters in Portland, Ore., on Thursday night spray painted “colonist” and “BLM [Black Lives Matter]” on the statue, wrapped an American flag around it and set it on fire.
“Without George Washington, there would be no United States of America; there would be no Constitution, which allows the freedom of speech, assembly, and protest, as well as the separation of church from state and without Washington we would not have civilian-led military,” said Mount Vernon President and CEO Dr. Douglas Bradburn in a statement provided to Just the News on Friday.
“If we fail to honor George Washington, because we understand him only as a slave owner, we will lose the story of the United States, for it will have no beginning and very little direction,” he added.
According to Mount Vernon, Washington “left directions for the emancipation of all the slaves that he owned” after the death of his wife, Martha. She decided to “free her late-husband’s slaves early” and the process was fully completed in 1801, according to government documents.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](/s3/files/inline-images/RCGS%20Resolute.png?itok=w5LOkDj9){kind=link}
![<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>](https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/rcgs%20resolute%20views.png?itok=JGGCVdm8){kind=link}