Month: March 2018

Russia Slams “Unprecedented, Hostile” UK Action, Vows Retaliation

Shortly after the Russian embassy in the UK reacted angrily to Britain’s expulsion of 23 diplomats after Theresa May accused Russia of using a chemical weapon on UK soil, saying that it considers “this hostile action as totally unacceptable, unjustified and shortsighted” and adding that “all the responsibility for the deterioration of the Russia-UK relationship lies with the current political leadership of Britain”, the Russian foreign ministry double down and warned that the UK’s “hostile actions” against Russia under the pretext of the poisoning of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal are an “unprecedented provocation” which won’t be left without a response.

The British move is “an unprecedentedly rude provocation, which undermines the foundations of a normal dialogue between our countries,” the ministry said in a statement.

The ministry said that “the British government chose confrontation with Russia” instead of completing the investigation and using international formats “including those in the framework of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”

The Russian diplomats also claimed that “it’s obvious that by opting for unilateral and non-transparent methods of investigating this incident, the British authorities have once again tried to unleash an indiscriminate anti-Russian campaign.”

Moscow said that it was “unacceptable and unworthy” for the UK leadership to further escalate tensions in relations with Russia “in pursuit of its own deplorable political aims.”

“Needless to say, our response measures will not be long in coming,” the Foreign Ministry concluded.

Russia had previously said that it’s open to cooperation with the UK on the Skripal case if it’s carried out in accordance with international law and Moscow is treated as an equal partner in the probe. Russia has also officially requested that the UK provide all the case files regarding the incident, but was turned down.

Below is the response from the Russia Foreign Ministry so far:

The March 14 statement made by British Prime Minister Theresa May in Parliament on measures to “punish” Russia, under the false pretext of its alleged involvement in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter, constitutes an unprecedented, flagrant provocation that undermines the foundations of normal dialogue between our countries.

We believe it is absolutely unacceptable and unworthy of the British Government to seek to further seriously aggravate relations in pursuit of its unseemly political ends, having announced a whole series of hostile measures, including the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats from the country.

Instead of completing its own investigation and using established international formats and instruments, including within the framework of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – in which we were prepared to cooperate – the British Government opted for confrontation with Russia. Obviously, by investigating this incident in a unilateral, non-transparent way, the British Government is again seeking to launch a groundless anti-Russian campaign.

Needless to say, our response measures will not be long in coming

Separately, when the Russian embassy was asked about the unexpected death of Nikolay Glushkov who as we reproted yesterday was an associated of billionaire anit-Putin oligarch Boris Berezovsky, it said: “Regretfully, the Embassy has received no information whatsoever regarding the circumstances of the death of Mr Glushkov. The investigation is not transparent, the British side appears not inclined to cooperate. This can only cause regret. Today the Embassy made an official request to provide all the information in possession of the British side regarding this Russian citizen whose death, as you said, appears mysterious.”

“Overall, we are surprised with UK authorities’ reluctance and unwillingness to provide us with full details of both the poisoning of Russians Sergei and Yulia Skripal and the death of Nikolay Glushkov.”

We expect it is only a matter of time before Putin is personally blamed for Glushkov’s death next.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FG5vxn Tyler Durden

Billionaire Investor Alan Howard Makes “Sizable Investment” In Cryptocurrencies

Investors – such as Warren Buffett and anyone else who believes that “value investing” still exists in a time of centrally planned markets – may hate “irrational”, “intrinsically worthless” cryptocurrencies, but traders – those who thrive on volatility and actually making money – are increasingly warming up to bitcoin et al. Case in point: hedge fund billionaire Alan Howard made “a sizeable personal investments in cryptocurrencies last year and plans to put more of his own money into digital assets and the blockchain technology behind them” Bloomberg reports.

He is not alone as other partners at the macro hedge fund firm he co-founded – one of the world’s biggest – Brevan Howard Asset Management, have independently made similar investments, Bloomberg’s sources revealed although the investments are separate from the $9.1 billion hedge fund firm, as Brevan Howard does not trade cryptocurrencies for its clients.

Bloomberg adds that Howard has already hired at least one person to work for him on initiatives in digital assets and plans to hire more. He could make private-equity style investments in blockchain companies and may participate in initial coin offerings. And judging by the recent slump in crypto prices he will have an attractive entry point.

To be sure, Howard’s interest in cryptocurrencies contrasts with the outright hostility of many luminaries of finance, from Jamie Dimon to Warren Buffett. On the other hand, some “newer generation” advocates of cryptocurrencies have emerged, including former Fortress manager Mike Novogratz and billionaire investors Mark Cuban and Peter Thiel

While Brevan Howard’s flagship hedge fund recorded its worst ever annual performance last year, largely as a result of a lack of volatility amid years of central-bank stimulus which have made it difficult for traders to make money – 2018 has been good for the fund which according to media reports is up in the double digits YTD now that volatility has finally returned if only to the stock market.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2GugdIQ Tyler Durden

Controversial Law Professor’s Comments on Affirmative Action Get Her Banned From Teaching First-Year Classes

A professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School whose outspoken views on race and culture have drawn intense criticism from students and colleagues will no longer be allowed to teach a mandatory class for first-year law students, Penn Law Dean Theodore Ruger announced yesterday.

The ban is the latest escalation of a months-long feud between the law school and conservative professor Amy Wax.

The tensions began last August, when Wax co-authored an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer which touted the superiority of the “bourgeois cultural hegemony” that Wax and her co-author, Larry Alexander, said reigned in America before the 1960s.

In the portion of the piece which drew the most outrage, Wax and Alexander said:

All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require, they are also destructive of a sense of solidarity and reciprocity among Americans. If the bourgeois cultural script — which the upper-middle class still largely observes but now hesitates to preach — cannot be widely reinstated, things are likely to get worse for us all.

The op-ed set off an extended series of op-eds, petitions, and open letters between Wax, her colleagues, and various other Penn-affiliated groups. Five of Wax’s colleagues criticized her piece in an op-ed in Penn’s student paper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, and 33 signed an open letter “categorically reject[ing]” her claims. Wax fired back in the student paper, and later, in The Wall Street Journal, which prompted yet another response from a critical colleague. Heather Mac Donald jumped in. You get the picture.

One of the critics’ repeated demands was to remove Wax from teaching civil procedure, a mandatory first-year course in which students are assigned randomly to year-long “sections” taught by different professors. Black students, they said, should not be forced to be taught by a professor who allegedly thought them inferior. The Penn Law chapter of the National Lawyers’ Guild, a progressive legal organization, said that Wax’s comments were “an explicit and implicit endorsement of white supremacy,” and asserted that “her bigoted views inevitably seep into her words and actions in the classroom and in private conversations with students.”

Throughout all this, Ruger publicly declined to discipline or denounce Wax, citing the law school’s commitments to open expression. Wax alleged in her Wall Street Journal op-ed that Ruger had privately asked her to take a leave of absence, however, which Ruger denied.

This month, however, a new front in the controversy opened when a group of Penn Law alumni published a new petition drawing attention to remarks Wax made on a September 2017 episode of “The Glenn Show,” a video series on the website Bloggingheads.tv hosted by Brown University economics professor Glenn Loury. In her hour-long talk with Loury, Wax discussed the controversy around her op-ed and her opposition to race-based affirmative action, which Loury, who is black, also fiercely opposes.

In the course of that discussion, Wax discussed her belief in the so-called “mismatch hypothesis” of affirmative education in higher education, which holds that racial preferences harm minority students by placing them in high-stakes elite academic environments for which they have not been adequately prepared.

“Here’s a very inconvenient fact, Glenn,” Wax said, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the [Penn Law School] class and rarely, rarely in the top half… I can think of one or two students who’ve graduated in the top half of my required first year course. Well, what are we supposed to do about that? You’re really putting in front of this person a real uphill battle, and if they were better matched, it might be a better environment for them. That’s the mismatch hypothesis, of course.”

The petition again called for Wax to be prohibited from teaching civil procedure. This time, Ruger complied.

In an email sent to Penn Law students, the text of which obtained by the Daily Pennsylvanian Ruger said the decision was based not on the substance of Wax’s comments, but on her disclosure of student rankings and grades in violation of law school policy. “As a scholar, [Wax] is free to advocate her views, no matter how dramatically those views diverge from our institutional ethos and our considered practices. As a teacher, however, she is not free to transgress the policy that student grades are confidential.”

He also asserted, though, that Wax’s claims about black Penn Law students’ performance were false, and could have a negative effect on black students in her classes. “In light of Professor Wax’s statements, black students assigned to her class in their first week at Penn Law may reasonably wonder whether their professor has already come to a conclusion about their presence, performance, and potential for success in law school and thereafter,” he said.

Ruger took care, however, to portray his decision as merely an administrative judgment call, not a punishment: As dean it is my responsibility to allocate faculty teaching resources in the best interest of students and of the Law School.” he said. “This curricular decision entails no sanction or diminution of Professor Wax’s status on the faculty, which remains secure. Normally, this decision would be private, but because Professor Wax made these inaccurate public statements, and students and alumni raised their concerns publicly, sharing it with our community is important.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a civil liberties watchdog group for students and faculty at public colleges and private schools which guarantee expressive rights, isn’t so sure. “We’re monitoring the situation,” says Samantha Harris, vice president of policy research at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), “both to make sure that Penn is not punishing a professor for speaking on a matter of public concern, and also to make sure that there’s no double-standard being applied by the University with regard to what Penn professors can and can’t say without facing some sort of official retribution.”

For his part, Loury didn’t buy Ruger’s explanation. In an email, he called Ruger’s justifications “clearly a tendentious stretch…intended to discredit [Wax] and to justify his reprehensible actions.

Disclosure: I attended Penn 2013-2016 and interned at FIRE in 2015.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2GtLBan
via IFTTT

Rand Paul Will Oppose Trump’s Pro-War, Pro-Torture Nominees for State, CIA

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) plans to oppose the nominations of Mike Pompeo for secretary of state and Gina Haspel as Pompeo’s replacement running the Central Intelligence Agency.

Paul’s opposition could complicate the Trump administration’s plans to replace outgoing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was fired this week and will leave his post at the end of the month.

When it comes to picking a replacement for America’s top diplomat, Paul says he could not support nominees who are trying to steer Trump in a more interventionalist direction.

“I cannot endorse his nomination of people who loved the Iraq war so much that they want an Iran war next,” Paul says. “President Trump sought to break with the foreign policy mistakes of the last two administrations. Yet now he picks for secretary of state and CIA director people who embody them, defend them, and, I’m afraid, will repeat them.”

Paul sits on the crucial Senate Foreign Relations Committee, giving him significant leverage over these nominations. If the committee’s 10 Democratic members also oppose Pompeo’s or Haspel’s appointment, Paul would be the swing vote on the 21-member committee. If either nominations make it to the Senate floor via a different route (Senate leaders could bypass the committee process, Politico says), Republicans could face another close vote with a slim 51–49 majority.

There’s good reason for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to think long and hard about a confirmation vote for Pompeo. As Emma Ashford explains, Pompeo has been very vocal on policy, including his outspoken support for withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal. It’s unusual for the director of the CIA to speak out on matters of policy, and Pompeo’s tendency to do so might complicate the high-level diplomatic negotiations he would oversee as secretary of state. When it comes to other potential hotspots, from North Korea to the ongoing proxy war on the Arabian Peninsula, Pompeo is likely to take a more hawkish stance than Tillerson did.

Domestically, Pompeo has supported the expansion of a surveillance state. In a 2016 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pompeo called on Congress to “pass a law re-establishing collection of all metadata, and combining it with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.” He has also called for the execution of Edward Snowden.

Paul opposed Pompeo’s appointment to run the CIA last year, saying in January 2017 that Pompeo’s “desire for security will trump his defense of liberty.”

Less high-profile but no less important is Trump’s pick to replace Pompeo at the CIA. Paul says that Haspel’s record on torture, which includes running a CIA “black site” prison in Thailand, should disqualify her from consideration.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2p8Bpww
via IFTTT

Andrew McCabe To Be Fired Days Ahead Of Retirement: NYT

Cruel and unusual? Perhaps. But The NY Times reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reviewing a recommendation to fire the former F.B.I. deputy director, Andrew G. McCabe, just days before he is scheduled to retire on Sunday.

As a reminder, McCabe stepped down in late January, though reports suggested McCabe was reportedly forced to step down. According to Fox News, McCabe was “removed” from his post as deputy director, “leaving the bureau after months of conflict-of-interest complaints from Republicans including President Trump.”

In both cases, his early departure suggests that he was forced out for a few reasons…

Several media outlets reported that McCabe is using his remaining vacation days to go on “terminal leave” and that his official retirement from the agency won’t happen until March, allowing him to collect the full pension.

But that ‘spotless record’ may now be given the official ‘black mark’:

As NYTimes details that Mr. McCabe is ensnared in an internal review that includes an examination of his decision in 2016 to allow F.B.I. officials to speak with reporters about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

The Justice Department’s inspector general concluded that Mr. McCabe was not forthcoming during the review, according to the people briefed on the matter.

That yet-to-be-released report triggered an F.B.I. disciplinary process that recommended his termination – leaving Mr. Sessions to either accept or reverse that decision.

Lack of candor is a fireable offense, but like so much at the F.B.I., Mr. McCabe’s fate is also entangled in presidential politics and the special counsel investigation.

How long before we see a tweet from President Trump demanding Sessions pull the trigger on McCabe?

Though no decision has been made, people inside the Justice Department expect him to be fired before Friday, a decision that would jeopardize his pension as a 21-year F.B.I. veteran…

Finally, as NYTimes notes, firing Mr. McCabe, even on the recommendation of the disciplinary office, would be controversial. Among Mr. McCabe’s allies, the decision would raise the specter that Mr. Sessions was influenced by Mr. Trump’s frequent derisive comments. No deputy director in the history of the F.B.I. has been fired.

But Mr. Sessions would be able to point to a critical inspector general’s report and say he followed Justice Department protocol.

Is Trump about to get the last laugh after all?

via RSS http://ift.tt/2HzCiVt Tyler Durden

Trade War: US Launches WTO Challenge To Indian Export Subsidy Program

While we await the announcement of the trade war nuke – namely tariffs against China – moments ago the US Trade Representative announced the launch of a WTO challenge to Indian export subsidy programs, in the latest global trade skirmish which is likely to grow into something far bigger.

  • U.S. LAUNCHES WTO CHALLENGE TO INDIAN EXPORT SUBSIDY PROGRAMS -OFFICE OF U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
  • USTR SAYS APPARENT INDIAN EXPORT SUBSIDIES ALLOW INDIAN EXPORTERS TO SELL GOODS MORE CHEAPLY TO DETRIMENT OF U.S. WORKERS, MANUFACTURERS

In a statement on the USTR website, Robert Lighthizer, announced that the United States has requested dispute settlement consultations with the Government of India at the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenging Indian export subsidy programs. 

These programs are:

  • the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme;
  • Export Oriented Units Scheme and sector specific schemes, including Electronics Hardware Technology Parks Scheme;
  • Special Economic Zones;
  • Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme;
  • a duty free imports for exporters program. 

These apparent export subsidies provide financial benefits to Indian exporters that allow them to sell their goods more cheaply to the detriment of American workers and manufacturers.    

“These export subsidy programs harm American workers by creating an uneven playing field on which they must compete,” said Ambassador Lighthizer.  “USTR will continue to hold our trading partners accountable by vigorously enforcing U.S. rights under our trade agreements and by promoting fair and reciprocal trade through all available tools, including the WTO.”

Trump and Modi in happier times.

The USTR claims that through these programs, India provides exemptions from certain duties, taxes, and fees; reduces import duty liability; and benefits numerous Indian exporters, including producers of steel products, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, information technology products, textiles, and apparel.  According to Indian Government documents, thousands of Indian companies are receiving benefits totaling over $7 billion annually from these programs.

And some background from the USTR:

Export subsidies provide an unfair competitive advantage to recipients, and WTO rules expressly prohibit them.  A limited exception to this rule is for specified developing countries that may continue to provide export subsidies temporarily until they reach a defined economic benchmark.  India was initially within this group, but it surpassed the benchmark in 2015. India’s exemption has expired, but India has not withdrawn its export subsidies.  

In fact, India has increased the size and scope of these programs.  For example, India introduced the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme in 2015, which has rapidly expanded to include more than 8,000 eligible products, nearly double the number of products covered at its inception.

Exports from Special Economic Zones increased over 6,000 percent from 2000 to 2017, and in 2016, exports from Special Economic Zones accounted for over $82 billion in exports, or 30 percent of India’s export volume.  Exports from the Export Oriented Units Scheme and sector specific schemes, including Electronics Hardware Technology Parks Scheme, increased by over 160 percent from 2000 to 2016.       

Consultations are the first step in the WTO dispute settlement process.  If the United States and India are not able to reach a mutually agreed solution through consultations, the United States may request the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel to review the matter.

Of course, since trade war by definition invited retaliation, we now wait for just how Indian will respond to this initial trade war salvo between the US and India.

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2tMWj95 Tyler Durden

Mostly Weekly Series Finale–Creative Destruction: New At Reason

Reason‘s webseries “Mostly Weekly” is wrapping up–for entirely legal reasons that absolutely do not involve tax evasion. No reason to be suspicious.

The final episode of the series tackles creative destruction. In free and open markets people are able to make new technologies and business models, which displace older, established ones. That process of starting new companies and jobs destroys some professions while creating others.

It’s entirely understandable that people who lose their jobs want to keep them. But industries like manufacturing, coal mining, and mall retailers aren’t dying out because of competition from China, they’re being outmoded by automation, cheaper fuel sources, and online sales.

Despite the uncertainty that markets bring, they also create new jobs and entirely new professions. There aren’t gangs of unemployed lamplighters roaming the land; their descendants became Uber drivers, social media coordinators, and webseries producers.

In the end, it’s better for everyone to look at the world as it is and to move forward than to try and halt progress through the force of law.

Click here for full text and downloadable versions

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2HArV3A
via IFTTT

Bitcoin Drops Ahead Of G-20 – Central Bankers Can No Longer Ignore Cryptos

Overnight weakness in cryptos started when Google ad-ban headlines hit overnight and accelerated as anxiety around next week’s G-20 (and its potential for more crackdowns) builds.

As we detailed when it hit overnight, mimiccing its biggest rival for ad dollars – Facebook – Google will ban online advertisements promoting cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings, and “other speculative financial instruments” starting in June.

But broader risk-off flows in US equities area also weighing broadly on cryptos but as Bloomberg notes, The Group of 20 finance ministers and central bankers are set to sound the alarm about cryptocurrencies when they gather next week in Buenos Aires.

A draft communique calls for monitoring them to safeguard financial stability.

As it seems, as GoldTelegraph notes, central banks can no longer dismiss cryptocurrencies.

Central banks have been very dismissive of cryptocurrencies. For one, cryptocurrencies are the very antithesis of what a central banks does, which is to regulate money. In addition, central banks are concerned with the little security that digital funds provide. In January 2018 we reported that Japan’s Coincheck experienced a $500 million theft, and the decentralized nature of Bitcoin is making it difficult for authorities to conduct a thorough investigation.

In the U.S., the Federal Reserve isn’t convinced that central banks need to completely regulate cryptocurrencies. Fed Chief Jerome Powell said that technical issues and risk management surrounding cryptocurrencies both present a challenge that are best left to the private sector.

Notably the 1130ET algos were active once again…

However, despite the constant dodging and dismissive nature of most central banks toward cryptocurrencies, analysts believe that they cannot ignore them any longer.

Last December veteran economist and CEO of Blockchain Peter Smith said that central banks will begin holding digital funds as part of their balance sheet in 2018.

“Bitcoin is already a top 30 currency by supply, and this trend, and pressure to hold digital currency as part of reserves will only accelerate as the price rises,” Smith said.

Smith adds that central banks will most likely buy Bitcoin and Ethereum – the two most popular cryptocurrencies in the world – as part of their reserves.

Bitcoin analysts like Smith believe that the G7 central banks — a group of central banks from the US, Canada, France, Germany, UK, Italy, and Japan — will  kick off the purchasing. The main reason for this is due to Bitcoin’s trend of recovery after a sharp decline, which could mean that regulated cash may soon be devalued against cryptocurrencies. When this happens, the G7 countries will be forced to modify their foreign reserves, and include cryptocurrencies in their portfolio.

With G7 central banks expected to back cryptocurrencies, other central banks from around the world may follow suit.

“In 2018, G-7 central banks will witness Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies becoming the biggest international currency by market capitalization,” said Eugene Etsebeth, a former central bank official from the South African Reserve Bank. “This event, together with the global nature of cryptocurrencies with 24/7 trading access, will make it intuitive to own cryptocurrencies as they become a de-facto investment as part of a central bank’s investment tranche.”

Apart from the prediction of regulated cash devaluing against cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin’s rising popularity in investor markets is one of the reasons why central banks can no longer dismiss cryptocurrencies as a passing fad. Last year, CME, the world’s largest futures exchange, launched its very own Bitcoin futures contract. Bitcoin futures are like any other futures contract where investors agree to buy a given quantity of securities on a certain day. In addition, traders also have the option to trade Bitcoin spreads. Nadex states that Bitcoin spreads allow traders to take short-term positions on the price of Bitcoin with risk-reward protections. The financial markets have embraced various Bitcoin-related investment vehicles, and the recovering value of the cryptocurrency shows how the public continues to support the new asset class.

Awareness regarding the weakness of regulated cash against cryptocurrencies is becoming more apparent, and central banks need to make a decision modifying their existing investment policies for reserve management.

Foreign reserve assets are used to aid international trade. That being said, holding the currency of a trading partner makes transactions easier. In 2018, cryptocurrencies will not only give G7 countries the option to diversify their foreign reserves but also make inter-country trading more efficient by using a singular payment method.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2tMjRep Tyler Durden

Mostly Weekly Series Finale–Creative Destruction: New At Reason

Reason‘s webseries “Mostly Weekly” is wrapping up–for entirely legal reasons that absolutely do not involve tax evasion. No reason to be suspicious.

The final episode of the series tackles creative destruction. In free and open markets people are able to make new technologies and business models, which displace older, established ones. That process of starting new companies and jobs destroys some professions while creating others.

It’s entirely understandable that people who lose their jobs want to keep them. But industries like manufacturing, coal mining, and mall retailers aren’t dying out because of competition from China, they’re being outmoded by automation, cheaper fuel sources, and online sales.

Despite the uncertainty that markets bring, they also create new jobs and entirely new professions. There aren’t gangs of unemployed lamplighters roaming the land; their descendants became Uber drivers, social media coordinators, and webseries producers.

In the end, it’s better for everyone to look at the world as it is and to move forward than to try and halt progress through the force of law.

Click here for full text and downloadable versions

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2pchQT2
via IFTTT

Trump To Name Larry Kudlow Top Economic Advsior, Replacing Gary Cohn

What had been rumored for days, was just confirmed by CNBC, which reported moments ago that President Donald Trump plans to name Larry Kudlow as his top economic advisor.

Trump could announce his decision to choose Kudlow as his National Economic Council chairman as soon as Thursday. The CNBC senior contributor and on-air personality would replace Gary Cohn, who left the White House earlier this month amid disagreements about tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

As has been the case in past days, when every time news of Kudlow’s role in the NEC emerged the market rebounded, today was no exception, and the S&P has managed a modest rebound on the news that a somewhat moderate economist will replace Gary Cohn.

 

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2pdUOfe Tyler Durden