Trump’s ‘Capitulation’ on Trade Deal Leaves Republicans in Awkward Position

It’s the sort of thing that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago: a Republican president essentially handing complete control over a major trade to a Democratic speaker of the House and Democrats’ labor union allies.

Yet that’s exactly what has happened with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), a pact that is intended to replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The USMCA has been a top priority for President Donald Trump, who struck the deal last year with the leaders of Canada and Mexico. In many ways, the USMCA was already a step backward in terms of free trade—it imposes additional rules on how goods flow across North American borders, aims to harm Mexican manufacturing, and includes a sunset provision that means it could expire without explicit action by future governments. And that was before the Trump administration allowed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) to make a series of changes to tilt the agreement toward even more protectionism.

During an appearance Sunday on NBC’s Meet The Press, Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Pa.) described the USMCA as “a complete capitulation to Pelosi.”

Last week, Pelosi announced her support for the USMCA after it incorporated a series of changes—many of them apparently implemented at the request of the AFL-CIO, which also endorsed the trade deal. Those changes include stricter enforcement of labor rules imposed on Mexico, including ramped up inspections of factories and increased authority to stop trucks at the border (and, in a rare moment of the revised pact allowing freer rather than less free trade, the elimination of patent protections for some pharmaceuticals).

Toomey had been an outspoken critic of the USMCA since the deal was first announced last year. Specifically, he has disagreed with provisions that will make it more expensive and difficult for auto companies and other large manufacturers to take advantage of cross-border supply chains.

“Unfortunately, USMCA is an exercise through all kinds of new provisions to diminish trade, and that’s why I hope Republicans reconsider this,” Toomey said on Sunday. “We have historically recognized we’re all better off with more open markets.”

Politically, Trump appears to be betting that giving in to Democrats’ wishes will get the USMCA through the House—and that at that point Senate Republicans won’t be willing to derail a political victory for the president.

He may very well be right about that.

“There’s rumors out there that have lessened Republican enthusiasm for it, but I don’t feel like it’s going to be big enough to stop us from getting it passed,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) told The Wall Street Journal. The Journal also reports that key staffers for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) have complained to the White House about how the USMCA has been handled, and Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) tells the paper that Trump’s bargain with Pelosi is “bad practice” and “a lousy way to treat the Senate.”

Mexico is ticked off too. Jesús Seade, Mexico’s top trade negotiator, has made an unexpected trip to Washington, D.C., to “express his outrage” over the late-breaking changes to the trade deal, Politico reports.

Long gone, apparently, are the days when even the appearance of working with Democrats would send the conservative grassroots into apoplexy.

Assuming the USMCA clear the House and ends up in front of the Senate (likely not until early 2020), Republicans will have a choice to make. Do they value a political victory for Trump over their own principles? But then, that’s been the choice confronting the GOP for a while now, and the result of this next showdown is likely to be the same.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Pu9dlk
via IFTTT

Nomura: Here’s What Happens After This Week’s ‘Quad-Witch’ Meltup

Nomura: Here’s What Happens After This Week’s ‘Quad-Witch’ Meltup

The S&P 500 has soared higher in the last week, since briefly dipping amid trade-deal concerns…

This melt-up is exactly what Nomura’s Cross-Asset Strategy MD Charlie McElligott expected as he warned traders on 12/10:

“HOWEVER, in the base-case that we DO indeed get the tariff delay / rollback announcement sometime this week / weekend in conjunction with the market carrying so much “downside” protection (both as per the above S&P downside as well as the large Net “Long Vega” position for VIX ETNs), it sets up a scenario into next week’s terrible holiday illiquidity where we could very likely get an impulse “GAP HIGHER” as said hedges are shed”

So, now that the melt-up has begun – and as we enter the oh-so-bullish “quad-witch” week – we turn once again to McElligott for a guide to the path ahead – is it Santa Claus rally all the way (tracking 2013’s year), or will there be a coal in the stocking of those seeing goldilocks only?

The ambiguous “Phase 1” China / US trade-deal relief has seen an investor universe which was “long crash” / tail-hedge protection (against the perceived risk of a “no deal” imposition of the Dec tranche of tariffs) yet-again disappointed, then acting in-turn as a catalyst behind the powerful “long delta, short vol” trade thereafter – sending Stocks soaring and vol collapsing.

But, McElligott notes, the next “local” stop for the S&P is dependent upon two key inputs into the end of this week’s “Quad Witch” options expiration:

  • Large SPX / SPY consolidated options $Gamma located “here,” as we currently pin between the two largest strikes on the board: 3175 ($8.5B) and 3200 ($13.2B), with upside potentials at 3225 ($3.7B) and 3250 ($4.1B) (see below).

  • The VIX complex, with incremental downdraft potential from VIX ETN “Longs” mechanically rolling, which then drives second-order $ into “roll-down” trades that take advantage of steeper VIX curve (and pressuring the front of the curve), after the recent flattening in VIX futs curve having likely “stopped-out” some of this systematic flow.

Also notable, as the Nomura MD points out, bonds haven’t played along with this huge ‘risk-on’ relief rally in stocks.

Despite “positives” in 1) US / China trade & Brexit / UK general election, 2) a headline U.S. CPI “beat” and 3) the overnight better China IP and Retail Sales #’s all over the past 1w, USTs remain surprisingly flat over the past week / unable to hold a sell-offas we continue to see “dip buyers” / Receivers in any Duration pullback (particularly with foreign real$).

Taken collectively, this speaks to a constructive backdrop from Equities to Bonds via stimulative / “easy” U.S. financial conditions feedback-loop (GSUSFCI Index now making fresh 20 month lows)

  1. Still-collapsing cross-asset volatility, as event-risk is cleared and “crash” hedges (US / China trade disaster, U.S. Recession, Brexit etc) decay harshly and are “puked” .

  2. US Dollar Index -2.4% in less than 3 months à “easier” financial conditions catalyst as well .

  3. A “goldilocks” U.S. economy (~2% GDP Growth) now being re-priced vs prior “imminent recession” fears of just a few months back .

  4. And all stabilized by an “asymmetric” global Central Bank policy function (almost “no bar” to CUT in light of “still-benign” inflation against an impossibly “high bar” to hike as we move-forward), which perpetuates this “QE-like” stasis of an “everything works” market.

So, McElligott says, in this current best-case “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario just described, it is actually pretty rational that the best set-ups for Equities now are in “RENTING” SHORT-TERM UPSIDE VIA “OUTRIGHTS” (as opposed to last week’s advocated “risk-reversals,” as base vol has now reset lower); or conversely, HEDGING DOWNSIDE VIA “WINGY” TAILS WITH PUT SPREADS.

However, the cross-asset strategist points out that, as one would expect, some clients have asked:

“What is a LOCAL de-risking catalyst in a world suddenly full of “less bad” news?”

The answer is somewhat simple and yet ominous and precariously balanced – the options “flow” itself.

Per the 1) EXTREME SPX OPTIONS $DELTA– (99.9th %Ile since 2013, only saw this before in Dec ’17)…

…and 2) EXTREME SPX OPTIONS $GAMMA– (94.7th %ile) in the market, which unless it is “rolled” this week could then create a mechanical “de-risking” flow:

The net $Delta position (+$624B) is effectively entirely in the front-week- (+$372B) and front-month- (+$445B), and thus, set to “roll-off” this week

The net $Gamma position (+$45B per 1% move) would see a massive 39% “roll-off” this week as well, which as we have repeated previously ad nauseum would then provide scope for an “impulse” directional move, as we could then “untether” from the current “long $Gamma” dealer death-grip.

And as history has shown, “negative impulses” in gamma tend to matter – larger market ranges and bigger swings…

So, to sum up – do not be surprised if stocks continue their post-trade-deal meltup into Friday’s “quad witch” but after that, things could get volatile fast, and none of that is helped by the usual collapse in liquidity that occurs this time of year.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 14:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34seE8g Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Just Puked Back Below $7,000 After Triggering ‘Death Cross’

Bitcoin Just Puked Back Below $7,000 After Triggering ‘Death Cross’

Crypto markets just plunged – on no obvious news-driven catalyst – with Bitcoin breaking back below the key $7,000 level for the first time since Thanksgiving.

Source: Bloomberg

Some have suggested the bearish ‘death cross’ could have triggered some selling…

Source: Bloomberg

The rest of the cryptospace is following suit with Litecoin worst for now…

Source: Bloomberg

But, Cryptos remain up dramatically over the past 12 months…

Source: Bloomberg

However, many remain positive on the longer-term outlook for the cryptocurrency as CoinTelegraph reports, the price of Bitcoin will skyrocket up to $100,000 in the coming year, according to the founder of infamous darknet marketplace Silk Road.

In a series of blog posts on Dec. 10, Ross Ulbricht — the founder of now-defunct anonymous marketplace Silk Road — predicted that BTC’s price will reach $100,000 in 2020. The blogs were published based on letters he wrote in prison, using a type of market analysis known as Elliott Wave Theory.

Ulbricht claimed the possibility to carry out such an analysis even without knowing Bitcoin day-to-day price movements and the general condition of the market. To forecast the highs and lows in financial market cycles, Ulbright identified extremes in investor psychology. In terms of Bitcoin, investors’ emotions purportedly play a more significant role as opposed to traditional markets.

As such, Bitcoin price could be artificially increased by investor expectations combined with mass psychology and through a positive feedback loop of buyer optimism.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 14:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2LYnncg Tyler Durden

Trump’s ‘Capitulation’ on Trade Deal Leaves Republicans in Awkward Position

It’s the sort of thing that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago: a Republican president essentially handing complete control over a major trade to a Democratic speaker of the House and Democrats’ labor union allies.

Yet that’s exactly what has happened with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), a pact that is intended to replace the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The USMCA has been a top priority for President Donald Trump, who struck the deal last year with the leaders of Canada and Mexico. In many ways, the USMCA was already a step backward in terms of free trade—it imposes additional rules on how goods flow across North American borders, aims to harm Mexican manufacturing, and includes a sunset provision that means it could expire without explicit action by future governments. And that was before the Trump administration allowed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) to make a series of changes to tilt the agreement toward even more protectionism.

During an appearance Sunday on NBC’s Meet The Press, Sen. Pat Toomey (R–Pa.) described the USMCA as “a complete capitulation to Pelosi.”

Last week, Pelosi announced her support for the USMCA after it incorporated a series of changes—many of them apparently implemented at the request of the AFL-CIO, which also endorsed the trade deal. Those changes include stricter enforcement of labor rules imposed on Mexico, including ramped up inspections of factories and increased authority to stop trucks at the border (and, in a rare moment of the revised pact allowing freer rather than less free trade, the elimination of patent protections for some pharmaceuticals).

Toomey had been an outspoken critic of the USMCA since the deal was first announced last year. Specifically, he has disagreed with provisions that will make it more expensive and difficult for auto companies and other large manufacturers to take advantage of cross-border supply chains.

“Unfortunately, USMCA is an exercise through all kinds of new provisions to diminish trade, and that’s why I hope Republicans reconsider this,” Toomey said on Sunday. “We have historically recognized we’re all better off with more open markets.”

Politically, Trump appears to be betting that giving in to Democrats’ wishes will get the USMCA through the House—and that at that point Senate Republicans won’t be willing to derail a political victory for the president.

He may very well be right about that.

“There’s rumors out there that have lessened Republican enthusiasm for it, but I don’t feel like it’s going to be big enough to stop us from getting it passed,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) told The Wall Street Journal. The Journal also reports that key staffers for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) have complained to the White House about how the USMCA has been handled, and Sen. John Cornyn (R–Texas) tells the paper that Trump’s bargain with Pelosi is “bad practice” and “a lousy way to treat the Senate.”

Mexico is ticked off too. Jesús Seade, Mexico’s top trade negotiator, has made an unexpected trip to Washington, D.C., to “express his outrage” over the late-breaking changes to the trade deal, Politico reports.

Long gone, apparently, are the days when even the appearance of working with Democrats would send the conservative grassroots into apoplexy.

Assuming the USMCA clear the House and ends up in front of the Senate (likely not until early 2020), Republicans will have a choice to make. Do they value a political victory for Trump over their own principles? But then, that’s been the choice confronting the GOP for a while now, and the result of this next showdown is likely to be the same.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Pu9dlk
via IFTTT

The Other Impeachment Count

Although public attention appears to be focused, understandably enough, on Count One of the Articles of Impeachment – the Abuse of Power—I think that Count Two, Obstruction of Congress, presents the far stronger case for impeachment.

Let’s put aside—just for the moment, and just for argument’s sake—whatever opinions we might have about the Count One allegations. I happen to think that the evidence produced thus far is sufficient to prove that Trump abused his presidential power in his dealings with the Ukrainians, but I can at least understand that there is a contrary argument: that whatever his subordinates were doing, or thought they were doing, there is no direct, first-hand evidence that Trump himself was acting with an improper motive—exchanging military aid for damaging information on a political opponent.

So I’ll accept, for now, that a Member of Congress could, acting in good faith and weighing the evidence fairly and unbiasedly, vote “No” on Count One.

But Count Two? I am having a hard time coming up with any reasonable argument that could support a “No” vote on Count Two.

The facts are clear and not in dispute. The President publicly directed his subordinates in the Executive Branch not to “participate” in the House’s “partisan and unconstitutional” impeachment inquiry, because that inquiry “lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections.”

The argument that this violates the President ‘s oath to “take care” that the Laws and the Constitution be “faithfully executed” strikes me as clear and straightforward and, as far as I am aware, unrebutted.

Article I Sec. 2 gives the House the “sole power of impeachment.” If, in the exercise of that power, it demands that Executive Branch officials provide it with testimonial or documentary evidence, who decides whether those officials must comply with the demands?

Although the Constitution doesn’t answer that question explicitly, it cannot seriously be maintained that it gives the president himself the power to decide that question. “No man shall be judge in his own cause.”  The Framers were not stupid men.  They realized the obvious: if you lodge that decision with the president, he will decide it—surprise!—in his favor. The whole point of the impeachment process, recall, is to uncover, and punish, presidential wrongdoing, and it is precisely in those cases where there actually is presidential wrongdoing that the president is especially likely to decide that question in his own favor—to make his own determination that the inquiry is “unconstitutional” and “baseless,” etc. and to act accordingly.

The President’s position is not only a failure to “faithfully execute” the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, it poses a substantial threat to the very existence of the impeachment power and its effectiveness as a constitutional check on the president.  Without the power to get evidence of a future president’s wrongdoing from those within the Executive Branch—the very people with whom the president interacts most closely, on a daily basis, and who are responsible for carrying out his orders—makes the impeachment power a bit of a joke, though its implications for the conduct of future presidents are far from funny.

What possible constitutional argument can be mustered for the proposition that the Constitution gives the president the power to make this decision? That because the president has determined that the House inquiry is “unconstitutional” and “baseless,” members of the Executive Branch need not comply with House subpoenas? Even if you agree (as I most emphatically do not) with the White House position—that the impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional, baseless, a deprivation of due process, etc.—it does not follow that the president is constitutionally empowered to make that determination. Does it?

It is not enough, it seems to me, to say that the President would direct subordinates to comply when (and only when) there has been a court determination that the request was lawful and proper.  That stands the constitutional scheme on its head.  The Constitution gives the House the “sole power of impeachment.”  The House, by issuing its requests and subpoenas, has made its decisions about what information it needs to exercise that power. The President is of course free to fight those in court. But until he obtains a court order saying that the House’s requests are not within the scope of the impeachment power, he (and the members of the Executive Branch) have to comply; he can’t arrogate the decision about compliance to himself.

Because I can’t conjure up a reasonable counter-argument, I therefore can’t understand how on Count Two a Member of Congress, acting in good faith and weighing the evidence fairly and unbiasedly, could vote “No.” I’m sure ever-alert VC readers will let me know what I’m missing.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38HVfDO
via IFTTT

Tide Pods, Nazis, and Bees: The Top 10 Moral Panics of the 2010s

Human beings are anxious creatures. We worry about things that might kill us. We worry about things that might kill our children. We worry about things that might get our children high. Even if a trend clearly doesn’t create any mortal danger, we worry about the threat it poses to all that’s good and wholesome in society. The world faces plenty of real problems, but more often than not the things that pique our collective anxieties are wildly overblown.

Before the 2020s start tossing us a new set of worries, it would be useful to reflect on the last batch of folk demons that we were frightened of and then forgot about. So here are 10 of the biggest moral panics of the last 10 years. Some were real but rare dangers; others were fictions from the get-go.

Blockbuster Bloodbaths

At the beginning of the decade, people worried that movies were making us kill ourselves. By the end, films were supposedly causing us to kill each other.

James Cameron’s cutting-edge special effects in Avatar, released in the final weeks of 2009, were apparently so effective that audiences were reaching for their own cutting edges. Or at least that’s the impression you’d get from some of the picture’s press clips. CNN and Psychology Today both ran articles on moviegoers’ “Avatar Blues.” The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph claimed the film was driving fans to depression, despair, and even thoughts of suicide.

All these stories were based on a single thread on the fan website Avatar Forum, where viewers discussed the feelings of environmental pessimism the film had given them. We don’t actually know any cases of people killing themselves as a result of seeing the movie. Given how fast the utterly generic picture has been forgotten, it’s safe to say that any concerns about its long-term effect on our mental health were overdone.

Years after these fears of film-induced self-harm had subsided, an even darker fear spread about the 2019 hit Joker. The origin story for Batman’s arch-rival was supposedly going to inspire acts of terrorism by involuntarily celibate men, or “incels.”

Army officials advised soldiers going to Joker screenings to plan two routes of escape in the event of an incel attack. Police in New York beefed up security at all theaters showing the film.

The idea that Joker would be a rallying point for incels always seemed implausible given its plot, which was much more about the antihero’s struggle with mental illness than his inability to get dates. In any case, no violent episodes at Joker screenings have been reported.

Oral Panics

The 2010s were full of freak-outs over the various toys and cleaning products children could swallow to fatal effect. Take “Buckeyballs,” small magnetic spheres that make a fun desk toy but can be dangerous if more than one is swallowed. (The magnetic balls’ attraction to each other means they can press up against intestinal walls, causing internal bleeding.)

These trinkets produced fewer injuries than such commonplace activities as skateboarding or tennis, but the federal government decided to crack down on them. In 2012 it ordered recalls of the products and filed lawsuits against the companies that made them.

Most producers of these magnetic spheres were eventually put out of business. In 2018, a judge tossed the last outstanding recall order against Zen Magnets, finally allowing these playful products back on the market.

By then the country had found a new threat to children’s innards: Tide Pods. The seemingly innocuous plastic-wrapped detergent packs added convenience to doing laundry, but they were purportedly proving irresistible to teens and toddlers alike.

The former engaged in the viral “Tide Pod Challenge,” in which a brave champion would try to eat the bitter soap products on camera. Younger children, supposedly attracted to these laundry aids’ scents and colors, were getting sick—and in a handful of cases dying—from eating them.

It was more common for children to die from swallowing other common household goods, such as batteries, and that does not usually prompt people to try to ban those items outright. Yet a pair of New York state lawmakers introduced a bill to ban Tide Pods. Meanwhile, YouTube took down Tide Pod Challenge videos. Facebook deleted memes featuring the product.

The New York legislation never went anywhere, and online teens soon graduated from eating Tide Pods to snorting condoms. Mercifully, the panic about detergent packs subsided by March 2018.

BEES!

For a few years in the early part of the decade, things looked dire for the humble honeybee and all the agricultural products that depended on it for pollination. A rise in the number of beehives mysteriously dying off—a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder—sparked a series of apocalyptic headlines.

Publications warned of a “bee-pocalypse” or a “beemageddon.” National Public Radio worried we were reaching “a crisis point for crops.” Time devoted a cover story to “a world without bees.” The Obama administration threw $83 million at the problem.

From our vantage point at the end of the decade, this all looks overblown. As Shawn Regan noted in a 2017 issue of Reason, the actual number of honeybee colonies continued to grow despite the increased bee mortality rate. Commercial beekeepers, he wrote, “have addressed the increasing mortality rates by rapidly rebuilding their hives, and they have done so with virtually no economic effects passed on to consumers.”

The picture looks pretty similar today. One study published this past July found that Colony Collapse Disorder “has not had measurable effects on honey production, input prices, or even numbers of bee colonies.” Makes you wonder what all the buzz was about.

Flavor of Fear

Nicotine vaping products, a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes, have helped countless former smokers ditch their old habit. You might think the public health community would welcome that. Instead, it has searched constantly for opportunities to crack down on one of the most successful smoking cessation products ever created.

By the middle of the decade, the American Lung Association was warning that chemicals in vaping liquids could cause “popcorn lung“—a threat that British health authorities have said is not a risk at current exposure levels. Others have argued that teen vaping will lead more kids to become hooked on cigarettes, even as teen smoking rates hit record lows.

Under President Barack Obama, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) planned to require that all vaping products get preapproval from the agency, a lengthy process that can cost over $500,000 per product. Donald Trump’s FDA briefly backed off that plan, only to return to it with reckless abandon after some vapers came down with a mysterious lung disease. It bumped up the date for when vaping products had to get FDA approval from 2022 to June 2020. The president also threw his support behind a ban on flavored vaping products, a move several states had already implemented.

The cause of that mysterious lung disease now looks likely to be black market THC cartridges, not vaping itself. But this discovery has done little if anything to dampen enthusiasm for cracking down vaping.

Plastic Environmentalists

The idea that the ubiquitous plastic straw would become the target of bans across the nation may have sounded far-fetched on January 1, 2010. But by the end of the decade, cities from Seattle to D.C. had laws against the little suckers. Indeed, the whole state of California made it illegal for full-service restaurants to offer customers a plastic straw unsolicited. Diners now have to explicitly request one.

The restrictions were supposed to stem the tide of plastic waste pouring into the world’s oceans. But on closer examination, those straws weren’t a substantial reason for plastic pollution after all.

You wouldn’t guess that from a statistic that surfaced in 2011, claiming that Americans are using 500 million plastic straws a day. With that volume of daily straw use, how could we keep using the things?

As it turns out, the number was the work of a 9-year-old who had conducted a phone survey of three straw manufacturers. Estimates by market analysts put the number between 175 million and 340 million.

But whatever the final figure for Americans’ daily straw use is, we know that it is a tiny, tiny fraction of overall plastic waste. Plastic straws typically make up 2 to 4 percent of trash collected during beach clean-ups. They’re an equally small percentage of state litter surveys.

On top of that, the U.S.—with its robust waste management systems—is responsible for only about 1 percent of the plastic getting into the ocean each year, according to one 2015 study. The best thing we can do to stop plastic pollution isn’t to ban straws; it’s to establish better waste management systems in places like China, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

Mercifully, the straw panic may be subsiding. Indeed, straws are starting to become a symbol of resistance to government overreach. But the fact that they could be so easily restricted in so many places makes you wonder what other modern conveniences might be on the chopping block in the next 10 years.

High Holidays

Few events can inspire a moral panic quite like Halloween. Parents and police have fretted for decades over everything from razor blades in candy apples to sex offenders on the prowl.

In the last decade, the biggest Halloween-related safety scares have revolved around one particular alleged menace: drug-laced Halloween candy.

The success of marijuana legalization in the 2010s has prompted police departments to warn parents of the possibility that THC-infused edibles from now-legal dispensaries, perhaps deceptively labeled to look like normal candy, could wind up in their children’s trick-or-treating bags.

Yet there’s no evidence that anyone has ever knowingly handed out intoxicating treats to children on Halloween. Drugs are expensive, especially when they taste like candy. Even the most malicious stoner is going to pause before giving a kid a $10 pot gummy as some sort of sick joke.

A trip through Reason‘s archives shows just how frequently these warnings about of pot-laced candy have popped up, despite no known incidents of children accidentally eating them. Even Time, which has rarely met a moral panic it couldn’t get behind, has been dismissing this one since 2011.

Every so often there is a reported case of a child accidentally getting high on Halloween. But typically, the source of the drugs in these stories is the kid’s parents, who then try to pin the blame on strangers’ corrupted candy.

Pot gummies in your kids’ candy bag should thus be treated like ghosts, goblins, and other Halloween mainstays: frightening but fictional.

Creepy Clowns

In August 2016, stories started to surface of creepy clowns trying to lure children into the woods with candy. The first such incident allegedly occurred at an apartment complex in Greenville, South Carolina. Soon stories of clown sightings were popping up all over the country, scaring not just impressionable kids but also authorities you might have hoped could keep a level head.

Seattle Public Schools told students and parents to report any clowns they see to a teacher or principal. Kemper County, Mississippi, banned clown costumes in the run-up to Halloween. One West Virginia police chief posted notices around town warning anyone wearing a clown costume that they would likely be beaten up before being arrested.

But no stories of clowns luring children into the woods were ever actually confirmed. At most you had some cases of clown-costumed people taking advantage of the panic to dress up and spook people.

Indeed, the main victims of 2016’s clown panic appear to be professional clowns, who were forced to lay low lest they suffer arrest or violent attacks from coulrophobic cops or private citizens.

Fortunately for these full-time jesters, the election of Donald Trump in November 2016—just as the clown panic was reaching its climax—shifted everyone’s attention elsewhere.

Secret Nazis

The morning following Election Day 2016, a San Francisco man decided to protest Trump’s election by hoisting a flag bearing the Nazi swastika. The rather ill-thought-out statement quickly provoked panic from the man’s equally anti-Trump neighbors, who assumed the banner was meant as a symbol of support for the president-elect.

It was a ridiculous moment in a big national Nazi hunt. It wasn’t the only one.

Recall, for instance, that brief moment during the confirmation hearings for now–Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, when a woman sitting behind Kavanaugh, U.S. Attorney Zina Bash, could be seen forming what looked like the standard “OK” symbol with her right hand.

That might sound innocent enough, but some alt-rightists had appropriated the OK sign as a symbol, and so social media was soon ablaze with accusations that Bash was a secret fascist herself. The judgment of history seems to be that Bash—whose Jewish grandparents were reportedly Holocaust survivors—was innocent of any Nazi sympathies, but that has not erased paranoia over the OK symbol. This past weekend saw Twitter abuzz about videos of cadets forming the OK sign while watching the Army-Navy football game. Less conspiratorial observers argued the cadets were playing the long-common circle game. Nevertheless, officials at West Point and Annapolis have now launched an investigation an investigation to see if there were any racial motivations behind the sign.

It’s not just innocent hand gestures that are getting one labeled a Nazi sympathizer. Nowadays a failure simply to talk about white supremacy can be taken as evidence of support for the noxious creed.

Take the fuss over singer Taylor Swift. Her failure to take a side in the 2016 election was seen as very suspicious by some. Soon enough pop-culture bloggers finding subtle white supremacist references in her music. Actual white supremacists were quick to co-opt this claim. The infamous Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin, for example, wrote that Swift was an “Aryan Goddess” red-pilling America.

Not until the singer-songwriter endorsed several Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections did the country breathe a sigh of relief that perhaps Swift was not in fact a Nazi.

Sex Recession

Typically, moral panics about the sexual habits of young people are about them having too much sex. That hasn’t really been the case for this decade’s professional pearl clutchers, who set aside their fears about rainbow parties to worry that the nation’s youth are not being intimate enough with each other.

In a seminal 2018 article on the “sex recession,” The Atlantic offered a few, mostly pessimistic thoughts about why teens were starting their sex lives later or not at all, including the rise in porn consumption, the self-defeating shallowness of dating apps, and helicopter parenting. The Washington Post was equally downbeat in 2019 when covering General Social Survey data showing that a record number of young people had been celibate in the last year.

One Guardian columnist pinned this lack of love-making on the anxiety-inducing nature of modern life, writing that the young have a “million things on our minds that could be interfering with our libidos. We’re worried about finding a stable job, our university loan debt, moving out of our parents’ homes and more.” CNBC has said the sex recession might cause an actual recession.

But several scholars have pushed on back the data underlying the assertion that millennials are having less sex. Others have noted the positive side-effects of teens and young people having sex less often, including declining rates of STDs and teen pregnancies.

If we ever reach a point where teens are having the perfect amount of sex, concerned citizens will probably start to worry it’s really not the right kind of sex.

Mass Shootings

Mass shootings are undendiably deadly and tragic. They’ve also inspired a full-blown social panic.

One out of three Americans say they avoid public places for fear of mass shootings. Schools across the country now force students to participate in traumatizing live shooter drills, while some parents buy them bulletproof backpacks. The fear of mass shootings has prompted the San Francisco Board of Supervisor to brand the National Rifle Association a literal domestic terrorist organization, and activists have threatened boycotts of any companies that extend standard group discounts to the organization’s members. A dozen state legislatures have recently passed Red Flag laws, which allow police to confiscate firearms from their legal owners on the suspicion that they might pose a danger to themselves or others.

On one level, this fear is understandable. The randomness of mass shootings, and the ordinary places they can happen—a movie theater, night club, or country music concert—allows people to see the potential for one of these violent episodes anywhere they go. This fear has been heightened by the fact that six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings have happened in this decade.

But Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox points out that there is no evidence for an epidemic of mass shootings, stressing that these grizzly events are still few and far between. They also continue to be a tiny portion of overall gun homicides, which themselves have fallen to record lows almost everywhere during the 2010s. New York—once famous for its high rates of violent crime—managed to go a whole weekend with zero shootings in 2018.

As gun violence has become rarer, we seem to have become more sensitive to it.

This is not to downplay the horror of the crimes that do happen. But an overwrought fear of these rare events is leading to crippling anxieties and ineffective, heavy-handed policies.

For now, at least. Who knows what new demons will come along to fill that mindspace in the 2020s?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34wMo4N
via IFTTT

The Other Impeachment Count

Although public attention appears to be focused, understandably enough, on Count One of the Articles of Impeachment – the Abuse of Power—I think that Count Two, Obstruction of Congress, presents the far stronger case for impeachment.

Let’s put aside—just for the moment, and just for argument’s sake—whatever opinions we might have about the Count One allegations. I happen to think that the evidence produced thus far is sufficient to prove that Trump abused his presidential power in his dealings with the Ukrainians, but I can at least understand that there is a contrary argument: that whatever his subordinates were doing, or thought they were doing, there is no direct, first-hand evidence that Trump himself was acting with an improper motive—exchanging military aid for damaging information on a political opponent.

So I’ll accept, for now, that a Member of Congress could, acting in good faith and weighing the evidence fairly and unbiasedly, vote “No” on Count One.

But Count Two? I am having a hard time coming up with any reasonable argument that could support a “No” vote on Count Two.

The facts are clear and not in dispute. The President publicly directed his subordinates in the Executive Branch not to “participate” in the House’s “partisan and unconstitutional” impeachment inquiry, because that inquiry “lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections.”

The argument that this violates the President ‘s oath to “take care” that the Laws and the Constitution be “faithfully executed” strikes me as clear and straightforward and, as far as I am aware, unrebutted.

Article I Sec. 2 gives the House the “sole power of impeachment.” If, in the exercise of that power, it demands that Executive Branch officials provide it with testimonial or documentary evidence, who decides whether those officials must comply with the demands?

Although the Constitution doesn’t answer that question explicitly, it cannot seriously be maintained that it gives the president himself the power to decide that question. “No man shall be judge in his own cause.”  The Framers were not stupid men.  They realized the obvious: if you lodge that decision with the president, he will decide it—surprise!—in his favor. The whole point of the impeachment process, recall, is to uncover, and punish, presidential wrongdoing, and it is precisely in those cases where there actually is presidential wrongdoing that the president is especially likely to decide that question in his own favor—to make his own determination that the inquiry is “unconstitutional” and “baseless,” etc. and to act accordingly.

The President’s position is not only a failure to “faithfully execute” the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, it poses a substantial threat to the very existence of the impeachment power and its effectiveness as a constitutional check on the president.  Without the power to get evidence of a future president’s wrongdoing from those within the Executive Branch—the very people with whom the president interacts most closely, on a daily basis, and who are responsible for carrying out his orders—makes the impeachment power a bit of a joke, though its implications for the conduct of future presidents are far from funny.

What possible constitutional argument can be mustered for the proposition that the Constitution gives the president the power to make this decision? That because the president has determined that the House inquiry is “unconstitutional” and “baseless,” members of the Executive Branch need not comply with House subpoenas? Even if you agree (as I most emphatically do not) with the White House position—that the impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional, baseless, a deprivation of due process, etc.—it does not follow that the president is constitutionally empowered to make that determination. Does it?

It is not enough, it seems to me, to say that the President would direct subordinates to comply when (and only when) there has been a court determination that the request was lawful and proper.  That stands the constitutional scheme on its head.  The Constitution gives the House the “sole power of impeachment.”  The House, by issuing its requests and subpoenas, has made its decisions about what information it needs to exercise that power. The President is of course free to fight those in court. But until he obtains a court order saying that the House’s requests are not within the scope of the impeachment power, he (and the members of the Executive Branch) have to comply; he can’t arrogate the decision about compliance to himself.

Because I can’t conjure up a reasonable counter-argument, I therefore can’t understand how on Count Two a Member of Congress, acting in good faith and weighing the evidence fairly and unbiasedly, could vote “No.” I’m sure ever-alert VC readers will let me know what I’m missing.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38HVfDO
via IFTTT

Tide Pods, Nazis, and Bees: The Top 10 Moral Panics of the 2010s

Human beings are anxious creatures. We worry about things that might kill us. We worry about things that might kill our children. We worry about things that might get our children high. Even if a trend clearly doesn’t create any mortal danger, we worry about the threat it poses to all that’s good and wholesome in society. The world faces plenty of real problems, but more often than not the things that pique our collective anxieties are wildly overblown.

Before the 2020s start tossing us a new set of worries, it would be useful to reflect on the last batch of folk demons that we were frightened of and then forgot about. So here are 10 of the biggest moral panics of the last 10 years. Some were real but rare dangers; others were fictions from the get-go.

Blockbuster Bloodbaths

At the beginning of the decade, people worried that movies were making us kill ourselves. By the end, films were supposedly causing us to kill each other.

James Cameron’s cutting-edge special effects in Avatar, released in the final weeks of 2009, were apparently so effective that audiences were reaching for their own cutting edges. Or at least that’s the impression you’d get from some of the picture’s press clips. CNN and Psychology Today both ran articles on moviegoers’ “Avatar Blues.” The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph claimed the film was driving fans to depression, despair, and even thoughts of suicide.

All these stories were based on a single thread on the fan website Avatar Forum, where viewers discussed the feelings of environmental pessimism the film had given them. We don’t actually know any cases of people killing themselves as a result of seeing the movie. Given how fast the utterly generic picture has been forgotten, it’s safe to say that any concerns about its long-term effect on our mental health were overdone.

Years after these fears of film-induced self-harm had subsided, an even darker fear spread about the 2019 hit Joker. The origin story for Batman’s arch-rival was supposedly going to inspire acts of terrorism by involuntarily celibate men, or “incels.”

Army officials advised soldiers going to Joker screenings to plan two routes of escape in the event of an incel attack. Police in New York beefed up security at all theaters showing the film.

The idea that Joker would be a rallying point for incels always seemed implausible given its plot, which was much more about the antihero’s struggle with mental illness than his inability to get dates. In any case, no violent episodes at Joker screenings have been reported.

Oral Panics

The 2010s were full of freak-outs over the various toys and cleaning products children could swallow to fatal effect. Take “Buckeyballs,” small magnetic spheres that make a fun desk toy but can be dangerous if more than one is swallowed. (The magnetic balls’ attraction to each other means they can press up against intestinal walls, causing internal bleeding.)

These trinkets produced fewer injuries than such commonplace activities as skateboarding or tennis, but the federal government decided to crack down on them. In 2012 it ordered recalls of the products and filed lawsuits against the companies that made them.

Most producers of these magnetic spheres were eventually put out of business. In 2018, a judge tossed the last outstanding recall order against Zen Magnets, finally allowing these playful products back on the market.

By then the country had found a new threat to children’s innards: Tide Pods. The seemingly innocuous plastic-wrapped detergent packs added convenience to doing laundry, but they were purportedly proving irresistible to teens and toddlers alike.

The former engaged in the viral “Tide Pod Challenge,” in which a brave champion would try to eat the bitter soap products on camera. Younger children, supposedly attracted to these laundry aids’ scents and colors, were getting sick—and in a handful of cases dying—from eating them.

It was more common for children to die from swallowing other common household goods, such as batteries, and that does not usually prompt people to try to ban those items outright. Yet a pair of New York state lawmakers introduced a bill to ban Tide Pods. Meanwhile, YouTube took down Tide Pod Challenge videos. Facebook deleted memes featuring the product.

The New York legislation never went anywhere, and online teens soon graduated from eating Tide Pods to snorting condoms. Mercifully, the panic about detergent packs subsided by March 2018.

BEES!

For a few years in the early part of the decade, things looked dire for the humble honeybee and all the agricultural products that depended on it for pollination. A rise in the number of beehives mysteriously dying off—a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder—sparked a series of apocalyptic headlines.

Publications warned of a “bee-pocalypse” or a “beemageddon.” National Public Radio worried we were reaching “a crisis point for crops.” Time devoted a cover story to “a world without bees.” The Obama administration threw $83 million at the problem.

From our vantage point at the end of the decade, this all looks overblown. As Shawn Regan noted in a 2017 issue of Reason, the actual number of honeybee colonies continued to grow despite the increased bee mortality rate. Commercial beekeepers, he wrote, “have addressed the increasing mortality rates by rapidly rebuilding their hives, and they have done so with virtually no economic effects passed on to consumers.”

The picture looks pretty similar today. One study published this past July found that Colony Collapse Disorder “has not had measurable effects on honey production, input prices, or even numbers of bee colonies.” Makes you wonder what all the buzz was about.

Flavor of Fear

Nicotine vaping products, a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes, have helped countless former smokers ditch their old habit. You might think the public health community would welcome that. Instead, it has searched constantly for opportunities to crack down on one of the most successful smoking cessation products ever created.

By the middle of the decade, the American Lung Association was warning that chemicals in vaping liquids could cause “popcorn lung“—a threat that British health authorities have said is not a risk at current exposure levels. Others have argued that teen vaping will lead more kids to become hooked on cigarettes, even as teen smoking rates hit record lows.

Under President Barack Obama, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) planned to require that all vaping products get preapproval from the agency, a lengthy process that can cost over $500,000 per product. Donald Trump’s FDA briefly backed off that plan, only to return to it with reckless abandon after some vapers came down with a mysterious lung disease. It bumped up the date for when vaping products had to get FDA approval from 2022 to June 2020. The president also threw his support behind a ban on flavored vaping products, a move several states had already implemented.

The cause of that mysterious lung disease now looks likely to be black market THC cartridges, not vaping itself. But this discovery has done little if anything to dampen enthusiasm for cracking down vaping.

Plastic Environmentalists

The idea that the ubiquitous plastic straw would become the target of bans across the nation may have sounded far-fetched on January 1, 2010. But by the end of the decade, cities from Seattle to D.C. had laws against the little suckers. Indeed, the whole state of California made it illegal for full-service restaurants to offer customers a plastic straw unsolicited. Diners now have to explicitly request one.

The restrictions were supposed to stem the tide of plastic waste pouring into the world’s oceans. But on closer examination, those straws weren’t a substantial reason for plastic pollution after all.

You wouldn’t guess that from a statistic that surfaced in 2011, claiming that Americans are using 500 million plastic straws a day. With that volume of daily straw use, how could we keep using the things?

As it turns out, the number was the work of a 9-year-old who had conducted a phone survey of three straw manufacturers. Estimates by market analysts put the number between 175 million and 340 million.

But whatever the final figure for Americans’ daily straw use is, we know that it is a tiny, tiny fraction of overall plastic waste. Plastic straws typically make up 2 to 4 percent of trash collected during beach clean-ups. They’re an equally small percentage of state litter surveys.

On top of that, the U.S.—with its robust waste management systems—is responsible for only about 1 percent of the plastic getting into the ocean each year, according to one 2015 study. The best thing we can do to stop plastic pollution isn’t to ban straws; it’s to establish better waste management systems in places like China, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

Mercifully, the straw panic may be subsiding. Indeed, straws are starting to become a symbol of resistance to government overreach. But the fact that they could be so easily restricted in so many places makes you wonder what other modern conveniences might be on the chopping block in the next 10 years.

High Holidays

Few events can inspire a moral panic quite like Halloween. Parents and police have fretted for decades over everything from razor blades in candy apples to sex offenders on the prowl.

In the last decade, the biggest Halloween-related safety scares have revolved around one particular alleged menace: drug-laced Halloween candy.

The success of marijuana legalization in the 2010s has prompted police departments to warn parents of the possibility that THC-infused edibles from now-legal dispensaries, perhaps deceptively labeled to look like normal candy, could wind up in their children’s trick-or-treating bags.

Yet there’s no evidence that anyone has ever knowingly handed out intoxicating treats to children on Halloween. Drugs are expensive, especially when they taste like candy. Even the most malicious stoner is going to pause before giving a kid a $10 pot gummy as some sort of sick joke.

A trip through Reason‘s archives shows just how frequently these warnings about of pot-laced candy have popped up, despite no known incidents of children accidentally eating them. Even Time, which has rarely met a moral panic it couldn’t get behind, has been dismissing this one since 2011.

Every so often there is a reported case of a child accidentally getting high on Halloween. But typically, the source of the drugs in these stories is the kid’s parents, who then try to pin the blame on strangers’ corrupted candy.

Pot gummies in your kids’ candy bag should thus be treated like ghosts, goblins, and other Halloween mainstays: frightening but fictional.

Creepy Clowns

In August 2016, stories started to surface of creepy clowns trying to lure children into the woods with candy. The first such incident allegedly occurred at an apartment complex in Greenville, South Carolina. Soon stories of clown sightings were popping up all over the country, scaring not just impressionable kids but also authorities you might have hoped could keep a level head.

Seattle Public Schools told students and parents to report any clowns they see to a teacher or principal. Kemper County, Mississippi, banned clown costumes in the run-up to Halloween. One West Virginia police chief posted notices around town warning anyone wearing a clown costume that they would likely be beaten up before being arrested.

But no stories of clowns luring children into the woods were ever actually confirmed. At most you had some cases of clown-costumed people taking advantage of the panic to dress up and spook people.

Indeed, the main victims of 2016’s clown panic appear to be professional clowns, who were forced to lay low lest they suffer arrest or violent attacks from coulrophobic cops or private citizens.

Fortunately for these full-time jesters, the election of Donald Trump in November 2016—just as the clown panic was reaching its climax—shifted everyone’s attention elsewhere.

Secret Nazis

The morning following Election Day 2016, a San Francisco man decided to protest Trump’s election by hoisting a flag bearing the Nazi swastika. The rather ill-thought-out statement quickly provoked panic from the man’s equally anti-Trump neighbors, who assumed the banner was meant as a symbol of support for the president-elect.

It was a ridiculous moment in a big national Nazi hunt. It wasn’t the only one.

Recall, for instance, that brief moment during the confirmation hearings for now–Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, when a woman sitting behind Kavanaugh, U.S. Attorney Zina Bash, could be seen forming what looked like the standard “OK” symbol with her right hand.

That might sound innocent enough, but some alt-rightists had appropriated the OK sign as a symbol, and so social media was soon ablaze with accusations that Bash was a secret fascist herself. The judgment of history seems to be that Bash—whose Jewish grandparents were reportedly Holocaust survivors—was innocent of any Nazi sympathies, but that has not erased paranoia over the OK symbol. This past weekend saw Twitter abuzz about videos of cadets forming the OK sign while watching the Army-Navy football game. Less conspiratorial observers argued the cadets were playing the long-common circle game. Nevertheless, officials at West Point and Annapolis have now launched an investigation an investigation to see if there were any racial motivations behind the sign.

It’s not just innocent hand gestures that are getting one labeled a Nazi sympathizer. Nowadays a failure simply to talk about white supremacy can be taken as evidence of support for the noxious creed.

Take the fuss over singer Taylor Swift. Her failure to take a side in the 2016 election was seen as very suspicious by some. Soon enough pop-culture bloggers finding subtle white supremacist references in her music. Actual white supremacists were quick to co-opt this claim. The infamous Daily Stormer founder Andrew Anglin, for example, wrote that Swift was an “Aryan Goddess” red-pilling America.

Not until the singer-songwriter endorsed several Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections did the country breathe a sigh of relief that perhaps Swift was not in fact a Nazi.

Sex Recession

Typically, moral panics about the sexual habits of young people are about them having too much sex. That hasn’t really been the case for this decade’s professional pearl clutchers, who set aside their fears about rainbow parties to worry that the nation’s youth are not being intimate enough with each other.

In a seminal 2018 article on the “sex recession,” The Atlantic offered a few, mostly pessimistic thoughts about why teens were starting their sex lives later or not at all, including the rise in porn consumption, the self-defeating shallowness of dating apps, and helicopter parenting. The Washington Post was equally downbeat in 2019 when covering General Social Survey data showing that a record number of young people had been celibate in the last year.

One Guardian columnist pinned this lack of love-making on the anxiety-inducing nature of modern life, writing that the young have a “million things on our minds that could be interfering with our libidos. We’re worried about finding a stable job, our university loan debt, moving out of our parents’ homes and more.” CNBC has said the sex recession might cause an actual recession.

But several scholars have pushed on back the data underlying the assertion that millennials are having less sex. Others have noted the positive side-effects of teens and young people having sex less often, including declining rates of STDs and teen pregnancies.

If we ever reach a point where teens are having the perfect amount of sex, concerned citizens will probably start to worry it’s really not the right kind of sex.

Mass Shootings

Mass shootings are undendiably deadly and tragic. They’ve also inspired a full-blown social panic.

One out of three Americans say they avoid public places for fear of mass shootings. Schools across the country now force students to participate in traumatizing live shooter drills, while some parents buy them bulletproof backpacks. The fear of mass shootings has prompted the San Francisco Board of Supervisor to brand the National Rifle Association a literal domestic terrorist organization, and activists have threatened boycotts of any companies that extend standard group discounts to the organization’s members. A dozen state legislatures have recently passed Red Flag laws, which allow police to confiscate firearms from their legal owners on the suspicion that they might pose a danger to themselves or others.

On one level, this fear is understandable. The randomness of mass shootings, and the ordinary places they can happen—a movie theater, night club, or country music concert—allows people to see the potential for one of these violent episodes anywhere they go. This fear has been heightened by the fact that six of the 10 deadliest mass shootings have happened in this decade.

But Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox points out that there is no evidence for an epidemic of mass shootings, stressing that these grizzly events are still few and far between. They also continue to be a tiny portion of overall gun homicides, which themselves have fallen to record lows almost everywhere during the 2010s. New York—once famous for its high rates of violent crime—managed to go a whole weekend with zero shootings in 2018.

As gun violence has become rarer, we seem to have become more sensitive to it.

This is not to downplay the horror of the crimes that do happen. But an overwrought fear of these rare events is leading to crippling anxieties and ineffective, heavy-handed policies.

For now, at least. Who knows what new demons will come along to fill that mindspace in the 2020s?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34wMo4N
via IFTTT

Rand Paul Warns, Impeachment Charade Could “Destroy The Country”

Rand Paul Warns, Impeachment Charade Could “Destroy The Country”

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

“Democrats don’t like Trump and his demeanor, so they have decided to criminalize politics.”

Senator Rand Paul warned Sunday that the Democrats’ vendetta against the President, and their obsession with impeachment could end up destroying the country.

“You know, we’ve seen the evidence. We’re going to hear the evidence repeated, but we won’t see any new evidence so I think all of America has seen this. We’ve found this is a very partisan exercise.” Paul said, appearing on CNN’s State of the Union.

“There is not any Republicans in the House, in fact, a handful of Democrats that will vote against impeachment in the House. In the Senate, I think all Republicans will vote against the House, and I think two Democrats have a good chance of voting against impeachment also.” Paul continued.

“So I think what we’ve seen is it is just a very partisan thing. This is a disagreement. The people on the Democrats side they don’t like Trump and his demeanor, so they have decided to criminalize politics.” Paul declared.

I don’t think it’s a good day for the country. I think it’s a sad day because I hope it doesn’t devolve into that every president like in different parts of Latin America where we either impeach or throw presidents in jail because we don’t like their politics. I think that will really dumb down and destroy the country.” Paul asserted.

Elsewhere during the interview, host Jake Tapper was triggered into attack mode when Paul argued that President Trump’s phone call to the Ukraine was part of his duty to uphold a mandate from Congress to ensure foreign aid is being used correctly.

This isn’t about the Constitution or the president breaking the Constitution. Foreign aid is always contingent upon behavior. In fact, the money we gave them to give to Ukraine, it says specifically in the law he has to certify that they are less prone to corruption. I mean, he was instructed by Congress to do exactly what he asked to be done.” Paul argued.

“So you’re saying that you think that President Trump was actually doing this because he was combatting corruption?” Tapper asked, before continually interrupting the Senator with “examples” of Trump not caring about corruption.

“I think it’s based on opinion,” Paul responded, to Tapper’s ‘facts’.

Articles of impeachment are expected to be passed through the House before the end of the week. The House has yet to set a specific date for the full impeachment vote, but two Democratic leadership aides have indicated that it could happen on Wednesday.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 14:10

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36Asuae Tyler Durden

“The Boom In Orders Is Over” – Commercial Jet Bubble Set To Implode  

“The Boom In Orders Is Over” – Commercial Jet Bubble Set To Implode  

CNBC has pieced together a new report that details how the commercial jetliner boom is over, and Airbus and Boeing are entering the 2020s with uncertain futures as the global economy and air traffic growth exhibit a slowdown. 

“The boom in orders is over,” said Sheila Kahyaoglu, aerospace analyst at Jefferies.

Shown in the chart below, large commercial jet orders for Airbus and Boeing took off after 2009 after central banks slammed rates to zero and produced a synchronized recovery in the global economy that allowed airline carriers to rapidly updated and expanded their fleets. 

Airbus and Boeing recorded more than 20,000 orders for jetliners in the past ten years, a 66% increase over the previous decade. 

Orders peaked in 2014/15 as carriers were concerned about fuel prices, labor increases, and slowing global growth, which forced many airlines to slash demand for new passenger jets.

 Aerospace and defense analysis firm Teal Group said Airbus and Boeing have about $800 billion of order backlogs.

“The industry is probably on the other side the peak,” said Ron Epstein, research analyst at Bank of America. “The question is going to be a soft landing or a hard landing, and it looks like a soft landing.”

Growth in air travel has slipped as the global economy continues to decelerate in a synchronized fashion with the threat of a trade recession increasing.

The International Air Transport Association warned that “traffic growth continues to be depressed compared to historical long-term growth levels, reflecting continued moderating economic activity in some key markets and sagging business confidence.”

“If you’re a manufacturer, you kind of got addicted to growth,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at Teal Group. “How do you explain to investors: ‘It’s okay. It’ll be a plateau’?”

Even though Airbus and Boeing are sitting on a massive backlog of orders, new orders are crashing lower with a global economy that is sinking. Equity shares in both manufacturers could have already hit some near term tops. 


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/16/2019 – 13:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PsTa7h Tyler Durden