Futures Rebound Despite Historic Bloodbath In China Where 3,257 Stocks Hit Limit Down

Futures Rebound Despite Historic Bloodbath In China Where 3,257 Stocks Hit Limit Down

While Beijing’s emergency intervention in Chinese markets which included a short sale ban, a dramatic liquidity injection and a cut in reverse repo rates, failed to prevent a rout, it certainly helped stabilize stocks in Europe and US equity futures, which have staged a modest rebound after plunging on Friday in their worst drop since August.

First the good news: European shares opened on apparent relief that the UK had finally exited the European Union (even as cable tumbled amid renewed fears about the ongoing negotiation between Boris Johnson and Brussels), however fears about the coronavirus kept buying in check. Having risen 0.2% in early deals, the pan-European STOXX 600 index was flat by midday in London. Blue-chip British stocks added 0.35%, helped by a fall in sterling

Futures for U.S. stocks were higher by 0.4% in early trading, and contracts on the three main American equity indexes all climbed, with Gilead Sciences rising in the premarket as China prepares to test one of the company’s new anti-viral drugs.

Asian markets more broadly continued to sell off. MSCI’s broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan was down for an eighth straight day, falling 0.85% at 527.61 points, its lowest since early December. Japan’s Nikkei dropped 1% to the lowest since November and Australia’s benchmark index ended down 1.3%. But it was China that was the highlight of the overnight session.

Aiming to prevent a market panic, China’s government took emergency steps to shore up an economy hit by travel curbs and business shut-downs, including a short sale ban. In a bid to soften the blow to China’s economy, the country’s central bank also unexpectedly cut reverse repo rates by 10 basis points and injected 1.2 trillion yuan ($173.8 billion) of liquidity into the markets on Monday, of however 1 trillion yuan was to rollover maturing liquidity.

It wasn’t enough, however, and Chinese shares closed deep in the red, with the blue-chip index down 7.8% – the worst return from a Chinese lunar new year for the index in 13 years and the biggest one day drop since the 2015 market rash – to a 4-1/2 month low, wiping out 12 months worth of gains!

Monday’s declines were particularly severe. The CSI 300 Index sank as much as 9.1% – a slump rarely seen in its almost 15-year history.

It was even uglier at the single-stock level, because even though investors tried to log their sell orders order, many of them couldn’t exit the market fast enough, as all but 162 of the almost 4,000 stocks in Shanghai and Shenzhen recorded losses, with about 90% dropping the maximum allowed by the country’s exchanges, and a whopping 3,257 Chinese stocks were closed limit down. Health-care shares comprised most of Monday’s gainers on speculation they will benefit from the virus outbreak. The huge number of stocks trading limit down means it could take days for investors to execute their orders, prolonging the sell-off.

“The sell-off was so quick and intense,” said Li Changmin, managing director at Snowball Wealth in Guangzhou. “We’ll be busy dealing with risk controls and even liquidation pressure if stocks keep falling.”

“I was anxious before the market opened, and had made plans on what to sell and by how much last Friday,” said Bruce Yu, a fund manager with Franklin Templeton SinoAm Securities Investment Management Inc. in Taipei. “Some of my trades weren’t made today — we’ll see if we can sell them tomorrow.”

Fund managers hit the phones to calm investors, seeking to avoid the kind of redemptions and forced selling seen as recently as 2018. China’s securities regulator took steps to support the stock market, telling some brokerages that their proprietary traders aren’t allowed to be net sellers of equities this week, according to people familiar with the matter.

“My biggest concern was that investors would rush to redeem their holdings in private and mutual funds,” said Jiang Liangqing, a money manager at Ruisen Capital Management in Beijing whose team is working from home across China. “A key task for us is to reassure our fund holders and ask them to stay calm.”

The benchmark $7.5 trillion Shanghai Composite index lost $420 billion in value and the yuan opened at its weakest level of 2020, tumbling past 7 per dollar, a level which may spark fresh accusations by the US Treasury that Beijing is manipulating its currency lower.

The sell-off was widespread on Monday: in addition to thousands of stocks, commodity futures from iron ore to crude also sank by the daily limit. That said, while China’s losses were heavy, they were mostly a product of selling pressure that had built up over the Lunar New Year break, not a reflection of new fears among investors.

“The market seems to have reacted quite reasonably,” said David Nietlispach, PM at Pala Asset Management. “There is no panic and no selloff of securities that are unrelated to the coronavirus. The government interventions have been so heavy, though, that you will see an impact on the global economy.”

“The impact in Chinese equity markets has been in line with what futures were suggesting, so the market has taken the slump in its stride,” said Rodrigo Catril, Sydney-based strategist at National Australia Bank. “There was also some cushion from the new measures.”

And so, even with the rebound in US futures, an index of global stocks hovered near seven-week lows on Monday as Asian stocks plunged on their first trading day after a long break, amid growing fears the coronavirus epidemic would hit China’s economy and cripple Chinese supply-chains and demand. MSCI’s All Country World Index, which tracks shares in 47 countries, was down 0.2% on the day, touching its lowest since Dec. 16. The index is down 1.3% this year.

Meanwhile, as we noted yesterday, all attention remains on China, and overnight a raft of banks, including Citigroup, Nomura and JPMorgan, downgraded their forecasts for China’s economic growth.

“Given that we’re 10 years into a global equity bull market, the potential for the virus to trigger a significant market correction is much greater now than it has been during previous epidemics,” said Neil Shearing, chief economist at Capital Economics in a note to clients.

As Chinese markets opened after the 10-day break, Shanghai copper hit its daily selling limit as did Shanghai crude oil while yields on the country’s 30-year government bonds traded in the interbank market were down 18.5 basis points.

In commodities, oil pared early losses after Brent slumped into a bear market since hitting a high in early January following a Bloomberg report Chinese oil demand is down by 20%, while the safe-haven Japanese yen and gold stepped back from recent highs. Chinese commodities were especially hard hit: Shanghai copper hit its daily selling limit as did Shanghai crude oil while yields on the country’s 30-year government bonds traded in the interbank market were down 18.5 basis points. Dalian soymeal plunged 4.1% while Dalian iron ore hit limit down as steel prices fell.

Gold, which posted its best month in five in January, slipped as much as 1% to $1,574.5 an ounce. Yields on U.S. debt came off lows.

In currencies, the yen fell but remained near a 3-1/2 week high against the dollar at 108.50. The euro was 0.25% lower at $1.1066. The dollar gained as the market unwound some of the month-end trades from last week. Norway’s krone fell to a three-month low versus the euro after Norway’s manufacturing PMI data came in weaker than expected and on news that Chinese oil demand has dropped by about three million barrels a day, or 20% of total consumption, amid the coronavirus crisis. The pound slipped by more than 1% against the dollar on fears of a new cliff edge in trading arrangements between Britain and the European Union, as the two sides prepare to negotiate their future relationship.

While Brexit is now in the history books, remarks from UK PM Johnson on post-Brexit talks have been largely in-line with reports via UK press over the weekend; with Johnson saying there is no need to accept various EU rules in a trade deal. In related news, UK will begin free trade negotiations immediately after Brexit and is reportedly aiming to have 80% of trade covered by FTA’s within 3 years, while there were separate comments from DUP’s Foster that it is difficult to see how there will not be new checks between Britain and Northern Ireland.

On the calendar today, expected data include PMIs. Sysco and Alphabet are reporting earnings

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures up 0.4% to 3,237.75
  • STOXX Europe 600 up 0.1% to 411.21
  • MXAP down 0.9% to 164.32
  • MXAPJ down 0.9% to 527.16
  • Nikkei down 1% to 22,971.94
  • Topix down 0.7% to 1,672.66
  • Hang Seng Index up 0.2% to 26,356.98
  • Shanghai Composite down 7.7% to 2,746.61
  • Sensex up 0.4% to 39,905.62
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 down 1.3% to 6,923.25
  • Kospi down 0.01% to 2,118.88
  • German 10Y yield rose 0.4 bps to -0.43%
  • Euro down 0.3% to $1.1063
  • Italian 10Y yield fell 0.7 bps to 0.769%
  • Spanish 10Y yield rose 0.4 bps to 0.239%
  • Brent futures down 3.1% to $56.37/bbl
  • Gold spot down 0.6% to $1,579.13
  • U.S. Dollar Index up 0.3% to 97.66

Top Overnight News from Bloomberg

  • China cut some borrowing costs and injected cash into the financial system to ensure ample liquidity as the nation’s stocks tumbled 9%. The central bank set its daily yuan reference rate stronger than the key 7-per-dollar level as onshore markets resumed trading for the first time since Jan. 23
  • The dollar advanced and Japan’s currency snapped a three-day winning run as markets took some comfort in the measures the Chinese government were taking, while the 10-year Treasury yield climbed as much as three basis points from an almost five-month low reached on Friday
  • Norway’s krone fell to a three-month low versus the euro after Norway’s manufacturing PMI data came in weaker than expected and on news that Chinese oil demand has dropped by about three million barrels a day, or 20% of total consumption, amid the coronavirus crisis
  • The pound slipped by more than 1% against the dollar on fears of a new cliff edge in trading arrangements between Britain and the European Union, as the two sides prepare to negotiate their future relationship
  • Chinese stocks plummeted by the most since an equity bubble burst in 2015 as they resumed trading to the worsening virus outbreak. The CSI 300 Index dropped 9.1%. China’s benchmark iron ore contract fell by its daily limit of 8%, while copper, crude and palm oil also sank by the maximum allowed
  • OPEC and its allies considered how to respond to a plunge in oil prices, with Russia signaling for the first time it was open to Saudi Arabia’s push for an emergency meeting. Potential dates being discussed are Feb. 8-9 and Feb. 14-15, though for now the next regular meeting on March 5-6 remains on the schedule, a delegate said
  • Chinese oil demand has dropped by about three million barrels a day, or 20% of total consumption, as the coronavirus squeezes the economy, according to people with inside knowledge of the country’s energy industry. Fatalities top 360 as China returns from holiday: virus update
  • The U.K. and the European Union begin their battle over a future trade deal on Monday. In a major speech in London, Prime Minister Boris Johnson will threaten to walk away from talks with the EU rather than accept demands from Brussels to sign up to the bloc’s single market regulations and the rulings of its court
  • New Zealand Treasury expects economic growth to ease through 2020. Domestic data over December and January showed tentative signs of an improving economy with measures of business sentiment improving but still in negative territory

Asian equity markets mostly traded with heavy losses as markets braced themselves for China’s return from the Lunar New Year holiday in which mainland bourses opened with losses of nearly 9% and several Shanghai commodity prices hit limit down, despite efforts by China to cushion the blow. ASX 200 (-1.3%) was lower in which energy and mining sectors underperformed the broad weakness across Australia sectors aside from the gold miners due to recent safe-haven plays, while Nikkei 225 (-1.0%) traded subdued but off its lows after finding mild relief from currency flows. Elsewhere, a blood bath was seen at the reopen in mainland China as the Shanghai Comp. (-7.7%) played catch up to the global market rout brought on by the coronavirus and with sentiment not helped by a contraction in Industrial Profits, although mainland bourses were slightly off their worst levels and the Hang Seng (+0.2%) recovered into positive territory after several supportive measures including efforts to restrict short selling and the PBoC’s CNY 1.2tln reverse repo operation in which the central bank also lowered repo rates by 10bps. Finally, 10yr JGBs consolidated overnight and although prices eventually retreated back below the 153.00 level, they still held on to the majority of last week’s advances amid the rout in stocks and after the BoJ kept February purchase intentions mostly in line with the previous month.

Top Asian News

  • Risks Mount for Hong Kong After Economy Shrank in 2019
  • Billionaire Razon Buys 25% Stake in Ayala’s Manila Water
  • Turkey’s Real Rates as Low as in Japan After Inflation Surprises

A relatively tame session for European equities thus far [Eurostoxx 50 +0.2%], following on from the frantic Chinese sell-off in which its markets wiped some USD 420bln in its catch-up play, with Shanghai Comp closing with losses of almost 8%. Sectors are mixed with no clear reflection of the current risk tone as defensives and cyclicals remain varied, albeit energy is underperforming amid losses in the complex. In terms of individual stocks Ingenico (+11.4%) shares spiked higher to the top of the Stoxx 600 at the open amid M&A induced moves with Wordline set to acquire the company in a deal value at EUR 7.8bln. Ryanair (+4.6%) shares follow closely behind amid earnings in which the group announced an extension to its share buyback programme. On the flip side, Siemens Heathineers (-4.6%) shares fell to the foot of the pan-European index following double-digit YY declines in adj. EBIT and net income.

Top European News

  • U.K. Manufacturing Avoids Contraction in Post-Election Bounce
  • Avast Roller Coaster Exposes Frailty of Sleepy Czech Bourse
  • Euro-Area Manufacturing Sees Green Shoots at Start of 2020
  • Macron Seeks Poland Reset as Warsaw Tightens Grip on Courts

In FX, the Yuan suffered from revived angst/catch-up play upon Mainland’s return following its extended Lunar New Year holiday and having had its first opportunity to react to the escalating threats from the outbreak. Moreover, China took a barrage of measures, including lowering rates on its 7- and 14-day reverse repos by 10bps each, in an attempt to cushion losses in the markets amid expectations for a tumultuous session. USD/CNY was propelled at the onshore open as the pair breached 7.00 to the upside (vs. 6.9364 close on Jan 23rd) and eclipsed its 100 DMA at 7.0223 before closing around 7.0250 – the weakest close since December 12th, USD/CNH remains comfortably above 7.00. Subsequently, DXY gained and resides above 97.500 (vs. 97.429 open and low) with the index supported amid weakness in some peers. DXY sees its 200 DMA around 97.720 and 100 DMA at 97.832 ahead of the psychological 98.000 – with traders eyeing the ISM Manufacturing release for influence, whilst the Iowa caucus will also be followed to give a lens into the Democratic presidential candidate.

  • GBP – The marked G10 underperformer heading into PM Johnson’s speech, the content of this was predominantly flagged by UK press over the weekend; taking a hard stance regarding post-Brexit trade negotiations with the EU – with one of the pledges being to not align the UK with the EU alongside a willingness to leave on WTO terms if necessary. Meanwhile, EU’s Chief Brexit Negotiator was expected to warn that a FTA is unlikely should the UK misalign itself with EU standards. Barnier noted that the EU is not seeking UK regulatory alignment, but “we do want consistency”, which is similar in essence. GBP/USD saw some support around 1.3100, having retreated from Friday’s 1.3200 close and with limited reaction seen by the UK manufacturing PMI being revised higher to neutral from a mild contraction. Thereafter, GBP/USD breached 1.3100 to the downside, breaching Friday’s low (1.3080) and its 50 DMA (1.3075) to a low of 1.3055 ahead of the psychological 1.3050.
  • AUD, NZD, JPY, EUR – All softer vs. the Buck as DXY gains traction. Antipodeans were supported in overnight trade but have since trimmed gains and reside around flat territory – AUD/USD briefly topped 0.6700 before reversing and finding mild support around 0.6680, whilst its Kiwi counterpart fell back below its 100 DMA (0.6466) having reached an overnight high of 0.6476 and with 0.6450 seen as psychological support. Similarly, the safe-haven currencies succumb to the firmer Dollar, with USD/JPY meandering around 108.50 ahead of its 100 DMA at 108.75. EUR/USD was largely unreactive to a modest revision higher in the EZ manufacturing PMI, which also came with an optimistic accompanying statement from the IHS, noting that economy could see growth strengthen in the period ahead. EUR/USD trades just above the 1.1050 mark (vs. high 1.1095) with the pair eyeing EUR 927mln of options expiring around 1.1075 at today’s NY cut.
  • EM – Mild reprieve across the EM-sphere, but potentially more-so consolidation following last-week’s hefty losses. TRY saw little reaction as the country’s real rates were dragged further into negative territory amid the uptick in January YY inflation – with participants noting that this may prompt a pause in the CBRT’s easing cycle, although not a cessation given the Turkish President’s pledge to bring rates back to single digits this year. USD/TRY remains flat intraday around 5.9850. Meanwhile, USD/ZAR has retreated back below 15.000 with some noting a correction from last week’s losses alongside profit taking.

In commodities, overall mixed with WTI front month futures firmer but Brent subdued on the demand implications of the cornonavirus outbreak. Furthermore, reports noted that Chinese oil demand is seen falling some 20% on the coronavirus lockdown, which does not bode well for its largest suppliers Saudi and Russia. On the OPEC front, sources noted that OPEC and allies are mulling further output reductions of ~500k BPD, with a meeting reportedly scheduled for February 14th/15th. Note: some desks highlight that a bulk of the “new cuts” could factor in the disruptions in Libya, which net-net may end up in a lower aggregate output reduction. The Joint Technical Committee will be convening on February 4th/5th to assess impacts of the virus and are likely to make a recommendation around any further action to support the market, according to sources. Further sources via journalist Summer Said noted that Saudi Arabia are reportedly considering a drastic temporary cut of up to 1mln BPD in response to the coronavirus. WTI and Brent futures reside under USD 52/bbl and just north of USD 56/bbl with fleeting support seen from the OPEC sources. Elsewhere, spot gold saw early losses amid a firming USD in which prices briefly dipped below 1575/oz. Meanwhile, panic selling seen at the resumption of Chinese commodities trading saw Shanghai copper, crude oil and Dalian iron ore futures all hit limit down in catch-up action from the Lunar New Year holiday.

US Event Calendar

  • 9:45am: Markit US Manufacturing PMI, est. 51.7, prior 51.7
  • 10am: Construction Spending MoM, est. 0.5%, prior 0.6%
  • 10am: ISM Manufacturing, est. 48.5, prior 47.2
  • 10am: ISM New Orders, est. 47.7, prior 46.8
  • 10am: ISM Prices Paid, est. 51.5, prior 51.7
  • 10am: ISM Employment, prior 45.1
  • Wards Total Vehicle Sales, est. 16.8m, prior 16.7m

DB’s Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

Before we get to a busy week ahead, including the start of US primaries in Iowa today, all eyes on this morning’s first Chinese market opening since the extended holiday ended. The CSI 300 (-7.50%), Shanghai Comp (-7.63%) and Shenzhen Comp (7.84%) are all down heavily but are off their earlier deeper loses. Meanwhile, the Nikkei (-0.98%) is also trading down while the Hang Seng (+0.53%) and Kospi (+0.11%) are up. As for fx, the onshore Chinese yuan is down -1.49% to 7.0157, the weakest since December 12, as it also reopened post the holiday. Elsewhere, futures on the S&P 500 are up +0.75% while 10yr USTs yields are +1.7bps higher this morning which shows that the sell-off hasn’t accelerated with the China re-opening. In commodities, Shanghai Iron ore futures are down c. -7.50% today while those on copper are -6.60% with brent oil prices -0.23%. As for overnight data releases, China’s January Caixin manufacturing PMI came in at 51.1 (vs. 51.0 expected) but the survey covers the period before the virus concerns mounted. Japan’s final manufacturing PMI came in at 48.8 vs. 49.3 in the initial release.

The latest on the virus is that there are now 17,205 confirmed cases (up from 9,692 on Friday) and the death toll now stands at 361 (up from 170). Philippines reported the first Coronavirus death outside of China and more cases have been confirmed globally including in the US. Lots more travel restrictions to and from China have been put into place.

This is after the PBoC and other Chinese bodies announced numerous measures over the weekend to try to keep markets orderly at the re-open including a 10bps cut for both the 7- and 14-day repo rates overnight. Yesterday, the central bank had announced the injection of a net 150 billion yuan ($21.7 billion) into money markets this morning with an additional trillion yuan netting off money market redemptions today. Meanwhile, the securities regulator also said yesterday that it would halt night sessions for futures trading from today until further notice, and will allow some share pledge contracts to be extended by as long as 6 months as part of measures to improve market expectations and prevent irrational behaviour. It’s likely more intervention will come if required in the days ahead.

Back here in the UK, Bloomberg reported overnight that the UK PM Boris Johnson will say in a speech today that he wants a comprehensive trade agreement at least as good as the one the EU has reached with Canada but is likely to insist that “Britain will prosper” even without such a deal. He is also likely to say that the UK is not willing to accept demands from the EU to sign up to the bloc’s single market regulations and the rulings of its court. His speech will be followed by a speech from the EU chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier in Brussels, where he is due to set out his planned negotiating position with the UK. Sterling is trading down -0.31% at 1.3166 this morning on the news. Expect lots of headlines today.

Overnight we also heard from the ECB Chief Economist Philip Lane and he said that rising labour costs will eventually reignite inflation in the euro zone and that the ECB is on track toward its goal. On the strategic review he said that suggestions so far have included making the target more specific at precisely 2% – instead of the current “below, but close to, 2%” – and possibly adding a band of tolerance around it. He also acknowledged that the ECB will consider whether its measures of inflation should take better account of housing costs, which are currently severely under-weighted.

So a busy start to the week as we kick off a potentially turbulent February. In terms of the rest of this week the highlight could be today’s first US democratic primary in Iowa – the first of four this month. There’ll also be a number of data releases, including PMIs from around the world (today and Wednesday), before the US jobs report comes out on Friday. Earnings season will also continue to be in full flow.

While Iowa only makes up c.1% of nationwide delegates, we will start to see some sign as to momentum of the various candidates. Technically there will also be Republican primaries, but these are widely considered a foregone conclusion in favour of President Trump. In terms of what to expect, the national polling average from RealClearPolitics shows former Vice President Joe Biden still in the lead at the moment, with 27.2%, followed by Senator Bernie Sanders on 23.5% and Senator Elizabeth Warren on 15.0%. However, in Iowa, the polling average shows Sanders in the lead, with 24.7%, and Biden in second on 21.0%. Furthermore, both former Mayor Pete Buttigieg (16.3%) and Warren (15.2%) are around the crucial 15% mark that is important when it comes to accumulating the delegates required to win the nomination.

In terms of what will happen, the race remains competitive, with FiveThirtyEight’s model at time of writing giving Sanders a 40% chance of winning the most votes in Iowa, followed by Biden on 34%, with Buttigieg on 18% and Warren on a 16% chance. It’s true that often the winner of the Iowa caucuses don’t actually go on to be the nominee – indeed on the Republican side the winners in 2008, 2012 and 2016 all lost out to someone else. Nevertheless, it’s the first indicator of real votes we have, and very important in terms of momentum for each of the candidates, as it’s only 8 days later that the next primary takes place in New Hampshire, and between the two votes there’ll be another TV debate between the candidates on the Friday.

The week ahead also has a number of data highlights, with the main ones likely to be the release of manufacturing (today), services and composite (Wednesday) PMIs from around the world. We have already had the preliminary PMIs from a number of countries, so those countries such as Italy where we haven’t had the preliminary numbers will take on added interest. Also of note will be the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing indices from the US, out today and Wednesday respectively. Back in December, the ISM manufacturing reading fell to 47.2, its lowest level since June 2009, though the consensus is expecting an uptick for January to 48.4, so that’s one to keep an eye out for.

On Friday, we’ll also get the US jobs report for January. The current consensus expectation is for a +160k increase in nonfarm payrolls in January, up from the +145k increase in December, with the unemployment rate remaining at 3.5%, and average hourly earnings growth ticking up a tenth to +3.0% year-on-year. Other key data out this week will come with the Euro Area’s retail sales for December on Wednesday, while in Germany, there’ll be the release of December’s factory orders on Thursday and industrial production on Friday.

Earnings season continues next week, with another raft of companies reporting. Looking at things so far, of the 225 S&P 500 companies that have reported, 74.4% have reported a positive surprise on earnings and 64.1% have reported a positive surprise on sales. Looking to the week ahead, today sees Alphabet report. Then tomorrow we’ll hear from Walt Disney, BP and Sony. On Wednesday, there’s Merck, Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline, Siemens, Qualcomm, BNP Paribas and General Motors. Thursday sees reports from L’Oréal, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Philip Morris International, Total, Sanofi, Enel, Nordea Bank, UniCredit, Société Générale, Twitter and Toyota. And finally on Friday, we’ll hear from AbbVie.

Finally on US politics, tomorrow sees President Trump give his State of the Union address to Congress. The full day by day calendar is published at the end.

Recapping last week now, and global equities continued to fall thanks to the impact from the coronavirus. The S&P 500 ended the week down -2.12% (-1.77% Friday) in its worst weekly performance since early August, and moving the index into negative YTD territory. It came as industrial bellwether Caterpillar fell -2.97% on Friday after it reported a worse-than-expected outlook, with 2020 EPS at $8.50-$10.00, which was below the Bloomberg consensus for $10.55. Furthermore, the VIX climbed +4.3pts to its highest level since October. It was a similar story in Europe, where the STOXX 600 fell -3.05% (-1.07% Friday), while in Asia, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng was down -5.86% (-0.52% Friday), its worst weekly performance since February 2018. The move away from risk assets was also reflected in commodity markets, where Brent crude fell -4.17% (-0.22% Friday), its 4th consecutive weekly move lower. Meanwhile copper fell for a 12th consecutive day, ending the week down -6.22% (-0.28% Friday), its worst weekly performance since December 2011. On the other hand, gold rose +1.12% (+0.95% Friday) to a fresh 6-year high.

Sovereign debt continued its advance last week, with 10yr Treasury yields down -17.7bps (-7.9bps Friday) to 1.507%, their lowest since early September, and 30yr Treasury yields closed below 2% for the first time since early September too. A notable development on Friday came from the yield curve, where the 3m10y curve saw an inverted close for the first time since October, having flattened by -20.3bps over the course of the week (-6.8bps Friday). Over in Germany, 10yr bund yields closed down -9.9bps (-2.8bps Friday), while the spread of Italian ten-year yields over bunds fell by -19.8bps (+2.1bps Friday) as investors reacted to the previous weekend’s regional election results.

Poor European data on Friday really didn’t help the mood for markets, with the flash GDP estimate for the Euro Area showing that the economy grew by just +0.1% qoq in Q4 (vs. +0.2% expected). This was the weakest quarterly growth since Q1 2013, and brings year-on-year growth down to +1.0% (vs. +1.1% expected), the lowest since Q4 2013. We also got the flash inflation estimate, which rose to +1.4% as expected, though the core reading fell to +1.1% (vs. +1.2% expected). In terms of the country-specific data, the French economy unexpected contracted by -0.1% (vs. +0.2% expected), the first quarterly contraction since Q2 2016 and the first of President Macron’s term of office. Meanwhile in Italy, the economy contracted by -0.3% (vs. +0.1% expected), the worst quarter since Q1 2013.

Elsewhere, German retail sales surprised to the downside, with a -3.3% mom decline in December (vs -0.5% expected), which was the biggest monthly decline since May 2007. In the UK however, mortgage approvals surprised to the upside in December, coming in at 67.2k (vs. 65.6k expected), which was the most since July 2017.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 08:04

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

Let Us Bury Prof. Dershowitz’ Inane Impeachment Theory

Much has been written about what Prof. Alan Dershowitz’s idiosyncratic (to put it mildly) views on the scope of the impeachment clause. Here’s what he said Wednesday on the Senate floor, responding to a question about whether a quid pro quo can ever constitute an impeachable offense:

The only thing that would make the quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal. Now, we talked about motives.  There are three possible motives a public official might have.  The first is in the public interest…. The second is in his own political interest. And the third would be in his own financial interest, just putting money in the bank….

I want to focus on the second. Every public official believes that his election is in the public interest…. And if a president does something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

The emphasis, I think it’s fair to say after watching the video, is Professor Dershowitz’s.

He clarified his position on Friday morning in an NPR interview:

NPR:  Some people understood you to say the president can do anything to get reelected just by saying his reelection is in the public interest. Did you mean to say the president can do anything?

DERSHOWITZ: I not only didn’t mean to say it. I didn’t say it. I never said anything like that. In fact, in the beginning of my statement, I talked about how strongly I supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Obviously, Richard Nixon committed many crimes in an effort to get reelected. He thought his reelection was in the public interest. My response was to a question about quid pro quo. The question was, if a person does something completely legal, the president does something legal completely within his power, but he was motivated in part by a desire to get reelected, would that turn that motive into a corrupt motive? And my answer was, no, it wouldn’t turn into a corrupt motive. It would turn it into a political motive. But if he did something unlawful, if he did something improper, if he did something that violated the law, clearly a good motive would not serve as a justification.

I gave as an example President Lincoln, who called the troops back from the battlefield to go to Indiana to vote for the Republicans in Indiana. He was motivated in part by the public interest. He was motivated in part by his partisan interests. That clearly would not be an impeachable offense.

Law professors—even Harvard law professors—say a lot of ridiculous things from time to time, and I do not ordinarily use this platform to comment on them. Dershowitz’s preposterous theory—that “purely noncriminal conduct including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses,” as he put it in his lengthy House testimony—has, as far as I can tell, virtually no support in the legal community. Quite the opposite; it has been roundly condemned and thoroughly discredited by scholars and commentators across a very broad spectrum of opinion and political persuasion, from Phillip Bobbitt and Laurence Tribe to Jonathan Turley (yes, the same Jonathan Turley who testified on behalf of the Republicans in the House impeachment hearings) to John Dean to my co-bloggers Keith Whittington, Ilya Somin, and Josh Blackman.

The only people other than Prof. Dershowitz himself (and Benjamin Curtis, White House Counsel to Pres. Andrew Johnson**) who took it seriously are those Republican Senators for whom it conveniently served as a kind of Harvard-certified constitutional patina for their decision not to call any witnesses to the impeachment trial: “After all, as Prof. Dershowitz demonstrated, even if the President’s quid (military assistance) was offered explicitly and intentionally in exchange for the sole quo of Ukrainian help in discrediting a political opponent—even if John Bolton had secretly taped Trump saying that very thing to Zelensky (“You’re not getting a nickel, Mr. Z., until I hear on CNN that you’re investigation Joe Biden”)—the President cannot be removed from office. So what’s the point of hearing additional evidence on the matter?”

** Curtis advanced a version of the Dershowitz theory—which should perhaps be called the Dershowitz-Curtis theory, in honor of the only two prominent legal scholars who have adopted it—at Johnson’s impeachment trial, and Dershowitz, in his extended remarks earlier in the week in the President’s defense, cited to Curtis (and to no one else) in support of his theory no fewer than 24 separate times.

For a professor of constitutional law, this is quite an achievement: Concocting some personal theory, mostly out of constitutional fluff and nonsense, and then persuading people at the highest reaches of the US government to adopt it and act upon it! This would ordinarily be cause for congratulations, but I very much doubt that history will congratulate Prof. Dershowitz for his accomplishment.

I don’t claim to be an expert with any deep knowledge of the history of the Impeachment Clause.  But one hardly has to be an expert to see how thoroughly odious and dangerous the Dershowitz-Curtis theory is.

A few examples. Remember Nixon’s “enemies list”?  The American people, Prof. Dershowitz is telling us, cannot remove from office a president who orders the IRS and other federal agencies to harass those on the list of his political opponents.  Or a president who withholds federal highway funds earmarked for State X until the State agrees to disable some fraction of the voting machines in its big cities. Not impeachable. The president tells the leader of Y that (quid) he will veto any NATO action to counter Y’s upcoming invasion of Z, as long as Y invests $100 million in a disinformation plan targeting the president’s opponent in the upcoming election. Nothing we can do about it until that president is up for re-election.

Keith Whittington gives his own examples:

A president who brazenly granted pardons to minions who engaged in criminal activity to advance the president’s own goals should not be tolerated until election day. A president who categorically refused to cooperate in any way with congressional investigations into misconduct in the executive branch need not be tolerated for another four years. A president who sweepingly refused to enforce laws with which he disagreed under the cloak of prosecutorial discretion need not be left in the position of chief executive. A president who rashly used American military power to assassinate American citizens and foreign leaders abroad or invited cataclysmic war need not be left as commander in chief. A president who stubbornly refused to use military force to protect American citizens and territory from foreign military aggression need not be left to serve out his term. A president who directed executive branch officials to use all available lawful tools to harass and intimidate their political enemies without any credible rationale for doing so need not be left in office to continue his campaign of governmental harassment.

According to Dershowitz, a president who did any of these things—indeed, a president who did all of these things—cannot be removed from office.

That is pernicious nonsense. As Whittington correctly points out, it is “contrary to the very purpose of including the impeachment power in the constitutional scheme. The framers recognized that the president, and other government officers, might abuse the discretionary power with which they are entrusted and they might do so in ways that are simply intolerable.”

And incidentally, the example Dershowitz uses in support of the D-C theory is telling: Lincoln, he argued, could not be impeached for “call[ing] the troops back from the battlefield to go to Indiana to vote for the Republicans in Indiana,” even if he was motivated “by his partisan interests.”

Now, Lincoln didn’t do what Dershowitz said he did. He didn’t actually order that the troops be allowed to go “vote for the Republicans” in Indiana; he ordered that the troops be allowed to go vote, period—in the hope and expectation, of course, that they would vote Republican.

But suppose he had allowed them to return home only if they would “vote for the Republicans”? What if he let the soldiers return home only if they took an oath to vote Republican? Or if he gave those willing to take such an oath (but not others) $20 to defray their traveling costs?

In Dershowitz’ view, that could not be an impeachable offense; Lincoln’s “partisan motive” can’t convert something not otherwise illegal into something for which he can constitutionally be removed from office.

If for some reason you are not deeply troubled by that outcome, do bear in mind that there might come a time when a president who does not share your particular political persuasion acts in this way.

Someone once defined chutzpah as the child who, after being convicted of murdering his/her parents, begs the court for mercy on the ground that he/she is an orphan.  I’ve got another illustration: Senators who say “Let the people decide in the 2020 election!” while simultaneously giving the President the tools to do whatever he wants and whatever he can, short of outright criminality, to distort that very process. We are likely to pay a high price for this perversion of our constitutional checks and balances, if not in 2020 then sometime down the road.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3949CSa
via IFTTT

Let Us Bury Prof. Dershowitz’ Inane Impeachment Theory

Much has been written about what Prof. Alan Dershowitz’s idiosyncratic (to put it mildly) views on the scope of the impeachment clause. Here’s what he said Wednesday on the Senate floor, responding to a question about whether a quid pro quo can ever constitute an impeachable offense:

The only thing that would make the quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were in some way illegal. Now, we talked about motives.  There are three possible motives a public official might have.  The first is in the public interest…. The second is in his own political interest. And the third would be in his own financial interest, just putting money in the bank….

I want to focus on the second. Every public official believes that his election is in the public interest…. And if a president does something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

The emphasis, I think it’s fair to say after watching the video, is Professor Dershowitz’s.

He clarified his position on Friday morning in an NPR interview:

NPR:  Some people understood you to say the president can do anything to get reelected just by saying his reelection is in the public interest. Did you mean to say the president can do anything?

DERSHOWITZ: I not only didn’t mean to say it. I didn’t say it. I never said anything like that. In fact, in the beginning of my statement, I talked about how strongly I supported the impeachment of Richard Nixon. Obviously, Richard Nixon committed many crimes in an effort to get reelected. He thought his reelection was in the public interest. My response was to a question about quid pro quo. The question was, if a person does something completely legal, the president does something legal completely within his power, but he was motivated in part by a desire to get reelected, would that turn that motive into a corrupt motive? And my answer was, no, it wouldn’t turn into a corrupt motive. It would turn it into a political motive. But if he did something unlawful, if he did something improper, if he did something that violated the law, clearly a good motive would not serve as a justification.

I gave as an example President Lincoln, who called the troops back from the battlefield to go to Indiana to vote for the Republicans in Indiana. He was motivated in part by the public interest. He was motivated in part by his partisan interests. That clearly would not be an impeachable offense.

Law professors—even Harvard law professors—say a lot of ridiculous things from time to time, and I do not ordinarily use this platform to comment on them. Dershowitz’s preposterous theory—that “purely noncriminal conduct including abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are outside the range of impeachable offenses,” as he put it in his lengthy House testimony—has, as far as I can tell, virtually no support in the legal community. Quite the opposite; it has been roundly condemned and thoroughly discredited by scholars and commentators across a very broad spectrum of opinion and political persuasion, from Phillip Bobbitt and Laurence Tribe to Jonathan Turley (yes, the same Jonathan Turley who testified on behalf of the Republicans in the House impeachment hearings) to John Dean to my co-bloggers Keith Whittington, Ilya Somin, and Josh Blackman.

The only people other than Prof. Dershowitz himself (and Benjamin Curtis, White House Counsel to Pres. Andrew Johnson**) who took it seriously are those Republican Senators for whom it conveniently served as a kind of Harvard-certified constitutional patina for their decision not to call any witnesses to the impeachment trial: “After all, as Prof. Dershowitz demonstrated, even if the President’s quid (military assistance) was offered explicitly and intentionally in exchange for the sole quo of Ukrainian help in discrediting a political opponent—even if John Bolton had secretly taped Trump saying that very thing to Zelensky (“You’re not getting a nickel, Mr. Z., until I hear on CNN that you’re investigation Joe Biden”)—the President cannot be removed from office. So what’s the point of hearing additional evidence on the matter?”

** Curtis advanced a version of the Dershowitz theory—which should perhaps be called the Dershowitz-Curtis theory, in honor of the only two prominent legal scholars who have adopted it—at Johnson’s impeachment trial, and Dershowitz, in his extended remarks earlier in the week in the President’s defense, cited to Curtis (and to no one else) in support of his theory no fewer than 24 separate times.

For a professor of constitutional law, this is quite an achievement: Concocting some personal theory, mostly out of constitutional fluff and nonsense, and then persuading people at the highest reaches of the US government to adopt it and act upon it! This would ordinarily be cause for congratulations, but I very much doubt that history will congratulate Prof. Dershowitz for his accomplishment.

I don’t claim to be an expert with any deep knowledge of the history of the Impeachment Clause.  But one hardly has to be an expert to see how thoroughly odious and dangerous the Dershowitz-Curtis theory is.

A few examples. Remember Nixon’s “enemies list”?  The American people, Prof. Dershowitz is telling us, cannot remove from office a president who orders the IRS and other federal agencies to harass those on the list of his political opponents.  Or a president who withholds federal highway funds earmarked for State X until the State agrees to disable some fraction of the voting machines in its big cities. Not impeachable. The president tells the leader of Y that (quid) he will veto any NATO action to counter Y’s upcoming invasion of Z, as long as Y invests $100 million in a disinformation plan targeting the president’s opponent in the upcoming election. Nothing we can do about it until that president is up for re-election.

Keith Whittington gives his own examples:

A president who brazenly granted pardons to minions who engaged in criminal activity to advance the president’s own goals should not be tolerated until election day. A president who categorically refused to cooperate in any way with congressional investigations into misconduct in the executive branch need not be tolerated for another four years. A president who sweepingly refused to enforce laws with which he disagreed under the cloak of prosecutorial discretion need not be left in the position of chief executive. A president who rashly used American military power to assassinate American citizens and foreign leaders abroad or invited cataclysmic war need not be left as commander in chief. A president who stubbornly refused to use military force to protect American citizens and territory from foreign military aggression need not be left to serve out his term. A president who directed executive branch officials to use all available lawful tools to harass and intimidate their political enemies without any credible rationale for doing so need not be left in office to continue his campaign of governmental harassment.

According to Dershowitz, a president who did any of these things—indeed, a president who did all of these things—cannot be removed from office.

That is pernicious nonsense. As Whittington correctly points out, it is “contrary to the very purpose of including the impeachment power in the constitutional scheme. The framers recognized that the president, and other government officers, might abuse the discretionary power with which they are entrusted and they might do so in ways that are simply intolerable.”

And incidentally, the example Dershowitz uses in support of the D-C theory is telling: Lincoln, he argued, could not be impeached for “call[ing] the troops back from the battlefield to go to Indiana to vote for the Republicans in Indiana,” even if he was motivated “by his partisan interests.”

Now, Lincoln didn’t do what Dershowitz said he did. He didn’t actually order that the troops be allowed to go “vote for the Republicans” in Indiana; he ordered that the troops be allowed to go vote, period—in the hope and expectation, of course, that they would vote Republican.

But suppose he had allowed them to return home only if they would “vote for the Republicans”? What if he let the soldiers return home only if they took an oath to vote Republican? Or if he gave those willing to take such an oath (but not others) $20 to defray their traveling costs?

In Dershowitz’ view, that could not be an impeachable offense; Lincoln’s “partisan motive” can’t convert something not otherwise illegal into something for which he can constitutionally be removed from office.

If for some reason you are not deeply troubled by that outcome, do bear in mind that there might come a time when a president who does not share your particular political persuasion acts in this way.

Someone once defined chutzpah as the child who, after being convicted of murdering his/her parents, begs the court for mercy on the ground that he/she is an orphan.  I’ve got another illustration: Senators who say “Let the people decide in the 2020 election!” while simultaneously giving the President the tools to do whatever he wants and whatever he can, short of outright criminality, to distort that very process. We are likely to pay a high price for this perversion of our constitutional checks and balances, if not in 2020 then sometime down the road.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3949CSa
via IFTTT

“I Can’t Let My Mom Die At Home” – Desperate Patients Swarm Wuhan Hospital As Hong Kong Closes Border

“I Can’t Let My Mom Die At Home” – Desperate Patients Swarm Wuhan Hospital As Hong Kong Closes Border

Late last night, we reported that the death toll from the coronavirus outbreak had surpassed 360 as more suspected cases popped up in New York. Though no deaths have been reported overnight, Chinese officials warned yesterday that many more cases and deaths would be confirmed on Sunday/Monday.

In the meantime, Chinese markets finally faced their inevitable reckoning. Despite the best efforts of the PBOC and the government, the Chinese market bloodbath was about as bad as expected.

But over in the US, investors ignored the latest news out of China and have seemingly bought into the WHO’s optimistic message and China’s accusations about an ‘alarmist’ Washington.

This is surprising, since anybody who has been paying close attention to the situation in China should know that this is far from the truth.

Late last night, while most of America was watching the Superbowl, the New York Times puablished a scathing story recounting what it’s like on the ground in Wuhan right now. The truth is that all of the warnings of alleged ‘conspiracy theorist’ have more or less turned out to be correct. Supply shortages are still making it impossible for China to diagnose every case of the virus.

Ms. An, 67, needed an official diagnosis from a hospital to qualify for treatment, but the one she and her son raced to last week had no space, even to test her. The next hospital they were referred to here in Wuhan, the  city of 11 million people at the center of the outbreak, was full, too, they said. They finally got an intravenous drip for Ms. An’s fever, but that was all.

Since then, Ms. An has quarantined herself at home. She and her son eat separately, wear masks at home and are constantly disinfecting their apartment. Ms. An’s health is declining rapidly, and even keeping water down is a struggle.

“I can’t let my mom die at home,” said her son, He Jun. “Every day I want to cry, but when I cry there are no tears. There is no hope.”

Chilling stuff. And once again, doctors and health-care workers are leveraging their newfound immunity to shed a light on the government’s brutality.

Last month, the government put Wuhan in a virtual lockdown, sealing off the city and banning most public transportation and private cars from its streets in a desperate effort to contain the outbreak. Now, many residents say it is nearly impossible to get the health care they need to treat – or even diagnose – the coronavirus.

Expressing exasperation, doctors say there is a shortage of testing kits and other medical supplies, and it is not clear why more are not available. The ban on transportation means some residents have to walk for hours to get to hospitals – if they are well enough to make the journey. Layers of bureaucracy stand between residents and help. And the long lines outside hospitals for testing and treatment suggest that the outbreak is spreading far beyond the official count of cases.

For many sickened residents, their best hope is the new coronavirus hospital that has just been finished (a second hospital is also being built).

Those who do make it to the hospital say they are squeezed together for hours in waiting rooms, where infections are easily spread. But the shortages have meant that many are ultimately turned away and sent home to self-quarantine, potentially compounding the outbreak by exposing their families.

Many doctors and residents are putting their hopes on the two new coronavirus hospitals that China has been racing to build in Wuhan in just a matter of days. One of them spans about eight acres, has 1,000 beds and is scheduled to open on Monday. The government says 1,400 military medical workers will be deployed to work there, potentially helping with the shortage of health professionals on hand to combat the outbreak.

Ironically, the hospital, which was supposed to open on Monday, is still undergoing ‘finishing touches’, and when masses of sick patients showed up at the gates on Monday morning, construction workers were forced to turn them away.

More than a week into the quarantine/lockdown, millions of residents fear the virus has spread much further than the government realizes.

On Sunday, city officials announced plans to set up quarantine stations around Wuhan for people with symptoms of pneumonia and close contacts among coronavirus patients. But just over a week into the lockdown, many residents believe the virus has already spread much further than the official numbers suggest.

“The situation that we’ve seen is much worse than what has been officially reported,” Long Jian, 32, said outside a hospital where his elderly father was being treated. Mr. Long said his father had to go to six hospitals and wait seven days before he could even be tested for the coronavirus.

But after Monday’s market shellacking, we suspect Beijing will be diverting more resources away from meeting critical shortages of medical supplies to focus instead on arresting shortsellers and locking up ‘fearmongers’, like the doctors who were arrested by local authorities in December for trying to warn the public about the outbreak.

Notice the bars on the hospital-room windows…this hospital is a prison with beds, as we’ve pointed out.

Following reports OPEC is weighing another supply cut to ‘rebalance’ the global oil market and warnings from economists that the outbreak could wipe more than a percentage point off Chinese GDP growth, officials in Beijing have reportedly changed their economic growth forecasts to below 5%, what would be the lowest rate of growth since the beginning of China’s modern era of state-directed capitalism.

Of course, the fallout won’t be limited to China, and in a report published Monday, WSJ explores how the outbreak is already disrupting global supply chains and placing “additional strain” on an increasingly fragile economic expansion.

As we’ve pointed out, the outbreak has stoked racism against Chinese around the world.

If you’re looking for a quick refresher on the outbreak, here’s a short video from SCMP.

On a slightly more positive tip, Chinese state media posted this video about an infected woman who gave birth to a healthy baby in the middle of the crisis.

And here’s a video of a drone being used to take the temperature of a terrified civilian trapped by decree inside their apartment.

Finally, RT points out that the death toll from the coronavirus outbreak has already eclipsed the death toll from SARS, as the virus has spread to nearly two dozen countries and territories. The pandemic will eventually “circle the globe,” according to scientists from the NYT,.

Given the fear of the virus ravaging densely populated areas, the people of Hong Kong have succeeded in pressing the city’s government to tighten travel restrictions, joining the US, Vietnam, Japan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and many others.

Hong Kong has shut crossings to the mainland. But even this is likely too little, too late, as the first cases have already been diagnosed in the city.

Members of the G-7 will hold an emergency call on Monday to discuss strategies for containing the outbreak.

Get ready for another week of virus-induced craziness as this doesn’t look ready to disappear from the headlines any time soon.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 07:07

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31iDx6E Tyler Durden

Elizabeth Warren Is a Teachers Union Pet   

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) has a plan for public education, and it starts with restricting parents and kids from choosing charters over traditional public schools.

“If you think your public school is not working, then go help your public school,” Warren told the National Education Association (NEA) in December. “Go help get more resources for [your public school]. Volunteer at your public school. Help get the teachers and school bus drivers and cafeteria workers and the custodial staff and the support staff, help get them some support so they can do the work that needs to be done. You don’t like the building? You think it’s old and decaying? Then get out there and push to get a new one.”

Warren adopted this stance in 2016, when “a handful of bazillionaires” attempted to lift the cap on charters in Massachusetts. “Public dollars must stay in public schools,” she said in December. Of course, charter schools are themselves public schools and do not charge tuition. But charters are not required to collectively bargain with teachers, which often leads to better educational outcomes.

This is especially true in Warren’s home state. In Boston, for instance, taxpayers spend $2,900 less per pupil per year on charter attendees compared to students in traditional public schools. Despite costing less to educate, Boston’s charter students significantly outperform their peers in both reading and math.

Those gains are most dramatic for the disadvantaged populations that Warren suggests are being left behind. As Jonathan Chait noted in New York magazine, “Researchers have asked and answered every possible objection”: The city’s high-quality charter schools are indeed replicable, and they aren’t snagging only the “best” kids. What’s more, students in traditional public schools have actually seen a slight uptick in performance as charters have grown.

Nationwide, a majority of Hispanic Democrats (52 percent) and black Democrats (58 percent) hold favorable opinions of school choice, according to the group Democrats for Education Reform. Yet contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination have demonized charters this election cycle. One possible explanation: Unions vote and spend money on campaigns, while low-income charter school families have far less political might.

Warren isn’t wrong on her diagnosis of the overall problem. “Assigning children to schools by zip code, and doing funding by zip code, means that our public schools are very uneven,” she told the NEA. That’s a real issue, and one that charter schools can help address.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2uYC610
via IFTTT

Elizabeth Warren Is a Teachers Union Pet   

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) has a plan for public education, and it starts with restricting parents and kids from choosing charters over traditional public schools.

“If you think your public school is not working, then go help your public school,” Warren told the National Education Association (NEA) in December. “Go help get more resources for [your public school]. Volunteer at your public school. Help get the teachers and school bus drivers and cafeteria workers and the custodial staff and the support staff, help get them some support so they can do the work that needs to be done. You don’t like the building? You think it’s old and decaying? Then get out there and push to get a new one.”

Warren adopted this stance in 2016, when “a handful of bazillionaires” attempted to lift the cap on charters in Massachusetts. “Public dollars must stay in public schools,” she said in December. Of course, charter schools are themselves public schools and do not charge tuition. But charters are not required to collectively bargain with teachers, which often leads to better educational outcomes.

This is especially true in Warren’s home state. In Boston, for instance, taxpayers spend $2,900 less per pupil per year on charter attendees compared to students in traditional public schools. Despite costing less to educate, Boston’s charter students significantly outperform their peers in both reading and math.

Those gains are most dramatic for the disadvantaged populations that Warren suggests are being left behind. As Jonathan Chait noted in New York magazine, “Researchers have asked and answered every possible objection”: The city’s high-quality charter schools are indeed replicable, and they aren’t snagging only the “best” kids. What’s more, students in traditional public schools have actually seen a slight uptick in performance as charters have grown.

Nationwide, a majority of Hispanic Democrats (52 percent) and black Democrats (58 percent) hold favorable opinions of school choice, according to the group Democrats for Education Reform. Yet contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination have demonized charters this election cycle. One possible explanation: Unions vote and spend money on campaigns, while low-income charter school families have far less political might.

Warren isn’t wrong on her diagnosis of the overall problem. “Assigning children to schools by zip code, and doing funding by zip code, means that our public schools are very uneven,” she told the NEA. That’s a real issue, and one that charter schools can help address.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2uYC610
via IFTTT

China Accuses US Of ‘Inciting Panic’ Over Coronavirus Outbreak

China Accuses US Of ‘Inciting Panic’ Over Coronavirus Outbreak

Over the weekend, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and the ministry’s spokesperson Hua Chunying expressed outrage that some countries halted trade and flights to and from the country because of the novel coronavirus outbreak.

Now Hua is back out bashing the US on Monday for allegedly intentionally spreading fear following the outbreak, reported Reuters.

She said the US was the first country to withdraw embassy staff from the Wuhan region, and first to impose a travel ban on Chinese travelers (though we’re not certain that’s true).

She also accused the US of failing to follow through with promised assistance.

“The U.S. government hasn’t provided any substantial assistance to us, but it was the first to evacuate personnel from its consulate in Wuhan, the first to suggest partial withdrawal of its embassy staff, and the first to impose a travel ban on Chinese travelers,” Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters on Monday.

During the briefing, she continued to single out the US for stoking fear and offering no significant assistance to support efforts to curb the outbreak (despite the fact that the Trump Administration has offered to send supplies AND personnel).

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus outbreak a global emergency during its third straight day of emergency meetings in Switzerland last week. However, seemingly at the behest of the Chinese government, officials stressed that global trade and flights to China shouldn’t be halted.

“It is precisely developed countries like the United States with strong epidemic prevention capabilities and facilities that have taken the lead in imposing excessive restrictions contrary to WHO recommendations,” Hua said.

Meanwhile, Hua added over the weekend that the travel restrictions announced by the US last week were “certainly not a gesture of goodwill.”

Looking ahead, we wonder whether this animosity will in any way impact China’s $200 billion in promised purchases of American agricultural products under the phase one trade agreement.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 06:04

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31ljF2z Tyler Durden

Europe’s Green Deal: Same Hysteria, Same Destruction

Europe’s Green Deal: Same Hysteria, Same Destruction

Authored by Andrew Moran via LibertyNation.com,

Today’s brand of the left-leaning politician is all about substituting what sounds good for what actually works. Modern politics, whether in the U.S. or Europe, is about taking a chainsaw to everything that produced even a modicum of success to appease the deities espousing progressive orthodoxy. There is no better example of this than fossil fuels, energy sources that have lifted us out of destitution and darkness and given us incredible wealth the world had never witnessed. What is the left interested in doing? Confiscation, cronyism, centralization, and coercion to combat climate change. The European Union will achieve these objectives through the boondoggle-in the-making Green Deal.

What Is The Green Deal?

The European counterpart is a bit more realistic than the American version, aiming for net-zero emissions within 30 years rather than in a decade. But that is probably the best thing you can say about this proposal, which was approved by the European Parliament – some policymakers had requested even greater ambitions to be inserted inside the climate change scheme. Overall, the Green Deal is bad economics that will affect the already dreary conditions of Europe and exacerbate the slowdown.

The Green Deal begins by the European Commission examining every European Union law and regulation and then modifying them to align with the bloc’s new climate objectives. If you thought the E.U.’s regulations were already egregious, just you wait until March 2021 when the bureaucrats will submit a package containing all the statist goodies. At least Great Britain will not have to.

Policymakers want to implement a circular economy, one that emphasizes the sustainability factor in how the continent produces stuff. Its objective is to consume fewer materials and ensure there is more concentration on reusing and recycling.

Like the Green New Deal (GND), the E.U.’s flagship program is to “at least double or even triple” the renovation rate of buildings. Today, this figure stands at about 1%, so bumping up that figure would require a concoction of interventions and mandates to ensure buildings are more efficient.

One provision is to introduce carbon tariffs for nations that refuse to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions at a comparable rate to Europe. Another aspect that has cronyism written all over it is amplifying public-private partnerships to support research and innovation in technologies that lead to low-carbon steel generation, green batteries, and better nutrient management by farmers.

A common word used throughout the Commission’s plan is “promotion.” Officials want to promote alternative sustainable fuels. They want to promote electric vehicle use. They aim to promote deforestation-free agricultural products. They desire to promote a reduction in air travel and more rail and water transportation of freight. Promotion is a kinder word for coercion.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen believes this is the region’s “moon moment”:

“We do not have all the answers yet. Today is the start of a journey. This is Europe’s man on the moon moment. Our goal is to reconcile the economy with our planet and to make it work for our people.”

Euros And Cents

So, how much will all this cost? Over in the U.S., the GND has a price-tag of around $93 trillion. The GD is estimated to receive E.U. support funding of $100 billion. This is a steal until you realize that this is not the total cost that will be required to reach the E.U.’s objectives. It is essentially seed money to get things going, a so-called transition mechanism. The final tally will likely be a lot higher.

The other potential cost is the industries that could be impacted by this initiative. Analysts are sounding the alarm that established businesses would be seriously affected by the decarbonization push and the greater focus on renewable sources. An example of this would be coal.

Coal is indeed dying a slow death, with the primary assailant being the free market. However, coal’s demise is being accelerated by the state, even though it continues to be an important market in Eastern Europe – consumption and production. Although coal has been gradually diminishing, it still employs tens of thousands of people, and the latest estimates say as many as 160,000 people could be out of work within the next decade or so because of the E.U.

And you have to think that this is also a jab at Russia. In the last few years, Russia has been supplying the rest of Europe with a lot of energy. Moscow’s dominance in the energy industry has been so immense that it is constructing more pipelines to gain a greater market share of Europe’s gas market. However, should the GD become the law of the land, the pipelines may be demolished or out of order since they would no longer adhere to the standards of the climate strategy.

The greatest cost might be the lost economic growth.

“The Green Deal is the most fundamental shift in European energy policy we have seen in 20 years. Companies in the sector should not underestimate the disruption it will bring,” Nick Butler wrote in The Financial Times.

Clear, Simple, And Wrong

Every proposal to fight climate change and save the planet is based on the concentration of power and the aggressive expansion of regulatory implementation and enforcement. Policymakers refuse to allow the free market to create innovative solutions to environmental problems, effectively admitting that the planet is too important to leave up to the inhabitants. Only the government, and those it handpicks to receive the benefits of public spending, can be Mother Nature’s best friend. Unfortunately, this reckless abandon of innovation and industry, which is far too common in the region, will be another step toward Europe’s ruin. As H.L. Mencken wrote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” The E.U. knows this all too well.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 02/03/2020 – 05:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36S8FuL Tyler Durden