Author: admin

US Capitol Police Walks Back A Memo On Arresting People For Not Wearing A Mask

US Capitol Police Walks Back A Memo On Arresting People For Not Wearing A Mask

Authored by Masooma Haq via The Epoch Times,

The United States Capitol Police (USCP) reversed a decision to arrest people who do not comply with Tuesday’s reinstatement of the mask mandate, saying instead that the consequence for violators will be removal from the buildings.

“Regarding the House mask rule, there is no reason it should ever come to someone being arrested. Anyone who does not follow the rule will be asked to wear a mask or leave the premises. The Department’s requirements for officers to wear masks is for their health and safety,” stated a USCP press statement put out Thursday.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) said she has received a memo in which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told police to arrest visitors who did not comply with mask mandate and report members of congress.

“In today’s edition of Pelosi’s abuse of power, Capitol Police have been directed to arrest staff and visitors to comply with her mask mandate for vaccinated individuals. For Members, they advise not arresting but ‘reporting Members to SAA for their failure to comply,’” wrote Cammack in a social media statement Thursday morning.

Dr. Marc Siegel told Fox News in a Thursday interview that the mask mandate was reinstated because of the spread of the Delta Variant in the United States.

“Changes because of the Delta variant as you already said, and I think it’s going to confuse people because the mask is just an added feature. It’s not meant to undermine that the vaccine is way more important. But the reason is because of those people who got sick, who were already vaccinated, they found a lot of virus, the same amount of virus as if you were unvaccinated,” said Siegel who is a physician, Professor of Medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center, author, and contributor to Fox News.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the mask mandate is based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance and recommendations made by the Capitol Attending Physician Brian Monahan.

Besides Republican members of Congress opposing the mask mandate, a growing number of health officials and scientists are calling on the CDC to release data behind its decision to recommend that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus—which causes the disease COVID-19—vaccinated people wear masks in high-transmission areas.

One of them, New York City Health and Hospitals President and CEO Mitchell Katz, said he’s reluctant to follow the agency’s guidelines on universal masking.

“While the CDC issued their guidance yesterday at about 3 p.m., they have not yet released their scientific reports on the data that underlies their recommendation,” Katz said at a news conference.

 “I think we owe it to New Yorkers to very carefully, as you say, review that information and understand its implications,” Katz added.

“Our focus has to be on getting people vaccinated.”

A spokesperson for the CDC told The Epoch Times on Thursday that the “first publication” of the data it used for the guidance will be published tomorrow.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 13:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3if4Toe Tyler Durden

We Have The First Trillion Dollar Reverse Repo

We Have The First Trillion Dollar Reverse Repo

It’s official: at exactly 1:15pm today, the NY Fed reported that for the first time ever, 86 counterparties parked over $1 trillion in reserves at the Fed’s Reverse Repo Facility for overnight ‘safekeeping’ and collecting a nice, fat yield of 0.05% – representing hundreds of millions in absolutely free money as these are reserves that the Fed has previously handed out to banks – for free – who then turned around and handed it right back to the Fed where it collected a small but nominal interest.

Of course, it is month-end (if not quarter-end) so we do get some window-dressing but even without it, it’s only  matter of time before we got consistent $1 trillion prints… which then become $2 trillion and so on.

In fact, the question of how big the Fed’s reverse repo facility – which as explained previously is just how the Fed recycles all its massive reserves which it keeps injecting into the financial system (if not economy) at a pace of $120 billion per month – is one we discussed yesterday, and highlighted a calculation by Curvature’s repo guru Scott Skyrm who made the following observations:

During the month of April, RRP volume increased by $49 billion. $296 billion during the month of May, $362 billion in June, and $124 billion in July. If RRP volume continues around the same pace, say $200 billion a month, RRP volume will reach $2 trillion by the end of the year.

Looking at the trendline, it puts RRP volume at $2.5 trillion by the end of the year. However, the RRP volume at the end of the year will be a far larger number due to year-end window dressing, meaning it will likely approach if not surpass $3 trillion on Dec 31, 2021.

A few rhetorical questions from Skyrm to conclude: what will be the impact of $2 trillion going into the RRP each day? How will this affect the markets? Will the Fed need to adjust the RRP rate again?

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zQYdmf Tyler Durden

Trump Tax Returns Must Be Released By IRS To Congress, DoJ Orders

Trump Tax Returns Must Be Released By IRS To Congress, DoJ Orders

Conveniently timed to coincide with Trump’s re-emergence on the political scene with rallies being readies in the run up to next year’s mid-terms, the Department of Justice has decided now is the time to affirm that the income tax returns of former President Trump can be released by the IRS to Congress.

The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel said that Congress had made a request with a legitimate legislative purpose to see Trump’s tax returns.

“The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information,” the opinion said.

As a result, under federal law, “Treasury must furnish the information to the Committee,” the opinion said.

The decision, as CNBC reports, comes more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court said that Trump’s tax returns and other financial records had to be turned over by his longtime accountants to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., because of a subpoena issued as part of Vance’s criminal probe of the Trump Organization.

Of course, what this really means is that the likes of Schiff and Swalwell will ‘accidentally’ – allegedly – leak all of this to WaPo or NYT to pour their ‘expertise’ over and create the narrative required…

Which brings us to the most humorous sentence of the statement:

“Executive Branch officials must apply a presumption that Legislative Branch officials act in good faith and in furtherance of legitimate objectives.”

Oh yeah, lots of “good faith” among that crowd.

Full DoJ Statement:

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 13:28

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fe5TXH Tyler Durden

Entering The Worst Seasonal Period Of The Year… Which Ends With Jackson Hole

Entering The Worst Seasonal Period Of The Year… Which Ends With Jackson Hole

One week ago we showed readers some troubling seasonal patterns: having just emerged from the strongest two-week period of the year which is between July 1 and July 15, markets are about to enter the worst seasonal phase of the year: the month of August.

As Goldman trader Scott Rubner showed, seasonals trend lower all of August, for the 4th worst two-week seasonal period of the year…. before culminating with the Jackson hole central bank symposium when the Fed is widely expected to announce tapering. Furthermore, since 1950, there have been 19 times in 72 years that the S&P was up at least >10% through the first half of the year – like now – and the median return for August specifically, following a strong 1H is typically down -51bps.

The topic of August being the cruelest month for stocks was also the the inspiration behind today’s Chart of the Day by Jim Reid.

The DB strategist first recaps the good news, namely absent a dramatic rout today, the S&P 500 will close out with its 6th successive monthly gain, the longest run since 2018. However, echoing the above observations, Reid points out that since 2010 August has been the worst month for markets in terms of the number of declines with 6 out of 11 being negative.

Still, the credit strategist notes that this is not a pattern that has been seen through longer history “so is it random or has something changed?” Well, yeah, something has changed and one look at the Fed’s balance sheet should explain it. The Fed’s takeover of capital markets meant that markets have become more illiquid since the launch of QE and, as Reid speculates, “perhaps holidays in August exacerbate this so that any negative news that takes place is amplified.”

The two most memorable (and largest declines) took place in 2011 and 2015:

  • The first of those coincided with the row in the US over the debt ceiling. Although that was actually resolved early in the month, the US credit rating was then downgraded by S&P from AAA to AA+. Meanwhile, in the backdrop, concerns over the European sovereign crisis continued to fester.
  • Then in 2015, there was major turbulence in Chinese markets amidst concerns about their growth prospects and the surprise devaluation, which in turn spread to other regions including the US and Europe.

A notable addition was August 2019 when we saw the 2s10s yield curve invert for the first time in the cycle which alongside an escalation in the US/China trade war, encouraged declines as well.

So, what could this August bring, the strategist asks, and observes that according to the bank’s June monthly survey, more people are planning to take holidays this (northern hemisphere) summer than in a normal year so liquidity will likely be even lower than usual.

In terms of events, the August focus will be on Jackson Hole, China’s ongoing regulatory crackdown,  and the Delta variant amongst all the usual macro variables, especially inflation.

His advice to traders: “enjoy your holidays if you’re off but keep half an eye open for any surprises in what are likely to be thin markets.”

 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 13:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zU4760 Tyler Durden

China’s Big Tech Crackdown Shouldn’t Be Cheered by Antitrust Fans in the West


featurechinapix131209

“Among the richest men in China, few have good endings,” Jack Ma, who disappeared for three months this past winter after getting in trouble with his government, famously said.

The richest man in China and creator of online retail marketplace Alibaba was trying to take his finance giant Ant Group—which owns Alipay, a payment platform with over 80 million merchants and 1 billion users—public back in November. At the last minute, Chinese regulators cracked down on the initial public offering (IPO), sending a clear message to Ma that his purported bad behavior at the end of October, when he had thrown barbs at financial regulators and Chinese banks in a speech, had angered Beijing.

He was made into an example: If you act like Ma, the might of the government will crush you, and your little business empire too.

Ma went into hiding for three months after the sabotaged IPO, but the Chinese government’s tech crackdown was far from over.

This past week, Beijing kept teaching companies lessons about submission to the regime. An onslaught of antitrust and data-security crackdowns have threatened the country’s booming online tutoring software sector, plus ride-sharing tech like DiDi (China’s Uber equivalent) and chat/gaming platforms like Tencent. Cryptocurrency exchanges like Huobi and Okcoin shut down Chinese subsidiaries amid the crackdown. WeChat, which is China’s enormous messaging platform owned by Tencent, stopped registering new users, saying it needed to update the app’s security to comply with new regulations. Some companies, like DiDi, Tencent, and search engine Baidu, will be fined by regulators. All in all, two dozen of China’s top companies have come under heightened regulatory scrutiny that the government says will last for six months as they crack the whip.

Though much of this is under the guise of eliminating purported anticompetitive practices—some businesses have been ordered to end “malicious blocking of website links,” meaning companies like Alibaba will soon have to accept competitors’ payment systems—many theorize that this is really about Beijing using state power to double down on its industrial manufacturing sector, shifting manpower away from apps and platforms that benefit everyday consumers. “Beijing would strongly prefer more investment to flow into what it regards as real technology like microchips, batteries, robotics and advanced materials, rather than continuing to endure what it calls a ‘disorderly expansion of capital’ in areas such as internet software platforms,” writes Nathaniel Taplin in The Wall Street Journal. 

“If you wanted to, you might see the Chinese tech crackdown as simply a Neo-Brandeisian movement on steroids,” writes Noah Smith in his Substack. “But the breadth of the Chinese crackdown suggests a major difference.” Smith continues:

The government is going hell-bent-for-leather to try to create a world-class domestic semiconductor industry, throwing huge amounts of money at even the most speculative startups. And it’s still spending heavily on A.I. It’s not technology that China is smashing—it’s the consumer-facing internet software companies that Americans tend to label “tech”.

Still, it’s astonishing that today’s antitrust crusaders in the West look somewhat positively at China’s blunt-force use of state power to cripple these companies. “China is doing what the U.S. can’t seem to: regulate its tech giants,” reads a Washington Post headline from Wednesday. Though “the government’s hard line has sent Chinese tech stocks plummeting and rippled across the financial world,” China’s “aggressive stance toward anticompetitive practices, speculative and carbon-intensive cryptocurrencies, and gig worker exploitation aren’t necessarily the destructive moves they might seem to U.S. observers and investors.” They may even “be laying the foundation for a more sustainable and vibrant Chinese Internet sector in the decades to come,” writes tech journalist Will Oremus.

But Dan Ikenson, director of policy research at ndp | analytics and economist who specializes in trade policy, tells Reason that “in the U.S., the motivation is at least rhetorically to advance consumer welfare. In China, it may be to reassert the values of the state. [The logic goes that] these technology companies need to know…who’s really in charge.”

Beijing is essentially saying “look, we’re going to inject a lot of uncertainty into the market unless you do what it is we want you to do,” says Ikenson, noting that what China probably “really wants is self-sufficiency or preeminence in semi-conductor, hardware stuff.”

“It seems antithetical to do things that could financially kneecap these firms and chase western investors away,” Ikenson notes.

Looking at how Ma’s business empire has been crushed in the wake of Beijing’s earlier crackdown, the economic ripple effects this exertion of state power may have could be enormous. Alibaba and Tencent stocks, among others, suffered earlier this week.

Consumers in China and the U.S. have good reason to object to antitrust crusaders and their media cheerleaders; it’s consumers who will most likely be hurt by aggressive use of state power to intervene in the market. And in China, unlike in the U.S., there doesn’t need to be much debate or broad political will behind the regulatory push—it can be imposed at any time from on high.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j8jlgW
via IFTTT

China’s Big Tech Crackdown Shouldn’t Be Cheered by Antitrust Fans in the West


featurechinapix131209

“Among the richest men in China, few have good endings,” Jack Ma, who disappeared for three months this past winter after getting in trouble with his government, famously said.

The richest man in China and creator of online retail marketplace Alibaba was trying to take his finance giant Ant Group—which owns Alipay, a payment platform with over 80 million merchants and 1 billion users—public back in November. At the last minute, Chinese regulators cracked down on the initial public offering (IPO), sending a clear message to Ma that his purported bad behavior at the end of October, when he had thrown barbs at financial regulators and Chinese banks in a speech, had angered Beijing.

He was made into an example: If you act like Ma, the might of the government will crush you, and your little business empire too.

Ma went into hiding for three months after the sabotaged IPO, but the Chinese government’s tech crackdown was far from over.

This past week, Beijing kept teaching companies lessons about submission to the regime. An onslaught of antitrust and data-security crackdowns have threatened the country’s booming online tutoring software sector, plus ride-sharing tech like DiDi (China’s Uber equivalent) and chat/gaming platforms like Tencent. Cryptocurrency exchanges like Huobi and Okcoin shut down Chinese subsidiaries amid the crackdown. WeChat, which is China’s enormous messaging platform owned by Tencent, stopped registering new users, saying it needed to update the app’s security to comply with new regulations. Some companies, like DiDi, Tencent, and search engine Baidu, will be fined by regulators. All in all, two dozen of China’s top companies have come under heightened regulatory scrutiny that the government says will last for six months as they crack the whip.

Though much of this is under the guise of eliminating purported anticompetitive practices—some businesses have been ordered to end “malicious blocking of website links,” meaning companies like Alibaba will soon have to accept competitors’ payment systems—many theorize that this is really about Beijing using state power to double down on its industrial manufacturing sector, shifting manpower away from apps and platforms that benefit everyday consumers. “Beijing would strongly prefer more investment to flow into what it regards as real technology like microchips, batteries, robotics and advanced materials, rather than continuing to endure what it calls a ‘disorderly expansion of capital’ in areas such as internet software platforms,” writes Nathaniel Taplin in The Wall Street Journal. 

“If you wanted to, you might see the Chinese tech crackdown as simply a Neo-Brandeisian movement on steroids,” writes Noah Smith in his Substack. “But the breadth of the Chinese crackdown suggests a major difference.” Smith continues:

The government is going hell-bent-for-leather to try to create a world-class domestic semiconductor industry, throwing huge amounts of money at even the most speculative startups. And it’s still spending heavily on A.I. It’s not technology that China is smashing—it’s the consumer-facing internet software companies that Americans tend to label “tech”.

Still, it’s astonishing that today’s antitrust crusaders in the West look somewhat positively at China’s blunt-force use of state power to cripple these companies. “China is doing what the U.S. can’t seem to: regulate its tech giants,” reads a Washington Post headline from Wednesday. Though “the government’s hard line has sent Chinese tech stocks plummeting and rippled across the financial world,” China’s “aggressive stance toward anticompetitive practices, speculative and carbon-intensive cryptocurrencies, and gig worker exploitation aren’t necessarily the destructive moves they might seem to U.S. observers and investors.” They may even “be laying the foundation for a more sustainable and vibrant Chinese Internet sector in the decades to come,” writes tech journalist Will Oremus.

But Dan Ikenson, director of policy research at ndp | analytics and economist who specializes in trade policy, tells Reason that “in the U.S., the motivation is at least rhetorically to advance consumer welfare. In China, it may be to reassert the values of the state. [The logic goes that] these technology companies need to know…who’s really in charge.”

Beijing is essentially saying “look, we’re going to inject a lot of uncertainty into the market unless you do what it is we want you to do,” says Ikenson, noting that what China probably “really wants is self-sufficiency or preeminence in semi-conductor, hardware stuff.”

“It seems antithetical to do things that could financially kneecap these firms and chase western investors away,” Ikenson notes.

Looking at how Ma’s business empire has been crushed in the wake of Beijing’s earlier crackdown, the economic ripple effects this exertion of state power may have could be enormous. Alibaba and Tencent stocks, among others, suffered earlier this week.

Consumers in China and the U.S. have good reason to object to antitrust crusaders and their media cheerleaders; it’s consumers who will most likely be hurt by aggressive use of state power to intervene in the market. And in China, unlike in the U.S., there doesn’t need to be much debate or broad political will behind the regulatory push—it can be imposed at any time from on high.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j8jlgW
via IFTTT

Watch: Biden Loses It With Reporter Who Dares Question Mask Mandate Flip-Flop

Watch: Biden Loses It With Reporter Who Dares Question Mask Mandate Flip-Flop

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

After decreeing that anyone who works in government or with government will be mandated to get vaccinated, Joe Biden began to walk away from the lecturn without a mask, prompting Fox News reporter Peter Doocy to ask why the flip flop on mandating masks, even for the vaccinated. The question triggered Biden who exploded at the reporter.

“You said if you were fully vaccinated, you no longer need to wear a mask,” Doocy told Biden

“No! I didn’t say that,” Biden snapped at Doocy, blatantly lying.

When Doocy fired back “In May, you made it sound like the vaccine was the ticket to losing the mask forever,” Biden suddenly switched to blaming unvaccinated people for his mask flip-flop.

“That was true at the time!” Biden shouted back, adding “the new variant came along and they didn’t get vaccinated.”

Watch:

He didn’t say it huh?

SHUT UP, IT’S SCIENCE.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 12:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3C7Rx5l Tyler Durden

Prof. Nadine Strossen (Former ACLU President) on “Threat of Big Tech and Big Gov Collusion Against the First Amendment”

A substantial interview by Sam Husseini on Substack; an excerpt, quoting Strossen:

[E]ven private sector actors are directly bound by constitutional norms, including the First Amendment free speech guarantee, if you can show that there is in the legal term to describe this is called entanglement, sufficient entanglement between the government officials and the nominally private sector actors, that if they are essentially conspiring with the government doing the government’s bidding, the government can’t do an end run around his own constitutional obligations that way….

I was really shocked at how cavalier and how dismissive the so-called mainstream media was in sneering at Trump’s lawsuit, because it really has to be taken seriously….

The whole thing is much worth reading. For more from Genevieve Lakier, see here; for a quick summary of some of the leading caselaw on the subject, see this post of mine.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3C0kCiY
via IFTTT

Prof. Nadine Strossen (Former ACLU President) on “Threat of Big Tech and Big Gov Collusion Against the First Amendment”

A substantial interview by Sam Husseini on Substack; an excerpt, quoting Strossen:

[E]ven private sector actors are directly bound by constitutional norms, including the First Amendment free speech guarantee, if you can show that there is in the legal term to describe this is called entanglement, sufficient entanglement between the government officials and the nominally private sector actors, that if they are essentially conspiring with the government doing the government’s bidding, the government can’t do an end run around his own constitutional obligations that way….

I was really shocked at how cavalier and how dismissive the so-called mainstream media was in sneering at Trump’s lawsuit, because it really has to be taken seriously….

The whole thing is much worth reading. For more from Genevieve Lakier, see here; for a quick summary of some of the leading caselaw on the subject, see this post of mine.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3C0kCiY
via IFTTT

JPMorgan Finds That Fed Has Broken The Most Fundamental Market Correlation

JPMorgan Finds That Fed Has Broken The Most Fundamental Market Correlation

A few months ago investors – especially those working for risk 60/40 balanced and parity funds – freaked out when the traditional correlation between stocks and yields (or inverse correlation between stocks and Treasury prices) flipped, sliding to the lowest on record, as any hope for diversification of equity risk by hiding into government bonds disappeared. And while the correlation has since recovered some of its normal historical pattern as the following chart from Goldman shows…

… a new and just as ominous decoupling has now emerged: that between stocks and investment grade and junk bonds.

In other words, while the low – or inverse – correlation between stocks and bonds has been one of the core anchors of modern finance, allowing cross-asset traders to diversify excess equity risk into bonds, this “basic premise” of modern portfolio consutrction theory no longer works. The culprit? Who else: the Federal Reserve.

As JPMorgan credit strategist Eric Beinstein writes in his latest Credit Market Outlook note, “in recent months, there have been two interesting trends in total return correlations: HG credit has become more correlated with stocks and thereby also more correlated with the HY bond market.”

What’s behind this rising correlation? According to the JPM strategist, there are several drivers:

  • First, the unusual dynamic that stocks are doing very well at the same time that UST yields have declined. This, in JPM’s view, “is the result of so much QE-driven liquidity in the market that investors are buying everything: stocks and bonds.”
  • The second, less likely, driver of persistently elevated correlations according to Beinstein, is exceptionally strong corporate earnings which have driven further total return gains this year alongside higher equities.

To JPM, this stands in contrast to what has traditionally been a key investment consideration for HG credit – its diversifying characteristic versus Equities, in the context of a balanced asset allocation portfolio (similar to the inverse correlation between stocks and treasurys). As Beinstein explains for those who have not taken finance 101, “when equities have risen, yields have often as well, leading to losses on the HG side and vice versa.” But not anymore, and here’s why:

The latest ongoing round of Fed QE appears to have broken this basic premise, with total return correlations between HG and Equities reaching their highest since 2008 on a 3yr trailing basis and since 1997 on a 12m trailing basis (of monthly returns in both cases).

The charts below shows these correlation time series over a very long period of time. They show that over time there have been various correlation regimes. Low to negative correlation has prevailed for most of the past two decades, but there have been several long periods of positive correlation in the past, with the most recent from 2009 to 2011, also following a market crisis.

Both charts above show that while there has been a wide range of return correlation regimes over the past 20 years “the increase in the Fed’s balance sheet (shaded area on the charts below) potentially argues for an extended period of higher correlations.”

Some more observations on how this heightened correlation has played out in the past: HG returned -7.1% in March ’20, before the Fed Covid programs fully took effect, while equity markets weakened sharply as well. To JPM, with UST yields so low “there is a risk that this lack of correlation repeats, with spreads widening more than UST yields may be able to fall.” Another takeaway is that the strong correlation between HG and HY returns argues for owning HY for the greater carry; HG and HY have been 75% correlated over the past 12 months, the highest since 2017. To be sure, it is always dangerous to extrapolate trends in correlation too far.

As Beinstein (somewhat sarcastically)concludes, “the potential implications of these developments are interesting” and explains: “traditionally portfolio theory says that bonds are a diversifier for equity market investments. This has not been the case recently, with the risk that it also remains not the case if/when there is an equity market selloff.“

Translation: in the next crash, everything will go down at the same time and there will be nowhere left to hide… Which is also why the Fed can never again allow a market crash.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 12:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fbFoSI Tyler Durden