Viewpoint Diversity Will Get a Boost From School Choice

altopress064351

With Americans beset by multiple crises, there’s at least a glimmer of hope that one problemthe collapse of public schools under the stress of the pandemicmay offer a partial solution to another: the deepening political polarization reflected in bitter fights over lesson content.

As families flee government institutions that seem incapable of offering education of any sort, let alone one on which all can agree, they leave behind squabbles over what students are taught in favor of educational approaches and curricula that better suit their preferences.

“The books have the same publisher,” Dana Goldstein wrote just over a year ago in a piece for The New York Times examining textbooks in California and Texas. “They credit the same authors. But they are customized for students in different states, and their contents sometimes diverge in ways that reflect the nation’s deepest partisan divides.”

This was hardly the first time curriculum warstracked in detail by the Cato Institute’s Public Schooling Battle Mapmade the headlines. Michigan officials fought for years over such details as whether students should be taught that the country is a “republic” or a “democracy” and which amendments in the Bill of Rights should be emphasized.

“First, conservatives complained about a draft of new social studies standards for Michigan classrooms,” as Bridge, a local publication, summarized the debate in 2019. “Then, liberals complained about a rewrite of those standards that appeared to favor conservative views.”

Nor has the effort to politically mold classroom lessons faded away in the past year. In recent months, the exiting Trump administration added to the drama with a crude proposal embodied in its 1776 Report to promote “patriotic education” as a rebuttal to a curriculum derived from The New York Times‘s deeply flawed 1619 project, which emphasizes the roles of slavery and racism to the exclusion of other factors in the country’s history. The incoming Biden administration promptly reversed its predecessor’s efforts.

“The 1776 Report is a political document, not a curriculum,” Patrick Riccards concluded at the education-oriented The 74.

“The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around,” cautioned The New York Times‘s own Bret Stephens.

The reasons for the never-ending battles are obvious. “Classroom materials are not only shaded by politics, but are also helping to shape a generation of future voters,” Goldstein wrote in her piece last January. That is, politicians and activists hope to mold the country of the future by propagandizing the students of the present.

There’s no reason whatsoever to expect these battles to become less intense in the future. Americans are deeply divided over politics, values, and the perils they see in each other.

As of 2019, “55% of Republicans say Democrats are ‘more immoral’ when compared with other Americans; 47% of Democrats say the same about Republicans,” according to Pew Research.

“Most Americans (54%) now think that the biggest threat to their way of life comes from domestic enemies,” CBS News/YouGov found just last week.

If Americans were uncomfortable with the ways their political foes spun school lessons in the past, imagine their feelings about having classrooms under the control of immoral enemies!

The saving grace is that a growing number of Americans are leaving curriculum battles behind. As government-run schoolsoften in the grip of intransigent teachers unions struggle to deliver education of any sort, families flock to alternatives of their own choosing. Seeking either in-person teaching or else competent implementations of remote learning, students flee public schools for independently managed charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling variations including learning pods and microschools.

Many of those students may return to public schools after the pandemic passes to avoid greater effort and expense. But other families are expected to stick with their new education choices, out of disappointment with the performance of traditional schools as well as comfort with the new experiences.

The pandemic could permanently boost homeschooling “partly because people who haven’t really thought about it before suddenly saw themselves forced into [home schooling], and then realizing that it’s something they can see themselves doing,” Christopher Lubienski, a professor of education policy at Indiana University, told Education Week in November.

“COVID-19 is a catalyst for families who were already skeptical of the traditional school system—and are now thinking about leaving it for good,” agreed Emma Green in a September article for The Atlantic.

As those families leave the public schools for options of their own choosing, they’re not only selecting teaching approaches that work for their kids, they’re also picking curricula or, at least, learning environments with which they’re comfortable.

That’s exactly what troubles supporters of the education establishment such as Harvard Law School’s Elizabeth Bartholet. She favors a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling in part because families might teach their children “views and values counter to much of the education provided in public schools,” as she infamously argued last year in the Arizona Law Review. Ironically, Bartholet’s article appeared almost as The New York Times exposed the competing ideological biases in public school textbooks. And, within months, the public schools she champions buckled under the stress of dealing with the pandemic and families began looking for other education options.

Perhaps Bartholet’s knee-jerk rejection of family-chosen education would have been softened by more exposure to those alternatives. “Greater exposure to private schooling instead of traditional public schooling is not associated with any more or less political tolerance, and greater exposure to homeschooling is associated with more political tolerance,” according to research published in 2014 by the Journal of School Choice.

What a salve more tolerance could prove to be for a country divided into hostile tribes who view each other as immoral enemies. And what a lot of time and energy can be diverted from ideological wars to education when families choose their children’s lessons instead of fighting with each other over the content.

In the end, school choice may prove to be a path not only to better education but also to greater diversity of viewpoints and, perhaps, a little less conflict between people who think differently.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2M7Y9vc
via IFTTT

Gamespot Chaos: Stock Hits $365, Then Dips After Report Melvin, Citron Cover Shorts

Gamespot Chaos: Stock Hits $365, Then Dips After Report Melvin, Citron Cover Shorts

The “most-shorted” short squeeze, led by the infamous GammaStop Gamestop, continued overnight with our basket of most shorted names…

… exploding in the early hours and pushing GME as high as a record $365…

…. before the stock slumped following a report from CNBC that Melvin Capital, the nemesis of r/wallstreetbets, had “closed out its short position in GameStop on Tuesday afternoon after taking a huge loss” the fund’s manager Gabe Plotkin told CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin. It was unclear what exactly this meant: did Melvin merely sell its now worthless puts, or did it also have associated GME shorts on the underlying stock. We assume both.

Additionally, moments after the CNBC report, short-seller Andrew Leff’s Citron Research fund also announced in a twitter clip that it had covered most of its GME short yesterday around $90.

In the clip, Left admits his call last week for GME dropping from $40 to $20 was a mistake even though Citron Capital “is just fine”, and was cautiously deferential to the meme/WallStreetBets crowd. Some of his key quotes:

“I’m doing this video because I cannot answer one more phone call…”

“I’m just fine. Citron Capital is just fine. Covered a majority of the short in the $90’s…”

“I learned from Tilray, it was a killer. It went all the way back to $6. I expect the same thing from GameStop, but I have respect for the market. I also have respect for the people at the WallStreetBets Reddit message boards. Before there was WSB, there was Citron Research. We were the voice of the individual investor against the institutions.”

“I never got personal, I never got nasty, I never threatened a corporate executive or their shareholders. It was always business.”

“We’ll become more judicious when shorting stocks. It doesn’t meant the industry is dead, it means you have to be more specific.”

“When you make your profits, make sure you put some away for the IRS. That money is not all your money. But at the end of the year you do owe tax money.”

Left’s confession comes one day after telling Reuters that he usually he “does not usually smoke. But on Monday he had a cigarette to calm his nerves as shares of GameStop Corp, the stock he had shorted, continued to rocket higher.”

“If I had never been involved in GameStop and came to this right now, would I still be short this stock? 100 percent,” Left, who runs Citron Research and a hedge fund, told Reuters on Tuesday. “This is an old school, failing mall-based video retailer and investors can’t change the perception of that.”

Finally, it is worth noting that late on Tuesday, investor Michael Burry – who years ago went long Gamespot precisely on the basis that he expected a massive squeeze said in a now-deleted tweet Tuesday that trading in GameStop is “unnatural, insane, and dangerous” and there should be “legal and regulatory repercussions.”

Assuming that both of these entities are indeed out of the picture, the question now is how much of the massive short overhang remains. As a reminder, just two days ago we noted that “after all the chaos”, GME shorts were still a whopping 139% of the float, as new shorts came in to replace existing shorts who had covered.

In other words, while two big shorts may be out, countless others remain, among which of course is Maplelane Capital which as we exclusively showed last night, may well be the “next Melvin”, needing either a bailout or will be forced to sell its existing longs to cover margin calls.

In any case, after dropping as low as $180, it appears that the wallstreetbets crowd has renewed its effort and GME was last trading at $246, a level which could easily go much higher once today’s gamma vortex in deep OTM calls kicks in and dealers resume their delta-hedged chasing of the stock higher.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 07:24

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3iRmYY8 Tyler Durden

Viewpoint Diversity Will Get a Boost From School Choice

altopress064351

With Americans beset by multiple crises, there’s at least a glimmer of hope that one problemthe collapse of public schools under the stress of the pandemicmay offer a partial solution to another: the deepening political polarization reflected in bitter fights over lesson content.

As families flee government institutions that seem incapable of offering education of any sort, let alone one on which all can agree, they leave behind squabbles over what students are taught in favor of educational approaches and curricula that better suit their preferences.

“The books have the same publisher,” Dana Goldstein wrote just over a year ago in a piece for The New York Times examining textbooks in California and Texas. “They credit the same authors. But they are customized for students in different states, and their contents sometimes diverge in ways that reflect the nation’s deepest partisan divides.”

This was hardly the first time curriculum warstracked in detail by the Cato Institute’s Public Schooling Battle Mapmade the headlines. Michigan officials fought for years over such details as whether students should be taught that the country is a “republic” or a “democracy” and which amendments in the Bill of Rights should be emphasized.

“First, conservatives complained about a draft of new social studies standards for Michigan classrooms,” as Bridge, a local publication, summarized the debate in 2019. “Then, liberals complained about a rewrite of those standards that appeared to favor conservative views.”

Nor has the effort to politically mold classroom lessons faded away in the past year. In recent months, the exiting Trump administration added to the drama with a crude proposal embodied in its 1776 Report to promote “patriotic education” as a rebuttal to a curriculum derived from The New York Times‘s deeply flawed 1619 project, which emphasizes the roles of slavery and racism to the exclusion of other factors in the country’s history. The incoming Biden administration promptly reversed its predecessor’s efforts.

“The 1776 Report is a political document, not a curriculum,” Patrick Riccards concluded at the education-oriented The 74.

“The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around,” cautioned The New York Times‘s own Bret Stephens.

The reasons for the never-ending battles are obvious. “Classroom materials are not only shaded by politics, but are also helping to shape a generation of future voters,” Goldstein wrote in her piece last January. That is, politicians and activists hope to mold the country of the future by propagandizing the students of the present.

There’s no reason whatsoever to expect these battles to become less intense in the future. Americans are deeply divided over politics, values, and the perils they see in each other.

As of 2019, “55% of Republicans say Democrats are ‘more immoral’ when compared with other Americans; 47% of Democrats say the same about Republicans,” according to Pew Research.

“Most Americans (54%) now think that the biggest threat to their way of life comes from domestic enemies,” CBS News/YouGov found just last week.

If Americans were uncomfortable with the ways their political foes spun school lessons in the past, imagine their feelings about having classrooms under the control of immoral enemies!

The saving grace is that a growing number of Americans are leaving curriculum battles behind. As government-run schoolsoften in the grip of intransigent teachers unions struggle to deliver education of any sort, families flock to alternatives of their own choosing. Seeking either in-person teaching or else competent implementations of remote learning, students flee public schools for independently managed charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling variations including learning pods and microschools.

Many of those students may return to public schools after the pandemic passes to avoid greater effort and expense. But other families are expected to stick with their new education choices, out of disappointment with the performance of traditional schools as well as comfort with the new experiences.

The pandemic could permanently boost homeschooling “partly because people who haven’t really thought about it before suddenly saw themselves forced into [home schooling], and then realizing that it’s something they can see themselves doing,” Christopher Lubienski, a professor of education policy at Indiana University, told Education Week in November.

“COVID-19 is a catalyst for families who were already skeptical of the traditional school system—and are now thinking about leaving it for good,” agreed Emma Green in a September article for The Atlantic.

As those families leave the public schools for options of their own choosing, they’re not only selecting teaching approaches that work for their kids, they’re also picking curricula or, at least, learning environments with which they’re comfortable.

That’s exactly what troubles supporters of the education establishment such as Harvard Law School’s Elizabeth Bartholet. She favors a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling in part because families might teach their children “views and values counter to much of the education provided in public schools,” as she infamously argued last year in the Arizona Law Review. Ironically, Bartholet’s article appeared almost as The New York Times exposed the competing ideological biases in public school textbooks. And, within months, the public schools she champions buckled under the stress of dealing with the pandemic and families began looking for other education options.

Perhaps Bartholet’s knee-jerk rejection of family-chosen education would have been softened by more exposure to those alternatives. “Greater exposure to private schooling instead of traditional public schooling is not associated with any more or less political tolerance, and greater exposure to homeschooling is associated with more political tolerance,” according to research published in 2014 by the Journal of School Choice.

What a salve more tolerance could prove to be for a country divided into hostile tribes who view each other as immoral enemies. And what a lot of time and energy can be diverted from ideological wars to education when families choose their children’s lessons instead of fighting with each other over the content.

In the end, school choice may prove to be a path not only to better education but also to greater diversity of viewpoints and, perhaps, a little less conflict between people who think differently.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2M7Y9vc
via IFTTT

Israelis Say They Will Attack Iran If Biden Returns US To Nuclear Deal

Israelis Say They Will Attack Iran If Biden Returns US To Nuclear Deal

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Israeli officials have made their opposition to the Biden administration returning to the Iran nuclear deal known. Some have even threatened a military strike on Iran if President Biden revives the deal, known as the JCPOA.

An Israeli source affirmed this to Breaking Defense in an article published on Monday. “Israel needs to know — and fast — whether Washington plans to stop Iran’s race to the bomb or take some action to do this,” the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Israeli F-15 fighter jet, via Reuters

The source said that Israeli intelligence is monitoring Iran’s nuclear facilities closely. Israeli airstrikes on Syria were also mentioned, which have ramped up in recent months. “This pressure will continue and grow, as a preparation for a direct attack on targets in Iran,” the source said of airstrikes in Syria.

Israel always claims its airstrikes in Syria hit Iranian targets, but they usually strike Shia militias. Last week, an Israeli airstrike hit Syria that reportedly killed four civilians and destroyed three houses.

Earlier this month, Tzachi Hanegbi, an Israeli minister from the Likud party, made the most direct public threat against Iran. Hanegbi said that if the US returns to the JCPOA that “Israel will again be alone against Iran” and will attack Iran’s nuclear program.

Breaking Defense, its source, and Haneegbi all push the narrative that Iran is racing towards a bomb when that is not the case. One example they use is the fact that Iran recently increased uranium enrichment to 20 percent, which is still vastly lower than the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade uranium.

Despite the hype, the 20 percent enrichment has a civilian purpose. It allows Iran to make fuel rods for its Tehran Research Reactor, a facility that was built by the US in the 1960s that can produce medical isotopes.

Tehran Research Reactor

Another crucial piece of context left out of the Breaking Defense article is the reason why Iran started enriching uranium at 20 percent. Iran’s parliament passed a bill to increase enrichment after the November assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the prominent Iranian scientist who was killed in an apparent Israeli plot. So it was Israeli aggression that led to the increased enrichment.

Iran has maintained that it is willing to return to compliance with the JCPOA if the Biden administration lifts sanctions. Any more attacks from Israel could prevent Iran from decreasing enrichment levels.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 06:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2M7j9lL Tyler Durden

Wirecard Watchdog Reportedly Believed Company Was Victimized By Malicious Short-Sellers

Wirecard Watchdog Reportedly Believed Company Was Victimized By Malicious Short-Sellers

The head of Germany’s financial watchdog, BaFin, suggests that the people in charge of monitoring the situation at Wirecard – the FinTech darling whose collapse ushered in Germany’s version of the Bernie Madoff scandal, likely didn’t do an adequate job.

And after months of German Bureaucrats deflecting blame, it looks like the FT has finally pinned down Felix Hufeld, president of BaFin, who raised the possibility with Wirecard chairman Thomas Eichelmann, according to these sources, in a phone call that took place last June after the payments group’s auditor EY was informed by two banks that documents purporting to confirm the company’s cash position was nigh “impossible.”

Meanwhile, as tensions mount over supply shortfalls, BaFin warned that regulators failed, largely because Europe’s didn’t have a sense of discipline.

With the IMF’s Managing Director Georgieva warned that in Europe, people should be allowed to carry go It would mean that vaccines that leave the EU need a permit, so that at least we know what’s produced in Europe, what is leaving Europe, where it’s leaving Europe for, and we have a fair distribution.On the other hand, Valdis Dombrovskis, the EU trade commissioner, on Tuesday said that Brussels did not want to impose curbs on shipments but instead said companies should be forced to provide more information about where they were sending vaccine supplies. The commission hopes to table an “export notification instrument” by the end of the week. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, meanwhile, urged the EU not to impose export restrictions of any kind.

The documented incident shows how strongly BaFin clung to the notion that Wirecard was a victim rather than a perpetrator of fraud, even after EY refused to audit its 2019 results. For years, BaFin had dismissed reports of fraud at Wirecard and filed a criminal complaint against FT reporters, alleging they colluded in market manipulation.

Eventually, however, Hufeld finally was forced to acknowledge that EY had misled Wirecard, and that thousands of employees would be forced to pay the price.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 05:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2M9o0Tl Tyler Durden

UK Inc. & The Inexorable March To Scottish Independence

UK Inc. & The Inexorable March To Scottish Independence

Authored by Bill Blain via MorningPorridge.com,

“Welcome to your gory bed, or to victory..”

Monday night, Scots around the globe celebrated our national bard Robert Burns. We toasted his immortal memory in our number one export; Malt Whisky. We toldstories, sang the songs, rejoiced in our culture, and, inevitably, as always happens when (n+1) Scots gather, we dipsily ascribed all our many ills upon our neighbours, the English. 

Which is a wee bit unfair.

Blaming our problems on the Sassenach (the Saxons south of the wall) is classic deflection. The inconvenient truth is the dominant theme of Scottish history has been incessant betrayal, beastliness, pillage and genocidal mayhem against ourselves. Nor can we claim no one listens – for the last 300 year’s the influence of Scots on the UK has been vastly out of proportion to our <10% of the total UK population. We absorb an overly large amount of the UK’s political bandwidth.

The march toward independence in Scotland, and the likelihood of unification for Northern Ireland, will have profound influences on future UK investment themes – not all of which will necessarily be bad.  The last 1000 years of Scots/English rivalry has been about competition: the concept of four English speaking nations (a United Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales), independent, sharing common values, each with a penchant for inventiveness and innovation competing with other could well be a great thing. It’s not worked that badly between Canada and its southerly neighbour. 

But at the moment, it feels the UK is headed for yet another crisis. 

Yesterday I watched Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minster, the compellingly effective leader of the Scottish Nationalists, paraphrase Burns: describing hapless UK Premier Boris as a “wee timorous trembling beastie”, frightened by democracy and terrified to grant the Scot’s independence.

In May the SNP will win a majority in Holyrood, the Scots’ Parliament. They will demand another vote on Independence. Boris will refuse and the Nationalists will make a great deal of noise till they get their way – no matter how many neferendums that may require – till they finally get independence. The only fly in the ointment may be the SNP holding its own civil war. There was a good piece in the Torygraph explaining it all: “In spite of the independence plan is the civil war between Sturgeon and Salmond damaging SNP support?”

As a proud Scot I’ve a personal interest in whether we continue our manifest destiny as the Great of Britain, or do we abandon the union? Living in England I won’t get the vote…. Or will I? It’s often been said the most effective way to secure Scottish Independence would be to give the English the vote. 

For the SNP: it’s all about confidence – the confidence to make their narrative stick.

For the markets; it’s about the potential damage to UK Inc if UK Inc is dismembered. It’s not going to be a simple as a corporate divesting some worn out business units “Oop North” and focusing only on its core money making businesses in London. 

The conventional wisdom is the Scots would be mad to leave the Union. Just like Brexit, the naysayers say it would be economic suicide, the high-spending/low-income state model can’t possibly work, and the divisions within the single-purpose SNP will split into destructive factions once their goals are achieved. Just like Brexit – there are two possible outcomes: Scotland could well succeed independently, but it’s unlikely if it sticks to the path the SNP propose. 

Don’t assume the Scots will make a decision based on apparent logic. That would ignore the reality and the reasons for the SNP’s success – its deft playing of the Populism card. There is much they could teach Farage, Boris and Trump about how to play patriotism, a sense of being abandoned by London, economic discontent, and turning England’s Brexit into an imagined affront to Scotland.

The SNP’s success is demonstrated clearly in a weekend Sunday Times poll: 49% of Scots would now vote for independence. 40 years ago that number was in single digits. If they are denied another plebiscite, the SNP will use such a refusal to further gripe about a pernicious English government holding back the Scottish economy while denying them democracy. It will mean yet more wasted years of political bickering rather than solving the very real economic crisis across the whole UK: corporate and civil service bureaucracy, stressed health and education services, equality and social provision, and an increasingly beggared middle class. 

The SNP have played a long game. For decades they were a lunatic fringe party with a modest following of Tartan-Tories concerned at saving the nation from the imagined ravages of Socialist governments south of the border. There was a hankering for the return of Shortbread-Tin-Scotland of Kilts, Cabers, Tartans, Clans, Paternalism and the White Heather Club (really cheesy Scottish Country Dancing and Andy Stewart singing about Scottish Soldiers.) Some of the SNP’s founders were so right-wing they were detained during the last unpleasantness with Germany. 

In the 1970’s the SNP started winning a few seats, fielding popular mould-breaking left-wing firebrands in working class seats, and the simple economic strategy that Scotland’s economic future could be founded on Scotland’s Oil. But their greatest political boost came from Margaret Thatcher and her subsequent consignation of Scotland’s proud industrial base to the dust-bin of history.  It was a slow burn – its only in recent years did the SNP achieve breakthrough as Labour’s vote collapsed, now holding the majority of Scottish Parliamentary seats and dominating local elections.

Labour deserves the blame. Despite two Scottish premiers in a row (Blair then Brown) they failed to deliver anything to boost Scottish recovery. The SNP’s dominance at the polls is based on drawing together some very powerful populist threads over the last 20 years and then seasoning it with Brexit. Like all the best populist glamours, each is seeded with an element of truth: 

1) The English government’s responsibility for the destruction of the Scots economy since 1980 and the squandering of oil revenues has resulted in massive inequality, social deprivation and imbalances across the UK where London has been the sole winner. Blame London.

2) The apparent ongoing incompetence of Bumbling Boris’ government over Brexit and the Pandemic highlights London’s inability to focus upon, and address Scotland’s unique problems. Blame Boris.

3) That a better future for Scotland – which voted to stay in Europe – is to swap London for Brussels and become a part of the emerging European superstate. Blame the English electorate. Scotland and England are not aligned.

4) Small nations are more likely to succeed. Denounce anyone who says otherwise.

5) Deflect criticism for failings by blaming the English for everything. Blame England. 

It’s a pretty simple strategy – keep saying the same thing. Everything wrong with Scotland is the fault of England, its government and its people. Not our fault. Classic deflection and denial. It’s working. More and more Scots believe it.

If you try to address the SNP on point 3, they won’t tell you what benefits Scotland would get from joining the EU. Instead, they will focus on Scotland being removed from Europe without the consent of the Scottish People – 62% of Scots voted to stay, therefore that’s a clear mandate for Scotland to leave the UK, they say. 

The SNP don’t address what limited sense it would make for Scotland to put up a hard EU border with England – which consumes 60% of Scots’ exports. Scotland has nothing to gain from dumping England. Exports to Europe are a mere 18% of Scotland’s export economy. We export more to the US and the rest of the world than we do to Europe. Joining Europe (which would come with conditions), and using the Euro, will sentence the nation to years of structural adjustment – aka austerity – to meet ECB rules. But the SNP has persuaded many Scots voters the EU will be a better master than London.

There are solutions for Scotland. If the Scots want full independence give them some choices. I’m increasingly coming to view Independence is now inevitable so we ought to find a way of doing it well, and not in a rush. I’ve always had a hankering for working back home in Edinburgh.  Maybe there is job to be done establishing Scotland as a credible issuer in the Capital Markets and building its reputation as Financially Sovereign nation? Who knows… 

The effect on UK investments will be interesting. Getting rid of Scotland won’t do that much to improve English finances – everyone talks about how much Scotland costs, but it’s probably less than some of the equally run-down and depressed English regions. 

Perhaps the biggest danger would be the threat to the UK in geopolitical terms. Today Britain is still a G7 nation with pretensions to global superpower status as the Admiralty prepares to send Big Lizzy (our newish aircraft carrier) and its battle group on a tour round Asia to remind the Chinese to play nice. They might get there in time for the coming unpleasantness over Taiwan which seems likely to play up as the Chinese test the new Biden administration. The UK remains number 2 (after the US) in Nato, and we still bat big with the Commonwealth and global aid. 

Will any of these remain true if the UK splits, and if it does will Sterling and the UK remain a favoured investment? Much to think about.. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/27/2021 – 05:00

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

Brickbat: Malevolent Monarchy

thaiflag_1161x653

A Thai court has sentenced Anchan Preelert, 65, to 43 years in prison after she pleaded guilty to 29 counts of sharing and posting clips on YouTube and Facebook that were critical of the monarchy. This is the longest sentenced ever imposed by a court for violating the country’s lese majeste law. She originally faced up to 87 years in prison, but the court decided to be lenient with her because she acknowledged her crimes.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Muc8es
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Malevolent Monarchy

thaiflag_1161x653

A Thai court has sentenced Anchan Preelert, 65, to 43 years in prison after she pleaded guilty to 29 counts of sharing and posting clips on YouTube and Facebook that were critical of the monarchy. This is the longest sentenced ever imposed by a court for violating the country’s lese majeste law. She originally faced up to 87 years in prison, but the court decided to be lenient with her because she acknowledged her crimes.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Muc8es
via IFTTT