Author: admin

“Are You Humans Or Devils?” Chinese Woman Lashes Out At Authorities After Relatives Die From Virus

“Are You Humans Or Devils?” Chinese Woman Lashes Out At Authorities After Relatives Die From Virus

Authored by Olivia Li via The Epoch Times,

A local from Wuhan City videotaped herself lashing out at the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for the way it handled the coronavirus outbreak that has killed scores of people in China, including her own relative(s). The video was recorded on Jan. 26 and has since gone viral on Chinese social media.

There are several similar videos circulating on Chinese social media, and this woman is so far the only one who eschewed wearing a mask despite the fact that revealing her face could compromise her identity. But she did not reveal her name in the video.

Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei Province, is the epicenter of the deadly novel coronavirus outbreak.

Speaking in a local dialect, she asked angrily, “Chinese Communist Party, when are you going to step down? You promised us that Chinese people will enjoy ‘moderate prosperity’ in 2020, but what have we attained [from you] so far? We lost our relative(s) [because of you]!”

Because there is no plural form in the Chinese language, it is difficult to determine if she has lost more than one relative.

The term “moderate prosperity” has been used in CCP propaganda since the 2000s, when Hu Jintao was leader of China. At the end of 2019, regime propaganda chief Wang Huning launched a nationwide campaign proclaiming that the country’s 2020 plan is to “secure a decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects.”

“Tell me, what does it mean to achieve ‘moderate prosperity’?” the woman said. “What does ‘moderate prosperity’ mean to us when people have lost their lives? What on earth are you doing? What do we need such a government for? I beg you, please go away! Step Down! We need good leaders who can help us live a good life. We don’t need such a corrupt government.”

She pointed out that China’s economic prosperity is an illusion and the coronavirus outbreak could put more pressure on the economy. In fact, China’s GDP growth rate of 6 percent in the second half of 2019 was the slowest rate of growth since 1991.

“The soaring home prices and high cost of living have caused hardships for Chinese residents. And now so many people are dying. Everyone will get to see the economic bubble burst,” she said.

“You should bear the consequences of your actions. Do not implicate us ordinary folk. Now we are bearing the brunt of it, and we are being sacrificed for what you have been doing!”

She then asked, “What on earth are you? Are you humans or devils?”

Her video has been shared by many Chinese Twitter and Facebook users. Followers of her video highly praised her tirade. Some said they particularly liked her last question, saying “What a great question, asking Party officials if they are ‘humans or devils’—it is right to the point.”

Several followers commented, “Do not beg the CCP to step down. Overthrow the CCP.”

One of them said, “I heard people say the CCP is on the brink of collapse. Now I really believe it is true.”

Chinese Authorities’ Response to the Outbreak

The first group of whistleblowers of Wuhan pneumonia alerted their social media network on Dec. 30 and 31, revealing that hospitals in Wuhan had identified several cases of SARS-like viral pneumonia.

Wuhan police ordered those whistleblowers to meet with law enforcers at the local police department and forced them to sign an agreement that said they were “spreading rumors.”

Chinese medical authorities tried to downplay the severity of the outbreak and used statements such as “experts ruled out SARS,” “so far there is no clear evidence that the virus is transmitted by human-to-human contact.”

Even when the first explicit warning was issued on Jan. 20, China’s medical expert downplayed the situation by telling the public “limited human-to-human transmission” was confirmed.

Experts say the virus has a 14-day incubation period.

Between Jan. 1 and Jan. 20, the prime time for containing the coronavirus, residents of Wuhan were busy with holiday shopping and meeting with relatives and friends, in preparation for the Chinese New Year. Migratory populations in the city, nearly 5 million, mostly left Wuhan before Jan. 20 for the holiday.

As of now, the coronavirus has spread to all regions in China after Tibet recorded its first case on Jan. 30. Outside of China, more than 18 countries and regions have also reported confirmed cases of the coronavirus, including the United States, Italy, Germany, Canada, Finland, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 17:30

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

Four Thoughts on Travel Ban 4.0

Yesterday, President Trump signed a new entry ban, which I will refer to as Travel Ban 4.0. I have four tentative thoughts on the new proclamation.

First, Travel Ban 4.0 builds on Travel Ban 3.0, which the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii. Specifically, it articulates specific criteria by which countries would be assessed, and then determines whether a country meets those criteria. This proclamation discusses a lengthy, multilateral process between agencies, that weighed certain domestic and foreign policy considerations. We are far, far away from the slapdash approach of Travel Ban 1.0.

Second, critics of the policy will simply charge, once again, that this elaborate policy is a pretextual ruse. The policy is really motivated by the President’s animus towards Islam. The six new nations on the list have substantial Muslim populations: Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. And advocates will also rely on allegations that the President referred to certain African nations as “shithole countries.” Trump v. Hawaii relied extensively on the President’s public statements and tweets about Islam. In contrast, the “shithole” comment was purportedly made in a private meeting, and was reported subsequently by several attendees. FactCheck treats the statement as “disputed.” I long ago wrote that federal courts should not be in the business of fact-checking political statements.

Third, Travel Ban 4.0 employs a variegated strategy. With Travel Ban 3.0, the remedy was the same for all countries: nationals were banned entry. But for Travel Ban 4.0, the President chose different punishments. Nationals from all of these countries, who already have visas, will be allowed to use those travel documents. No one will be trapped at airports, like with Travel Ban 1.0. Rather, Nationals from four countries will not be allowed to apply for immigrant visas, which permit some sort of permanent residency: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria. Nationals from these four countries will still be allowed to apply for non-immigrant visas, such as as a tourist visas.  Nationals from two countries will not be allowed to apply for the diversity visa lottery program, also known as the “visa lottery”: Sudan and Tanzania. As far as I can tell, nationals from these countries can still apply for immigrant and non-immigrant visas. (I welcome corrections).

Advocates will raise a statutory argument: 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) only allows the President to deny entry. That provision does not allow the President to deny visa applications. I disagree. Trump v. Hawaii largely adopted an argument I advanced since the outset of the litigation: the power to deny entry includes the lesser power to block people from applying for visas. Chief Justice Roberts explained:

In any event, we reject plaintiffs’ interpretation because it ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA. Section 1182 defines the pool of individuals who are admissible to the United States. . . .

Sections 1182(f) and 1152(a)(1)(A) thus operate in different spheres: Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once § 1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility into the United States, § 1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits. The distinction between admissibility—to which § 1152(a)(1)(A) does not apply—and visa issuance—to which it does—is apparent from the text of the provision, which specifies only that its protections apply to the “issuance” of “immigrant visa[s],” without mentioning admissibility or entry.

I expect advocates will also argue that this policy is irrational: if these countries cannot verify a person’s identity, or are so dangerous, then why allow some nationals to enter on non-immigrant visas? Moreover, what does the diversity lottery have to do with national security? The response: the government need not act reasonably, only rationally. And this term of art, at least in the constitutional context, does not require a meaningful fit between the means and ends. There are enough justifications in this lengthy proclamation for the policy to easily meet constitutional and statutory scrutiny. For example, the proclamation offers this rationale to restrict immigrant visas, but not immigrant visas:

Consistent with the January 2020 proposal, I have prioritized restricting immigrant visa travel over nonimmigrant visa travel because of the challenges of removing an individual in the United States who was admitted with an immigrant visa if, after admission to the United States, the individual is discovered to have terrorist connections, criminal ties, or misrepresented information. Because each of the six additional countries identified in the January 2020 proposal has deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal, or identity information, there is an unacceptable likelihood that information reflecting the fact that a visa applicant is a threat to national security or public safety may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved.

Finally, the proclamation has a severability clause. If any one part is declared unlawful, the remainder will stand.

Fourth, some district court judge somewhere will enter a nationwide, non-party injunction, to block the proclamation as to all nationals of these six countries. And, shortly thereafter, I suspect the Supreme Court will stay the injunction. And the policy will go into effect. If five Justices (including Justice Kennedy) were willing to uphold Travel Ban 3.0, then five Justices (with Justice Kavanaugh) will likely uphold Travel Ban 4.0. And if President Trump is re-elected, I expect to see another, much broader travel ban issued. I suspect many more countries will be excluded from the visa lottery, a long time target of President Trump. That policy may ultimately be gutted entirely. The first step is to exclude a handful of countries from its requirements.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2S655Ia
via IFTTT

Four Thoughts on Travel Ban 4.0

Yesterday, President Trump signed a new entry ban, which I will refer to as Travel Ban 4.0. I have four tentative thoughts on the new proclamation.

First, Travel Ban 4.0 builds on Travel Ban 3.0, which the Supreme Court upheld in Trump v. Hawaii. Specifically, it articulates specific criteria by which countries would be assessed, and then determines whether a country meets those criteria. This proclamation discusses a lengthy, multilateral process between agencies, that weighed certain domestic and foreign policy considerations. We are far, far away from the slapdash approach of Travel Ban 1.0.

Second, critics of the policy will simply charge, once again, that this elaborate policy is a pretextual ruse. The policy is really motivated by the President’s animus towards Islam. The six new nations on the list have substantial Muslim populations: Burma (Myanmar), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. And advocates will also rely on allegations that the President referred to certain African nations as “shithole countries.” Trump v. Hawaii relied extensively on the President’s public statements and tweets about Islam. In contrast, the “shithole” comment was purportedly made in a private meeting, and was reported subsequently by several attendees. FactCheck treats the statement as “disputed.” I long ago wrote that federal courts should not be in the business of fact-checking political statements.

Third, Travel Ban 4.0 employs a variegated strategy. With Travel Ban 3.0, the remedy was the same for all countries: nationals were banned entry. But for Travel Ban 4.0, the President chose different punishments. Nationals from all of these countries, who already have visas, will be allowed to use those travel documents. No one will be trapped at airports, like with Travel Ban 1.0. Rather, Nationals from four countries will not be allowed to apply for immigrant visas, which permit some sort of permanent residency: Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, and Nigeria. Nationals from these four countries will still be allowed to apply for non-immigrant visas, such as as a tourist visas.  Nationals from two countries will not be allowed to apply for the diversity visa lottery program, also known as the “visa lottery”: Sudan and Tanzania. As far as I can tell, nationals from these countries can still apply for immigrant and non-immigrant visas. (I welcome corrections).

Advocates will raise a statutory argument: 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) only allows the President to deny entry. That provision does not allow the President to deny visa applications. I disagree. Trump v. Hawaii largely adopted an argument I advanced since the outset of the litigation: the power to deny entry includes the lesser power to block people from applying for visas. Chief Justice Roberts explained:

In any event, we reject plaintiffs’ interpretation because it ignores the basic distinction between admissibility determinations and visa issuance that runs throughout the INA. Section 1182 defines the pool of individuals who are admissible to the United States. . . .

Sections 1182(f) and 1152(a)(1)(A) thus operate in different spheres: Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens who are admissible into the United States (and therefore eligible to receive a visa). Once § 1182 sets the boundaries of admissibility into the United States, § 1152(a)(1)(A) prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant visas based on nationality and other traits. The distinction between admissibility—to which § 1152(a)(1)(A) does not apply—and visa issuance—to which it does—is apparent from the text of the provision, which specifies only that its protections apply to the “issuance” of “immigrant visa[s],” without mentioning admissibility or entry.

I expect advocates will also argue that this policy is irrational: if these countries cannot verify a person’s identity, or are so dangerous, then why allow some nationals to enter on non-immigrant visas? Moreover, what does the diversity lottery have to do with national security? The response: the government need not act reasonably, only rationally. And this term of art, at least in the constitutional context, does not require a meaningful fit between the means and ends. There are enough justifications in this lengthy proclamation for the policy to easily meet constitutional and statutory scrutiny. For example, the proclamation offers this rationale to restrict immigrant visas, but not immigrant visas:

Consistent with the January 2020 proposal, I have prioritized restricting immigrant visa travel over nonimmigrant visa travel because of the challenges of removing an individual in the United States who was admitted with an immigrant visa if, after admission to the United States, the individual is discovered to have terrorist connections, criminal ties, or misrepresented information. Because each of the six additional countries identified in the January 2020 proposal has deficiencies in sharing terrorist, criminal, or identity information, there is an unacceptable likelihood that information reflecting the fact that a visa applicant is a threat to national security or public safety may not be available at the time the visa or entry is approved.

Finally, the proclamation has a severability clause. If any one part is declared unlawful, the remainder will stand.

Fourth, some district court judge somewhere will enter a nationwide, non-party injunction, to block the proclamation as to all nationals of these six countries. And, shortly thereafter, I suspect the Supreme Court will stay the injunction. And the policy will go into effect. If five Justices (including Justice Kennedy) were willing to uphold Travel Ban 3.0, then five Justices (with Justice Kavanaugh) will likely uphold Travel Ban 4.0. And if President Trump is re-elected, I expect to see another, much broader travel ban issued. I suspect many more countries will be excluded from the visa lottery, a long time target of President Trump. That policy may ultimately be gutted entirely. The first step is to exclude a handful of countries from its requirements.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2S655Ia
via IFTTT

Soros Goes All In Against Mark Zuckerberg With Trump-Facebook Conspiracy Theory

Soros Goes All In Against Mark Zuckerberg With Trump-Facebook Conspiracy Theory

Billionaire George Soros is blaming Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg for helping President Trump win the 2016 election – completely ignoring that Trump’s 2016 digital director (and 2020 campaign manager) Brad Parscale simply outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton’s team when it came to social media.

“Facebook helped Trump to get elected and I am afraid that it will do the same in 2020,” Soros writes in a Friday New York Times Op-Ed, recounting a private conversation he says he had last week at Davos in which he argued “here is a longstanding law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — that protects social media platforms from legal liability for defamation and similar claims. Facebook can post deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and take no responsibility for them.”

Soros then claims that there appears to be “an informal mutual assistance operation or agreement developing between Trump and Facebook” in which “Facebook will help President Trump to get re-elected and Mr. Trump will, in turn, defend Facebook against attacks from regulators and the media.“

The 89-year-old Hungarian-born billionaire then argues that Parscale’s statement that Facebook ‘helped Mr. Trump’ constitutes “the beginning of a special relationship.”

Parscale, of course, was talking about the Trump campaign’s use of Facebook – not the misleading conspiracy theory Soros is peddling. A quote from Soros’s linked ‘evidence’ reveals just that:

Parscale said the Trump campaign used Facebook to reach clusters of rural voters, such as “15 people in the Florida Panhandle that I would never buy a TV commercial for”.

“I started making ads that showed the bridge crumbling,” he said. “I can find the 1,500 people in one town that care about infrastructure. Now, that might be a voter that normally votes Democrat.” –The Guardian

Soros then points to Zuckerberg’s September, 2019 Oval Office meeting with Trump, and subsequent comments made by the president, as more evidence of collusion.

He then writes:

Facebook’s decision not to require fact-checking for political candidates’ advertising in 2020 has flung open the door for false, manipulated, extreme and incendiary statements. Such content is rewarded with prime placement and promotion if it meets Facebook-designed algorithmic standards for popularity and engagement.

What’s more, Facebook’s design tends to obscure the sources of inflammatory and false content, and fails to adequately punish those who spread false information. Nor does the company effectively warn those who are exposed to lies. -George Soros

Separate of his private conversation, Soros said last week at Davos that “Facebook will work to re-elect Trump and Trump will protect Facebook,” adding “It makes me very concerned about the outcome of 2020.”

Two days later, Hillary Clinton told The Atlantic (from the Sundance Film Festival) that Mark Zuckerberg is an “authoritarian” who “intend[s] to reelect Trump.”

In response to Facebook’s decision to remove a slowed-down video of Nancy Pelosi meant to make her appear drunk, Hillary says: “I said, ‘Why are you guys keeping this up? This is blatantly false. Your competitors have taken it down. And their response was, ‘We think our users can make up their own minds,'” Clinton told the magazine, adding that Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend[s] to reelect Trump.”


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 17:00

Tags
Politics
Technology Internet

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UeaI9X Tyler Durden

What If…?

What If…?

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

What if bears were right all along? What if it’s not different this time?

What if this Fed liquidity inspired rally produced precisely the kind of exuberant final thrust we often see at the end of business cycles? After all, people were really bullish in 2007, people were really bullish in 2000, both final rallies inspired by easy Fed liquidity. In 2000, the Y2k bug, in 2007 giving us the subprime mortgage crisis.

What if this latest rally has produced exactly the same conditions we’ve seen during prior tops?

Be clear: I’m not calling for a top here, that’s a fool’s errand. After all so far all we’ve seen is a minor pullback off of very overbought conditions. Heck, tech hasn’t even begun to correct yet.

But yields keep dropping like a brick, as does the Baltic Dry index, small caps, transports, the banking sector never confirmed new highs, equal weight indicators suggest a major negative divergence inside a market that appears entirely held up by tech, and perhaps by only 5-10 highly valued stocks that are massively technically extended and control more market cap in a few stocks than ever before. At the same time we have a market more extended above underlying GDP than ever and now suddenly a potential trigger nobody saw coming: The coronavirus.

Look, the track record on viruses and diseases over the past 20 years has been clear: Any market impact is temporary and/or minimal at best. Look at SARS in 2003, $SPX rallied over 20% in 2003. But the backdrop was different. The US just came out of a recession and markets had bottomed in 2002. Markets in 2003 were at the beginning of a new business cycle.

This cycle here is old, and one could argue was merely saved again by a Fed going into full easing mode in 2019.

But given the fact that the Fed failed to normalize in the lead up to 2018 and was stopped dead in its tracks because of a 20% market correction and was forced to go back into full easing mode the concern is that the Fed just wasted precious ammunition.

My concern:

These very concerns now suddenly very much echoed at Citi:

None of us can know how this plays out, we can’t know when this virus will be contained and subsides. What we do know is that the economic impact is already real, flights are canceled, businesses are shutting down in China, etc.. To the extend that this is all temporary for a couple of weeks, fine, to the extent it drags on for months and the virus spreads quickly in other countries as well it’s not hard to imagine that a vastly richly valued market finds itself in trouble and with it: The global economy.

Markets, except tech, pretty much gave up all their gains in January with many indices now in the red. The potential good news for investors: Markets are approaching oversold readings and could be setting up for a bounce, and a larger relief rally if the news on coronavirus shows improvement, the bad news: Tech hasn’t even begun to correct and technical patterns suggest more downside risks.

And if bears have been right all along on the macro front, then rallies may well remain selling opportunities. And so far, strength in January has proven to be a selling opportunity on the larger market.

For now it’s a ‘What if” and confirmation remains outstanding and won’t come easy. But clearly some of the major banks are starting to ask similar questions.

For the technical chart review please see the market video below:

Please be sure to watch it in HD for clarity.

*  *  *

To get notified of future videos feel free to subscribe to our YouTube Channel. For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 16:30

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37QHodF Tyler Durden

‘Corpses Taken Directly To Crematorium’ – New Accounts Detail Grisly Operation At Wuhan’s Fifth Hospital

‘Corpses Taken Directly To Crematorium’ – New Accounts Detail Grisly Operation At Wuhan’s Fifth Hospital

Radio Free Asia (RFA) has tweeted a disturbing video on its Twitter account on Saturday morning detailing how those who died of coronavirus in Wuhan, the outbreak area in China, were loaded up on a bus and taken “directly to the crematorium.”

RFA said (in a translated tweet): “[Latest Situation of Wuhan Fifth Hospital] Some Wuhan citizens entered Wuhan Fifth Hospital on February 1st and found many patients who died of pneumonia. The corpses were packed directly to the crematorium. Paramedics are busy rescuing the dying patient.”

RFA’s video is in line with our report from Friday that said those who died of the deadly virus were hauled off to a crematorium in Wuhan by Chinese authorities.

DW News East Asia correspondent William Yang cited a report from the Chinese-language news outlet Initium, which said cremation facilities in Wuhan were receiving bodies directly from hospitals without proper identification and were excluded from the official record. 

“So, there are reasons to remain skeptical about what China has been sharing with the world because while they have been more transparent about certain things related to the virus, they continue to be sketchy and unreliable in other aspects,” said Yang.

“Without properly identifying these patients, which means there are patients who died from the virus but not adding to the official record. That shows the current death toll of 133 that we are seeing is way too low,” he said.

The closet funeral home/ alleged crematorium is right down the street from Wuhan Fifth Hospital.

We noted Thursday night that over 100,000 Chinese had been placed under observation for suspected coronavirus. 

The virus has uncontrollably spread across China, forcing the Trump administration on Friday to restrict entry into the US from the outbreak area. 

Putting the coronavirus in the context of the deadly SARS epidemic, the coronavirus pandemic has now officially exceeded SARS in cumulative cases in just two weeks.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 16:00

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

Justin Amash Outraises Democratic and Republican Opponents in Fourth Quarter

The fourth quarter 2019 campaign disclosure reports that were due at the end of January brought some welcome news for embattled independent Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.): Despite being abandoned by some of his biggest historical backers, the pro-impeachment libertarian raised more money and has more in the bank than any of the Democrats and Republicans gunning for his Grand Rapids seat.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Amash raised $595,000 over the last three months of 2019, or almost as much as all the Republican contenders for the seat combined. Supermarket magnate Peter Meijer brought in $313,000 ($75,000 of which was a loan to himself), DeltaPlex Arena owner Joel Langlois netted $212,000 ($200,000 of which was a self-loan), and state Rep. Lynn Afendoulis announced $113,000.

In the cash-on-hand sweepstakes as of the end of 2019, Amash led $722,000 to Meijer’s $557,000, Langlois’s $333,000, and Afendoulis’s $200,000.

What about the Democrats competing in MI-3? Social worker and immigration attorney Hillary Scholten raised $124,000, and had $207,000 cash on hand, while former Barack Obama aide Nick Colvin raised $101,000 and has just $60,000. Primaries for both major parties are scheduled for August 4.

The three-way race in this Republican-leaning but hard-to-characterize district has widely been seen by election forecasters as a toss-up or slight lean toward the GOP. When the Cook Political Report in December shifted its rating to lean-R, it cited Amash’s third-quarter cash-on-hand number of $273,000, arguing that that was “far less than the GOP nominee is likely to be able to spend.” Adding nearly a half-million to that pile in just three months might change that calculus.

Meijer and Langlois can indeed self-fund (Amash, in contrast, has not loaned himself any money), and Meijer in particular has last-name recognition due to his eponymous and popular supermarkets, but Amash has now shown that his spigot is not yet running dry. Both major parties are expected to pour money into the contest once the primaries are settled, giving a three-way scrum a chance at being among the most expensive in the country.

Reason has interviewed the self-described libertarian congressman several times over the years, most recently last July just after he left the GOP:

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

Justin Amash Outraises Democratic and Republican Opponents in Fourth Quarter

The fourth quarter 2019 campaign disclosure reports that were due at the end of January brought some welcome news for embattled independent Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.): Despite being abandoned by some of his biggest historical backers, the pro-impeachment libertarian raised more money and has more in the bank than any of the Democrats and Republicans gunning for his Grand Rapids seat.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Amash raised $595,000 over the last three months of 2019, or almost as much as all the Republican contenders for the seat combined. Supermarket magnate Peter Meijer brought in $313,000 ($75,000 of which was a loan to himself), DeltaPlex Arena owner Joel Langlois netted $212,000 ($200,000 of which was a self-loan), and state Rep. Lynn Afendoulis announced $113,000.

In the cash-on-hand sweepstakes as of the end of 2019, Amash led $722,000 to Meijer’s $557,000, Langlois’s $333,000, and Afendoulis’s $200,000.

What about the Democrats competing in MI-3? Social worker and immigration attorney Hillary Scholten raised $124,000, and had $207,000 cash on hand, while former Barack Obama aide Nick Colvin raised $101,000 and has just $60,000. Primaries for both major parties are scheduled for August 4.

The three-way race in this Republican-leaning but hard-to-characterize district has widely been seen by election forecasters as a toss-up or slight lean toward the GOP. When the Cook Political Report in December shifted its rating to lean-R, it cited Amash’s third-quarter cash-on-hand number of $273,000, arguing that that was “far less than the GOP nominee is likely to be able to spend.” Adding nearly a half-million to that pile in just three months might change that calculus.

Meijer and Langlois can indeed self-fund (Amash, in contrast, has not loaned himself any money), and Meijer in particular has last-name recognition due to his eponymous and popular supermarkets, but Amash has now shown that his spigot is not yet running dry. Both major parties are expected to pour money into the contest once the primaries are settled, giving a three-way scrum a chance at being among the most expensive in the country.

Reason has interviewed the self-described libertarian congressman several times over the years, most recently last July just after he left the GOP:

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

“If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?”: Bridgewater’s ‘Principles’ Don’t Apply To Ray Dalio

“If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich?”: Bridgewater’s ‘Principles’ Don’t Apply To Ray Dalio

Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio has been a fixture in the financial press for more than a year now as he has transitioned from running his firm to establishing himself as a media commentator and pseudo-prophet, loudly exhorting the public to heed his warnings about capitalism and its shortcomings. Economic inequality is an imminent threat to societal cohesion in the US, Dalio claims. And in a series of disorganized screeds published on LinkedIn and accompanied by charts that were presumably assembled on the fly by a team of Bridgewater analysts (since computers handle most of the actual investing at Bridgewater now), the billionaire has laid out his plan to repair the damage caused by decades of corporate greed (allegedly unleashed during the 1980s by Ronald Reagan’s free-market reforms).

Not only is Dalio’s plan hopelessly unworkable, and not only because it hinges on the emergence of a kind of mythical technocratic champion able to bend Congress to his or her will and push through a slate of reforms that would undoubtedly infuriate corporate America, all while preventing it from doing everything in its power to undermine the administration and its economic agenda in retaliation.

It’s unworkable because we tried all that. The answer to America’s ills isn’t more government giveaways – that’s what got us here. But politics aside, WSJ published a scathing deep dive in its weekend edition examining the turmoil at the top of Bridgewater, which has long been the subject of gossip and speculation in the industry. Dalio is 70 years old, but despite claiming that he’s not really responsible for the company’s day-to-day operations, WSJ reporters found that this isn’t true. Dalio is still very much in charge, and after a series of botched succession plans – which all fell apart because his handpicked executives eventually clashed with Dalio’s dictatorial style – it’s not exactly clear what Bridgewater’s plan is for the coming decades. 

Ray Dalio caricature courtesy of WSJ

These questions are being posed at a difficult time for Bridgewater: the firm was recently the target of a harassment complaint filed by a former employee, and last year its flagship fund badly underperformed the market, during a year that was a bonanza for most investors.

Most recently, Eileen Murray, a co-CEO of Bridgewater along with David McCormick, has announced plans to leave the company at the end of Q1. Her decision, announced in December, followed reports that she was in talks to take the top job at scandal-scarred Wells Fargo. However, that job went to former BNY chief Charlie Scharf, and it’s unclear what Murray has in mind for her next move.

Since then, there’s reportedly been some bad blood with Dalio.

Mr. Dalio – who is co-chairman and co-chief investment officer – at age 70 isn’t giving up real control over the business that helped him amass a $19 billion fortune. His word nearly always wins out in debates at Bridgewater on topics from management, staffing and investments to compensation, personnel and the wisdom of meeting with an autocratic head of state, say current and former employees.

Mr. Dalio repeatedly overruled Ms. Murray on whom to hire, fire and promote, according to the current and former employees. She has told several friends she was exhausted and couldn’t do the job anymore.

Ms. Murray is still negotiating the terms of her exit; Mr. Dalio wants to cut the value of her stake in the firm, according to some of the current and former employees. Bridgewater bars employees from independently speaking with the press.

According to WSJ, it all goes to show that all of Dalio’s preaching about ‘radical transparency’ is just that. Talk – at least where Dalio is involved. And that’s why his senior managers never seem to pan out. Because employees at the firm, from the most junior to the most senior, understand that it’s extremely risky to challenge Dalio about anything, lest he respond thusly. Several witnesses told WSJ that Dalio mocked an underling when he objected to Dalio’s plan to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Several years ago, Mr. Dalio arranged a conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss economic policy, said some of these employees. Employees expressed concerns about engaging with the autocratic leader, and Mr. Dalio told one that “if you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” according to people who heard the comment.

Mr. Dalio overruled the dissenters. Indeed, Mr. Dalio went on to meet with Mr. Putin several times in person, one of the people said. Other employees believed Mr. Dalio was right to discuss economic policies with Mr. Putin.

Representatives of Mr. Putin declined to comment, and Mr. Dalio declined to comment on the discussions. The company said it does not disclose “who Bridgewater people meet with.”

Would you look at that: Dalio, an ardent critic of President Trump, is a friend and routine business confidant of Putin. We’d be curious to see his FBI file.

Meanwhile, even the most senior employees like Dalio’s current co-CEO (who was just recently abandoned by Murray, his co-CEO) has reportedly complained about a kind of vindictiveness that Dalio displays toward departing employees that manifests in the form of frugality.

Dalio has reportedly worked to reduce senior employees ‘phantom equity’ to which they are entitled upon leaving the firm. However, the senior employees denied this to WSJ.

“He is so cheap,” Mr. McCormick told colleagues late last year, speaking about his boss, according to the contemporaneous notes of one person who heard the comment. “Not only did he want to sell the house but he wanted to get the nickels out of the couch.”

Mr. McCormick said the attempt to reduce his stake “did not happen and I did not make that comment.” He said he has a “terrific working and personal relationship” with Mr. Dalio. He also said “I never discussed a job at BlackRock.” A company spokesman added that Mr. McCormick “never discussed with Larry about leaving Bridgewater.”

Though as much as we might mock Dalio for his obvious hypocrisy and his laughably unimaginative plan to fix capitalism (hint, hint, hint: it involves raising taxes on the rich).

But there’s one thing about Bridgewater that nobody can dispute. The firm remains the world’s most successful hedge fund shop, with few qualified rivals for the crown. Surrounded by a sea of fakers, imitators and interlopers who together suffered some of their worst outflows in recent memory last year, Bridgewater continues to grow, and outperform, despite the flagship fund’s lackluster performance in 2019 (it outperformed by a wide margin the year before).

Since then, Bridgewater has delivered the biggest net gains of any hedge fund, according to a 2019 report from LCH Investments, a result due partly to Bridgewater’s large size. Its investors include endowments, public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. It manages about $160 billion, making it the largest hedge-fund firm in the world.

But in recent years, Bridgewater has been less than impressive. The flagship hedge fund, Pure Alpha, barely made any money last year despite a banner year for assets of all stripes, according to data reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. It bets on and against markets world-wide in an effort to stay ahead of macroeconomic trends.

A smaller fund called All Weather that makes automated, computer-driven trades gained 16.6%. That lagged the 21.7% return of a Vanguard Group fund that uses a conventional mix of 60% stocks and 40% bonds.

Mr. Dalio has described the investment performance as embarrassing in meetings with staff, according to people familiar with the conversations. The company said in a statement that “we don’t know of any such comment.” It added that “while Bridgewater’s alpha last year was disappointing to Ray it was within the range of expectations.” Mr. Dalio said in a statement that “there is a waiting list to invest” in Pure Alpha, which he said made 10% in 2018 when “most assets were down.”

While we’re sure Dalio will blast the WSJ for fabricating its reporting (he does this every time WSJ writes about him), it’s worth noting that the genius comics behind 1990s sketch comedy “Mr. Show” came up with a name for Dalio’s professed money-based value system.

It’s called Worthington’s Law.

It was created by David Worthington – a truly great man. Quite simply, the law stipulates that an individual’s intelligence and overall value to society increases along with his or her personal fortune. By this logic, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are two of the smartest, most honorable and beloved individuals in all of America. So are Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates.

Oh, and Dalio, of course – but we have a feeling you figured that out already for yourself.

But the billionaire hedge fund founder took a major hit last year when he gave $100 million to the State of Connecticut to improve its schools, step 1 in his plan to save capitalism. But Dalio’s ‘philanthropy’ was a massive PR blunder, and his reputation took a serious hit.

Don’t be like Ray, kids. Hoard your money.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 15:10

Tags
Business Finance

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

Fear Of The Coronavirus Is Spreading Like Wildfire All Over The Globe

Fear Of The Coronavirus Is Spreading Like Wildfire All Over The Globe

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

We haven’t seen an outbreak like this in any of our lifetimes, and it is really starting to frighten a whole lot of people.  This virus has an incubation period of up to 14 days, it spreads very easily from person to person, and it also appears to be mutating very rapidly.  For now, the vast majority of the confirmed cases are still in China, but the virus continues to pop up in more locations around the globe. 

In fact, on Friday we learned that the U.K. and Russia have both confirmed their very first cases.  This is obviously a very dangerous disease, and nobody is quite sure what is going to happen next.  But videos that are circulating on social media are fueling speculation that this could become a horrifying global pandemic of epic proportions.  In particular, a brand new video that shows a man that suddenly dropped dead on a street in Wuhan is causing quite a bit of fear and speculation…

Police in hazmat suits yesterday surrounded the body of a man who was found dead on the pavement at ground zero of China’s virus epidemic.

The grey-haired man collapsed and died while wearing a face mask on a street in Wuhan, a city of 11million people which is under quarantine amid the coronavirus crisis.

It is feared that the virus caused the man’s death, and the reaction of police and medical staff in forensic suits highlighted the fear pervading the city.

It is very important to stress the fact that we don’t know why this man died.  He could have just had a heart attack.  But when authorities showed up to collect the body, they were wearing “protective suits” and the entire street “was thoroughly disinfected”…

Although it’s not known if the grey-haired man died of the killer bug, it is clear from these pictures the authorities were taking no chances.

After being inspected the body was eventually zipped into a medical bag and carried into a van before the street was thoroughly disinfected.

Those who examined him were also sprayed down by colleagues after removing their protective suits.

Other videos that have come out of China have shown trucks spraying an unknown liquid on the streets of Wuhan.  Apparently authorities believe that this is going to do some good in fighting the virus.

Meanwhile, fear is also spreading rapidly in parts of the globe where only a few cases have been confirmed so far.

In the United Kingdom, surgical masks are almost totally sold out at this point.  The following comes from Paul Joseph Watson…

Surgical masks have almost sold out across the United Kingdom over fears of coronavirus despite the fact that there hasn’t been a single confirmed case of it in the country.

Pharmacy retailer Boots says that its six-pack of “safe & sound” surgical face masks is sold out, as is another box of 50 masks.

The company said it was “working to make additional stock available for customers to purchase in store and on boots.com which we hope will land over the next week.”

Of course a case has now been confirmed in the U.K., and that is only going to make the fear even worse.

In Australia, an argument between two mothers about the coronavirus became so heated that both of them ended up in the hospital…

The fight started between a pair of moms on a Sydney mothers’ group chat site and ended with the two in the hospital, according to police.

“The argument quickly escalated from verbal to physical; pushing, slapping, hair pulling and finally both on the ground, briefly unconscious, all despite the efforts of bystanders trying to intervene,” Northern Beaches Police said on Facebook Thursday.

As this outbreak intensifies, the amount of bizarre behavior that we are going to witness is only going to increase.

Fear is a very strong motivator, and an invisible killer virus that spreads very easily from person to person is going to cause a lot of people to really freak out.

Here in the United States, an entire school district in the state of Ohio was completely shut down on Thursday and Friday…

An entire school district in Ohio was shut down for two days this week after nearly 600 students called in sick, the district’s superintendent said.

All classes and after school activities at Three Rivers Local School District in Cleves were cancelled for Thursday, Jan. 30 and Friday, Jan. 31. because of a major flu outbreak.

We aren’t just talking about one school.  An entire school district kept students away for two days, and I can’t recall ever hearing about such a thing happen due to a flu outbreak before.

Could it be possible that 600 students all had the flu?

Sure, it is possible.

But what is more likely is that a lot of parents decided that their kids should “call in sick” once rumors started to fly.  Some of the students exhibited symptoms including “high fever, vomiting and body aches”, and those exact same symptoms are also associated with the coronavirus outbreak.  Cases of the virus are already starting to pop up all over the country, and it is certainly understandable that many parents would be overly cautious in this sort of an environment.

And the federal government has finally decided that being overly cautious is the right move for the nation as a whole.  In fact, just moments ago the Trump administration declared a public health emergency in the United States…

The Trump administration on Friday declared the coronavirus a public health emergency in the United States, and announced that certain foreign nationals deemed to pose a risk of transmitting the disease will temporarily be denied entry to the U.S. Some returning American citizens potentially at risk will be quarantined.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said that President Donald Trump signed an order for the U.S. to deny entry to any foreign nationals who have traveled in China within the past two weeks, aside from the immediate family of U.S. citizens.

This should have probably been done a week or two ago, but nobody really knew how bad this outbreak was going to become.  Over the last two weeks, the number of confirmed cases has gotten 236 times larger.  At this point it has become quite clear that something really big is happening, and governments around the world are starting to act.

Initially, the Trump administration didn’t want to alarm the public, but now it is safe to say that the public is definitely alarmed.  In fact, it is being reported that a lot of people are actually buying face masks for their dogs.

For several years we had been enjoying a period of relative peace, prosperity and stability, but now things are starting to change in a major way.

During the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, approximately 500 million people got sick and tens of millions of people died.

Hopefully this current outbreak will not evolve into that sort of pandemic, but if you want to see something that will really freak you out, just read what Zero Hedge just posted.

This does not appear to be an ordinary virus.

Global authorities are not disclosing everything that they know, and this is another reason why fear is spreading like wildfire.  Most people just want accurate information so that they can make good decisions, and from the very beginning of this crisis the information that we have been getting has definitely not been accurate.


Tyler Durden

Sat, 02/01/2020 – 14:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UiaC18 Tyler Durden