Key Events In The Coming Week: Here Comes The Worst Earnings Season Since The Crisis

Key Events In The Coming Week: Here Comes The Worst Earnings Season Since The Crisis

Tyler Durden

Mon, 07/13/2020 – 09:42

In looking at the week’s main events, DB’s Jim Reid writes that the week’s highlight is the EU summit on Friday where leaders will gather to discuss the recovery fund. In addition to this, we’ll also see the ECB, the Bank of Japan and others make their latest monetary policy decisions. Meanwhile, earnings season kicks off, including a number of US financials reporting. Economic data includes China’s Q2 GDP reading along with a number of June releases out from the US.

Looking at these in order of importance, the EU leaders summit in Brussels on Friday and into Saturday will discuss the recovery fund in response to the pandemic, as well as the EU’s new long-term budget. The baseline expectations from WS economists is that there will be a deal on the recovery fund at this meeting, but it remains a close call. If an agreement weren’t to be reached there, then they still expect one within weeks. It’s worth remembering that there are number of complex issues to be worked out, including the ratio of grants to loans, with the so-called “frugal four” of the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark looking for there to be loans rather than grants. Their support for the fund will be necessary as it requires the unanimous approval of the member states.

The ECB a day earlier should be a non event with maybe some focus on any comments from President Lagarde on the German Constitutional Court, now that the German Bundestag has passed a motion on proportionality. The BoJ meeting on Wednesday should also be a relatively tame affair. Also in the world of central banks the Canadian, Korean and Indonesian policy makers meet and the Fed release their Beige Book on Wednesday.

Moving on to data releases, the main highlight is likely to be China’s Q2 GDP release on Thursday. DB’s economists are expecting a notable rebound in GDP growth to +3% year-on-year in Q2, following the -6.8% contraction in Q1. At the same time, there’ll also be the release of retail sales and industrial production for June, where the expectation is for a jump in retail sales of +0.7% yoy in June (vs. -2.8% in May), and IP growth of +4.5% (vs. +4.4% in May).

Turning elsewhere, the US also has a number of data releases out next week, including an increasing amount of hard data for June. The highlights include the June CPI reading on Tuesday, before the industrial production number on Wednesday, retail sales on Thursday, and housing starts and building permits data on Friday, which should give us a clearer indication of how the economy has performed into the end of the quarter. Meanwhile the U.K. sees a number of data releases, including GDP for May, CPI for June, and unemployment in the three months to May. Another thing to look out for in the UK will be the release of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Fiscal sustainability Report tomorrow, which will present alternative scenarios for the economy and public finances.

Earnings season – which consensus expects to show the biggest EPS drop since the financial crisis – kicks slowly into gear as 32 S&P 500 companies report along with a further 57 from the STOXX 600. The highlights include PepsiCo today, JPMorgan, Citigroup and Wells Fargo tomorrow, UnitedHealth Group, ASML, Goldman Sachs, US Bancorp, BNY Mellon on Wednesday, Johnson & Johnson, Netflix, Bank of America, Abbott Laboratories and Morgan Stanley on Thursday and on Friday, there’s Danaher, Honeywell International and BlackRock.

Below are the key events day by day, courtesy of Deutsche Bank:

Monday

  • Data: Japan May tertiary industry index, US June monthly budget statement
  • Central Banks: BoE Governor Bailey and Fed’s Williams speak
  • Earnings: PepsiCo

Tuesday

  • Data: China June trade balance, Japan final May industrial production, UK May GDP, Germany final June CPI, Euro Area May industrial production, Germany July ZEW survey, US June NFIB small business optimism index, CPI
  • Central Banks: Fed’s Bullard speaks
  • Earnings: JPMorgan, Citigroup, Wells Fargo
  • Other: UK’s Office for Budget Responsibility publish their Fiscal sustainability report.

Wednesday

  • Data: UK June CPI, Italy final June CPI, US weekly MBA mortgage applications, July Empire State manufacturing survey, June industrial production, capacity utilisation, import price index, Canada May manufacturing sales, June existing home sales
  • Central Banks: Bank of Japan and Bank of Canada policy decisions, Federal Reserve releases Beige Book, BoE’s Tenreyro and Fed’s Harker speak
  • Earnings: UnitedHealth Group, ASML, Goldman Sachs, US Bancorp, BNY Mellon, Infosys

Thursday

  • Data: China Q2 GDP, June industrial production, retail sales, UK May unemployment rate, EU27 June new car registrations, France final June CPI, Euro Area May trade balance, Canada May international securities transactions, US June retail sales, July Philadelphia Fed business outlook, NAHB housing market index, weekly initial jobless claims, May foreign net transactions
  • Central Banks: ECB, Bank Indonesia and Bank of Korea policy decisions, BoE’s Haldane and Fed’s Evans and Williams speak
  • Earnings: Johnson & Johnson, Netflix, Bank of America, Abbott Laboratories, Morgan Stanley

Friday

  • Data: Italy May industrial sales, industrial orders, Euro Area final June CPI, US June building permits, housing starts, preliminary July University of Michigan sentiment, Canada May wholesale trade sales
  • Central Banks: BoE Governor Bailey speaks
  • Politics: Special European Council meeting commences in Brussels, where EU leaders will discuss the recovery fund and the new long-term EU budget.
  • Earnings: Danaher, Honeywell International, BlackRock

* * *

Looking at just the US, the key events this week are the CPI report on Tuesday, industrial production report on Wednesday, retail sales report, jobless claims report and Philly Fed manufacturing survey on Thursday, and the University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey on Friday.

Monday, July 13

  • 11:30 AM New York Fed President Williams (FOMC voter) speaks: New York Fed President John Williams takes part in a discussion at an event jointly hosted by the Fed and Bank of England. Prepared text and moderated Q&A are expected.
  • 01:00 PM Dallas Fed President Kaplan (FOMC voter) speaks: Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan will take part in a virtual discussion on the economy hosted by the National Press Club.

Tuesday, July 14

  • 06:00 AM NFIB small business optimism, June (consensus 98.0, last 94.4)
  • 08:30 AM CPI (mom), June (GS +0.74%, consensus +0.5%, last -0.1%): Core CPI (mom), June (GS +0.20%, consensus +0.1%, last -0.1%); CPI (yoy), June (GS +0.88%, consensus +0.6%, last +0.1%); Core CPI (yoy), June (GS +1.16%, consensus +1.1%, last +1.2%): We estimate a 0.20% rebound in June core CPI (mom sa), which would leave the year-on-year rate narrowly unchanged at +1.2%. Our monthly core inflation forecast reflects a rebound in apparel, hotel lodging, and airline prices, as well as second-derivative improvement in car insurance inflation following steep declines in the spring. We also look for flat-to-down used car prices. We estimate a 0.74% increase in headline CPI (mom sa), reflecting higher energy and food prices.
  • 02:00 PM Fed Governor Brainard (FOMC voter) speaks: Fed Governor Lael Brainard will discuss the economy and monetary policy during a webinar hosted by the National Association for Business Economics. Prepared text and moderated Q&A are expected.
  • 02:30 PM St. Louis Fed President Bullard (FOMC non-voter) speaks: St. Louis Fed President James Bullard will take part in a virtual discussion on the economy and monetary policy hosted by the Economic Club of New York. Media and Audience Q&A are expected.

Wednesday, July 15

  • 08:30 AM Empire State manufacturing index, July (consensus +8.4, last -0.2)
  • 08:30 AM Import Price Index, June (consensus 1.0%, last 1.0%)
  • 09:15 AM Industrial production, June (GS +4.6%, consensus +4.3%, last +1.4%); Manufacturing production, June (GS +6.0%, consensus +5.8%, last +3.8%); Capacity utilization, June (GS 67.7%, consensus 67.7%, last 64.8%): We estimate industrial production rose by 4.6% in June, reflecting a continued rebound in manufacturing output. We estimate capacity utilization rose by 2.9pp to 67.7%.
  • 12:00 PM Philadelphia Fed President Harker (FOMC voter) speaks: Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker will take part in a virtual discussion on the economic outlook hosted by the Center City Proprietors Association. Prepared text and audience Q&A are expected.
  • 02:00 PM Beige Book, June FOMC meeting period: The Fed’s Beige Book is a summary of regional economic anecdotes from the 12 Federal Reserve districts. In the June Beige Book, we look for anecdotes related to growth, labor markets, wages, price inflation, and the economic impacts of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak.

Thursday, July 16

  • 08:30 AM Retail sales, June (GS +4.9%, consensus +5.0%, last +17.7%); Retail sales ex-auto, June (GS +4.9%, consensus +5.1%, last +12.4%); Retail sales ex-auto & gas, June (GS +4.0%, consensus +5.0%, last +12.4%); Core retail sales, June (GS +2.5%, consensus +3.9%, last +11.0%): We estimate that core retail sales (ex-autos, gasoline, and building materials) rebounded by another 2.5% in June (mom sa), reflecting the reopening of the economy and as indicated by continued gains in credit card spending and other high-frequency data. We expect particularly strong monthly gains for restaurants and gas stations but less pronounced increases in the retail control categories. In fact, we estimate declines in the grocery and non-store categories. We expect a 4.9% increase in both the headline and ex-auto measures, given the rebound in car sales, gasoline prices, and gallonage.
  • 08:30 AM Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index, July (GS 27.5, consensus 19.1, last 27.5); We estimate that the Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index remained unchanged at 27.5 in July.
  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended July 11 (GS 1,300k, consensus 1,250k, last 1,314k): Continuing jobless claims, week ended July 4 (consensus 17,550k, last 18,062k): We estimate initial jobless claims declined but remain elevated at 1,300k in the week ended July 11.
  • 10:00 AM NAHB housing market index, July (consensus 60, last 58)
  • 10:00 AM Business inventories, May (consensus -2.3%, last -1.3%)
  • 11:00 AM Chicago Fed President Evans (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Chicago Fed President Charles Evans will take part in a virtual discussion at the Rocky Mountain Economic Summit. Audience Q&A is expected.
  • 11:10 AM New York Fed President Williams (FOMC voter) speaks: New York Fed President John Williams will take part in a webinar hosted by the Financial Research Advisory Committee. Prepared text and moderated Q&A are expected.

Friday, July 17

  • 08:30 AM Housing starts, June (GS +22.0%, consensus +20.9%, last +4.3%); Building permits, June (consensus +6.9%, last +14.1%): We estimate housing starts increased by 22.0% in June. Our forecast incorporates a large increase in building permits and stronger construction job growth.
  • 10:00 AM University of Michigan consumer sentiment, July preliminary (GS 78.5, consensus 79.0, last 78.1): We expect the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index edged up by 0.4pt to 78.5, as further reopening and stock market gains could potentially boost sentiment, while deteriorating virus news could weigh on sentiment.

Source: DB, Goldman, BofA

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WfQ7lN Tyler Durden

Homeland Security Acting Like ‘An Occupying Army’ Says Sen. Wyden, After Federal Agents Shoot Peaceful Portland Protester

Portland3

Federal law enforcement agencies “are surging resources” in protest areas. A young man was hospitalized Saturday and required facial reconstruction surgery after being shot in the head by an impact munition that federal agents fired into a crowd of peaceful protesters in Portland, Oregon. The agents were there to carry out a recent executive order, framed by the White House as a move to protect national parks and monuments.

Twenty-six-year-old Donavan LaBella was holding a speaker above his head across from the federal courthouse in downtown Portland when one of a group of camouflage-clad federal agents threw some sort of smoking, flashing canister at him. LaBella rolled the canister away from this feet, into an empty portion of the street, then held up the speaker again. Suddenly there was a loud bang, then some sort of impact munition (a.k.a. “firearm-delivered projectiles,” such as rubber bullets or bean bags) flying through the air. Then LaBella falls to the ground. Other protesters come to his aid and drag him out of the street.

Video captured the whole horrifying incident.

“An American has been shot and sent to the hospital for apparently exercising his right of free speech,” marveled Steven Strauss, a visiting professor at Princeton.

Donavan’s mom, Desiree LaBella, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that her son had sustained skull and facial fractures and had to have facial reconstruction surgery. As of Sunday morning, he was responding to doctors and able to move his arms and legs.

“Desiree LaBella said she planned to contact an attorney Monday for a possible lawsuit on behalf of her son,” reports Oregon Public Broadcasting. “She spoke to her son via computer late Sunday morning and said that while he was awake, doctors were monitoring his neurological condition and continuing work to drain blood from his brain.”

The U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement that it was “aware of the incident” and it was “currently being investigated.”

What happened to Donovan LaBella demonstrates “the consequences of Donald Trump unilaterally dispatching fed’l law enforcement into U.S. cities,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tweeted on Sunday. “Trump & Homeland Security must now answer why fed’l officers are acting like an occupying army.”

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official told NPR that hundreds of federal agents—including members of the U.S. Marshals’ Special Operations Group, as well as a Border Patrol Tactical Unit—had been deployed in Portland and elsewhere around the country as part of Trump’s June 26 executive order. DHS “sent officers to Portland; Seattle; Washington, D.C.; and Gettysburg National Park in Pennsylvania, according to a DHS official who spoke on background.”

At a military briefing in Florida last Friday, President Donald Trump asked for an update on protests in Portland, saying to the DHS head “we sent you there recently….And you people are handling it very nicely.”

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told Trump “we should have more support of the local police there. But again, the Department of Homeland Security, along with the DOJ, FBI and others are surging resources and we’re starting to make a difference there.”

NPR notes that “Wolf claimed there had been violence against officers in Portland. DHS later clarified Wolf was referring to fireworks shot toward officers as well as protesters pointing lasers at federal police. Several protesters in Portland were charged with assault on a federal officer because of those actions.”

FREE MINDS

Free press facing growing threats around the globe. Journalists around the world are facing governmental threats to their safety and freedom. “Power is consolidating power,” Maria Ressa, co-founder of the Filipino news site Rappler, told Ben Smith of The New York Times.

Smith looks at how “journalism that confronts power”—in the Philippines, Malaysia, Hungary, Russia, and elsewhere—is being thwarted and those writing and publishing it are being attacked:

Ms. Ressa [who was convicted under a new “cyber libel” law] is awaiting her appeal. Lina Attalah, the editor in chief of one of Egypt’s few remaining independent voices, Mada Masr, was arrested while interviewing an activist in May and is also out on bail. A Meduza correspondent was held by police in Moscow for two nights on trumped-up drug charges last summer.

“They are the little Gaulish village holding out against Rome,” marveled Naresh Fernandes, the editor and co-founder of Scroll, an Indian news site. Scroll, like the Hong Kong Free Press, represents a different strain in the current crisis for independent media—both are digital outlets in countries now rolling back their once-robust free press traditions….

The attacks on them are a tribute to their power, to an independence that reflects the best promise of the internet and to the threats they pose to corrupt and autocratic leaders.

More here.

FREE MARKETS

Get government out of marriage licensing.

QUICK HITS

• Fiona Apple speaks out for people in prisons wracked by COVID-19:

• President Donald Trump donned a mask in public for the first time over the weekend. “It’s really essential to wear masks,” Admiral Adm. Brett Giroir, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and human Services, told ABC’s This Week. “We have to have like 90 percent of people wearing the masks in public in the hot spot areas. If we don’t have that, we will not get control of the virus.”

• Jerome Adams of the U.S. Public Health Service—who started the pandemic telling people that masks didn’t work—has changed his tune, telling Face the Nation that “once upon a time, we prescribed cigarettes for asthmatics, and leeches and cocaine and heroin for people as medical treatments….When we learn better, we do better.”

• Florida continued to report bad COVID-19 numbers over the weekend:

• A somber look at the decline of U.S. newspapers.

• Mike Masnick with an interesting and nuanced take on the Harper‘s letter.

• “The practice of civil asset forfeiture in contemporary times has its roots in the War on Drugs, and is often defended on the grounds that it’s necessary to seize ill-gotten assets from drug lords. But in reality, the practice often sweeps up either completely innocent people or those only peripherally related to criminal activity,” writes the Orange County Register editorial board.

• Protecting and serving:

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

Oregon Law Punishes People for Calling the Police, If a Court Finds They Had a Bad Motive —

Oregon Statutes § 30.845, enacted last year, creates a new “Civil action for using the police against another person with intent to harm”:

(1) A person may bring a civil action for damages against any person who knowingly causes a police officer to arrive at a location to contact another person with the intent to:
(a) Infringe on the other person’s rights under the Oregon or United States Constitutions;
(b) Unlawfully discriminate against the other person;
(c) Cause the other person to feel harassed, humiliated or embarrassed;
(d) Cause the other person to be expelled from a place in which the other person is lawfully located; or
(e) Damage the other person’s:
(A) Reputation or standing within the community; or
(B) Financial, economic, consumer or business prospects or interests.

(2) Upon prevailing in an action under this section, the plaintiff may recover … [compensatory] damages, including damages for emotional distress … [p]unitive damages … [and] reasonable attorney fees ….

Note, though, what the statute (and similar proposals in some other states, such as my own California), omits: Any requirement that the defendant had made any false statement in the report. Yes, even calling the police about someone who you have reason to suspect is committing a crime—indeed, about someone who actually is committing a crime—can expose you to liability if the court concludes that you had a bad motive.

That’s especially clear under subsections (1)(c) and (1)(e). Say, for instance, that Paul hits Donna, or vandalizes her property. Donna calls the police, precisely because she wants to get back at Paul: She wants him to feel embarrassed or humiliated by being arrested, and wants the arrest to damage Paul’s standing in the community or business prospects. Under the plain text of the statute, Donna would be liable.

And of course this would apply to a wide range of other crimes. Lots of people who are genuinely upset by criminal behavior may understandably want the criminals to likewise be upset by being arrested.

The California proposal would limit this to 911 calls “motivated by [a person’s] race, religion, sex, or any other protected status” (and would also authorize statutory damages of up to $10,000, even if there are no actual damages). But there too if you call 911 and perfectly accurately report a crime (or an apparent crime), you’d be opening yourself up to liability if a court finds (by a mere 51% of the evidence) that you were in part motivated by the suspected criminal’s “protected status.”

A bad idea, I think, and an unconstitutional one. The Petition Clause of the First Amendment protects people’s right to call the police; and while “sham” complaints are constitutionally unprotected, that exception is limited to complaints that are both subjectively ill-motivated and objectively baseless. Criminalizing knowingly false reports of crime is constitutional; so is making them civilly actionable, as they already are in many states, generally as defamation. But imposing liability for accurate reports of crime, or for opinions (“there’s someone out here who looks suspicious”), is unconstitutional, regardless of the speaker’s motivation.

More broadly, calling 911 is often something that we often want people to do out of public-spiritedness, with little direct benefit to themselves. If you hear a neighbor shouting at his girlfriend, you might call the police just because you think the girlfriend might be in danger; you might not know for sure, but your plan is would be to give the information to the police and let them figure it out.

Say, though, that there’s a news story about someone else who made that sort of call, and was then sued by the angry neighbor, who claimed that the caller was motivated by the neighbor’s sex or race or ethnicity or religion or mental disability or some such. Would you be willing to risk the same consequences? Or would that be just another reason not to get involved?

(I focus on subsections (1)(c) and (e) here because subsections (1)(a), (b), and (d) at least seem to generally require deliberate attempts to bring about otherwise unlawful behavior. Subsections (1)(c) and (e), though, lack any such limitations. Note also that I assume that, in the phrase, “any person who knowingly causes a police officer to arrive at a location to contact another person with the intent to …,” “with the intent to” refers to the caller’s intent, not the police officer’s intent; how would the caller know the intent of the police officer who will end up being dispatched?)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32dcdt2
via IFTTT

The 16 Leading Cases from OT 2019

Every year, Randy and I prepare edited version of new cases for our casebook’s supplement. This year, I decided to edit cases the day them come out. That process forced me to digest a decision, in its entirety, before writing about it. I was able to keep to my plan for all cases but one. (I only finished Mazars the morning after it was issued).

This term was chock full of blockbusters. We will be adding sixteen cases to the supplement (in rough alphabetical order). I’ve added links to the PDFs below:

  1. Allen v. Cooper (11th Amendment)
  2. Barr v. AAPC (1st Amendment)
  3. Bostock (Title VII, LGBT)
  4. Chiafalo v. Washington (Faithless Electors)
  5. DHS v. Regents (DACA)
  6. Espinoza (Free Exercise/Establishment Clause)
  7. June Medical (Abortion)
  8. Little Sisters of the Poor (Admin/RFRA)
  9. Mazars (Congressional presidential subpoenas)
  10. NYS Rifle & Pistol (Mootness, 2nd Amendment)
  11. Our Lady of Guadalupe (Free Exercise, Ministerial Exception)
  12. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (Appointments Clause)
  13. Rogers v. Grewal (2nd Amendment)
  14. Seila Law (Appointments Clause)
  15. Thuraissigiam (Suspension Clause)
  16. Vance (State presidential subpoenas)

Most terms, the Court decides 2 or 3 cases that warrant inclusion in a casebook. This term, about half of these cases will make it to the casebook. Our Fourth Edition is slated for publication in December 2021. Stay tuned!

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

Homeland Security Acting Like ‘An Occupying Army’ Says Sen. Wyden, After Federal Agents Shoot Peaceful Portland Protester

Portland3

Federal law enforcement agencies “are surging resources” in protest areas. A young man was hospitalized Saturday and required facial reconstruction surgery after being shot in the head by an impact munition that federal agents fired into a crowd of peaceful protesters in Portland, Oregon. The agents were there to carry out a recent executive order, framed by the White House as a move to protect national parks and monuments.

Twenty-six-year-old Donavan LaBella was holding a speaker above his head across from the federal courthouse in downtown Portland when one of a group of camouflage-clad federal agents threw some sort of smoking, flashing canister at him. LaBella rolled the canister away from this feet, into an empty portion of the street, then held up the speaker again. Suddenly there was a loud bang, then some sort of impact munition (a.k.a. “firearm-delivered projectiles,” such as rubber bullets or bean bags) flying through the air. Then LaBella falls to the ground. Other protesters come to his aid and drag him out of the street.

Video captured the whole horrifying incident.

“An American has been shot and sent to the hospital for apparently exercising his right of free speech,” marveled Steven Strauss, a visiting professor at Princeton.

Donavan’s mom, Desiree LaBella, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that her son had sustained skull and facial fractures and had to have facial reconstruction surgery. As of Sunday morning, he was responding to doctors and able to move his arms and legs.

“Desiree LaBella said she planned to contact an attorney Monday for a possible lawsuit on behalf of her son,” reports Oregon Public Broadcasting. “She spoke to her son via computer late Sunday morning and said that while he was awake, doctors were monitoring his neurological condition and continuing work to drain blood from his brain.”

The U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement that it was “aware of the incident” and it was “currently being investigated.”

What happened to Donovan LaBella demonstrates “the consequences of Donald Trump unilaterally dispatching fed’l law enforcement into U.S. cities,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tweeted on Sunday. “Trump & Homeland Security must now answer why fed’l officers are acting like an occupying army.”

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official told NPR that hundreds of federal agents—including members of the U.S. Marshals’ Special Operations Group, as well as a Border Patrol Tactical Unit—had been deployed in Portland and elsewhere around the country as part of Trump’s June 26 executive order. DHS “sent officers to Portland; Seattle; Washington, D.C.; and Gettysburg National Park in Pennsylvania, according to a DHS official who spoke on background.”

At a military briefing in Florida last Friday, President Donald Trump asked for an update on protests in Portland, saying to the DHS head “we sent you there recently….And you people are handling it very nicely.”

Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf told Trump “we should have more support of the local police there. But again, the Department of Homeland Security, along with the DOJ, FBI and others are surging resources and we’re starting to make a difference there.”

NPR notes that “Wolf claimed there had been violence against officers in Portland. DHS later clarified Wolf was referring to fireworks shot toward officers as well as protesters pointing lasers at federal police. Several protesters in Portland were charged with assault on a federal officer because of those actions.”

FREE MINDS

Free press facing growing threats around the globe. Journalists around the world are facing governmental threats to their safety and freedom. “Power is consolidating power,” Maria Ressa, co-founder of the Filipino news site Rappler, told Ben Smith of The New York Times.

Smith looks at how “journalism that confronts power”—in the Philippines, Malaysia, Hungary, Russia, and elsewhere—is being thwarted and those writing and publishing it are being attacked:

Ms. Ressa [who was convicted under a new “cyber libel” law] is awaiting her appeal. Lina Attalah, the editor in chief of one of Egypt’s few remaining independent voices, Mada Masr, was arrested while interviewing an activist in May and is also out on bail. A Meduza correspondent was held by police in Moscow for two nights on trumped-up drug charges last summer.

“They are the little Gaulish village holding out against Rome,” marveled Naresh Fernandes, the editor and co-founder of Scroll, an Indian news site. Scroll, like the Hong Kong Free Press, represents a different strain in the current crisis for independent media—both are digital outlets in countries now rolling back their once-robust free press traditions….

The attacks on them are a tribute to their power, to an independence that reflects the best promise of the internet and to the threats they pose to corrupt and autocratic leaders.

More here.

FREE MARKETS

Get government out of marriage licensing.

QUICK HITS

• Fiona Apple speaks out for people in prisons wracked by COVID-19:

• President Donald Trump donned a mask in public for the first time over the weekend. “It’s really essential to wear masks,” Admiral Adm. Brett Giroir, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and human Services, told ABC’s This Week. “We have to have like 90 percent of people wearing the masks in public in the hot spot areas. If we don’t have that, we will not get control of the virus.”

• Jerome Adams of the U.S. Public Health Service—who started the pandemic telling people that masks didn’t work—has changed his tune, telling Face the Nation that “once upon a time, we prescribed cigarettes for asthmatics, and leeches and cocaine and heroin for people as medical treatments….When we learn better, we do better.”

• Florida continued to report bad COVID-19 numbers over the weekend:

• A somber look at the decline of U.S. newspapers.

• Mike Masnick with an interesting and nuanced take on the Harper‘s letter.

• “The practice of civil asset forfeiture in contemporary times has its roots in the War on Drugs, and is often defended on the grounds that it’s necessary to seize ill-gotten assets from drug lords. But in reality, the practice often sweeps up either completely innocent people or those only peripherally related to criminal activity,” writes the Orange County Register editorial board.

• Protecting and serving:

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

Oregon Law Punishes People for Calling the Police, If a Court Finds They Had a Bad Motive —

Oregon Statutes § 30.845, enacted last year, creates a new “Civil action for using the police against another person with intent to harm”:

(1) A person may bring a civil action for damages against any person who knowingly causes a police officer to arrive at a location to contact another person with the intent to:
(a) Infringe on the other person’s rights under the Oregon or United States Constitutions;
(b) Unlawfully discriminate against the other person;
(c) Cause the other person to feel harassed, humiliated or embarrassed;
(d) Cause the other person to be expelled from a place in which the other person is lawfully located; or
(e) Damage the other person’s:
(A) Reputation or standing within the community; or
(B) Financial, economic, consumer or business prospects or interests.

(2) Upon prevailing in an action under this section, the plaintiff may recover … [compensatory] damages, including damages for emotional distress … [p]unitive damages … [and] reasonable attorney fees ….

Note, though, what the statute (and similar proposals in some other states, such as my own California), omits: Any requirement that the defendant had made any false statement in the report. Yes, even calling the police about someone who you have reason to suspect is committing a crime—indeed, about someone who actually is committing a crime—can expose you to liability if the court concludes that you had a bad motive.

That’s especially clear under subsections (1)(c) and (1)(e). Say, for instance, that Paul hits Donna, or vandalizes her property. Donna calls the police, precisely because she wants to get back at Paul: She wants him to feel embarrassed or humiliated by being arrested, and wants the arrest to damage Paul’s standing in the community or business prospects. Under the plain text of the statute, Donna would be liable.

And of course this would apply to a wide range of other crimes. Lots of people who are genuinely upset by criminal behavior may understandably want the criminals to likewise be upset by being arrested.

The California proposal would limit this to 911 calls “motivated by [a person’s] race, religion, sex, or any other protected status” (and would also authorize statutory damages of up to $10,000, even if there are no actual damages). But there too if you call 911 and perfectly accurately report a crime (or an apparent crime), you’d be opening yourself up to liability if a court finds (by a mere 51% of the evidence) that you were in part motivated by the suspected criminal’s “protected status.”

A bad idea, I think, and an unconstitutional one. The Petition Clause of the First Amendment protects people’s right to call the police; and while “sham” complaints are constitutionally unprotected, that exception is limited to complaints that are both subjectively ill-motivated and objectively baseless. Criminalizing knowingly false reports of crime is constitutional; so is making them civilly actionable, as they already are in many states, generally as defamation. But imposing liability for accurate reports of crime, or for opinions (“there’s someone out here who looks suspicious”), is unconstitutional, regardless of the speaker’s motivation.

More broadly, calling 911 is often something that we often want people to do out of public-spiritedness, with little direct benefit to themselves. If you hear a neighbor shouting at his girlfriend, you might call the police just because you think the girlfriend might be in danger; you might not know for sure, but your plan is would be to give the information to the police and let them figure it out.

Say, though, that there’s a news story about someone else who made that sort of call, and was then sued by the angry neighbor, who claimed that the caller was motivated by the neighbor’s sex or race or ethnicity or religion or mental disability or some such. Would you be willing to risk the same consequences? Or would that be just another reason not to get involved?

(I focus on subsections (1)(c) and (e) here because subsections (1)(a), (b), and (d) at least seem to generally require deliberate attempts to bring about otherwise unlawful behavior. Subsections (1)(c) and (e), though, lack any such limitations. Note also that I assume that, in the phrase, “any person who knowingly causes a police officer to arrive at a location to contact another person with the intent to …,” “with the intent to” refers to the caller’s intent, not the police officer’s intent; how would the caller know the intent of the police officer who will end up being dispatched?)

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32dcdt2
via IFTTT

The 16 Leading Cases from OT 2019

Every year, Randy and I prepare edited version of new cases for our casebook’s supplement. This year, I decided to edit cases the day them come out. That process forced me to digest a decision, in its entirety, before writing about it. I was able to keep to my plan for all cases but one. (I only finished Mazars the morning after it was issued).

This term was chock full of blockbusters. We will be adding sixteen cases to the supplement (in rough alphabetical order). I’ve added links to the PDFs below:

  1. Allen v. Cooper (11th Amendment)
  2. Barr v. AAPC (1st Amendment)
  3. Bostock (Title VII, LGBT)
  4. Chiafalo v. Washington (Faithless Electors)
  5. DHS v. Regents (DACA)
  6. Espinoza (Free Exercise/Establishment Clause)
  7. June Medical (Abortion)
  8. Little Sisters of the Poor (Admin/RFRA)
  9. Mazars (Congressional presidential subpoenas)
  10. NYS Rifle & Pistol (Mootness, 2nd Amendment)
  11. Our Lady of Guadalupe (Free Exercise, Ministerial Exception)
  12. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (Appointments Clause)
  13. Rogers v. Grewal (2nd Amendment)
  14. Seila Law (Appointments Clause)
  15. Thuraissigiam (Suspension Clause)
  16. Vance (State presidential subpoenas)

Most terms, the Court decides 2 or 3 cases that warrant inclusion in a casebook. This term, about half of these cases will make it to the casebook. Our Fourth Edition is slated for publication in December 2021. Stay tuned!

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

How do Presidents React to Presidential Subpoenas?

Two centuries apart, two presidents were subjected to presidential subpoenas. During the trials of Aaron Burr, Chief Justice Marshall directed subpoenas at President Jefferson. In response, President Jefferson gave very specific instructions to his U.S. Attorney, George Hay. Here is an excerpt from my new essay:

The President gave his U.S. Attorney a warning: if the Chief Justice “contrary to expectation, proceed to issue any process which should involve any act of force to be committed on the persons of the [Executive] or heads of [departments], I must desire you to give me instant notice.” In such a case, the U.S. Attorney should “advise the [U.S.] marshal on [the Chief Justice’s] conduct, as he will be critically placed between us.” Jefferson wrote that the “safest way” for the marshal “will be to take no part in the exercise of any act of force ordered in this case.” Why? “[T]he powers given to the [Executive] by the [Constitution] are sufficient to protect the other branches from judiciary usurpation of preeminence, & every individual also from judiciary vengeance.” Jefferson continued that “the marshal may be assured of its effective exercise to cover him.” After issuing this threat, Jefferson expressed his “hope . . . that the discretion of the C. J. will suffer this question to lie over for the present.” Indeed, at the “ensuing session of the legislature,” Jefferson noted, Congress should consider legislation that would “giv[e] to individuals the benefit of the testimony of the [Executive] functionaries in proper cases, without breaking up the government.” Jefferson expressed his hope that Marshall would not “assume to divide his court and procure a truce at [last] in as critical a conjuncture.”

Later, Jefferson wrote:

He was indignant at Marshall: “these whole proceedings will be laid before Congress that they may decide, whether the defect has been in the evidence of guilt, or in the law, or in the application of the law, and that they may provide the proper remedy for the past & the future.” In other words, the record should be preserved to form the basis of articles of impeachment against the Chief Justice. Despite his bluster, there is no record that Jefferson actually sought to impeach Marshall based on the Burr case.

Last week, President Trump took to Twitter in response to Trump v. Vance. He tweeted:

The New York Times reported that President Trump felt betrayed that his appointees voted against him.

Like his predecessors, Mr. Trump was unhappy with the rulings, although aides sought to calm him by assuring him that he could continue fighting in lower courts. But he expressed deep anger at Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, seeing their votes as a betrayal, according to a person familiar with his reaction.

But the two justices only followed in the footsteps of their predecessors by rejecting the president who put them on the court. While each of them has generally sided with Mr. Trump since taking office, in this case they drew a line. Neither is personally close to Mr. Trump nor is either thought to be much of an admirer of the president, so some saw the decision as a way to distance themselves.

Lee Epstein described Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, plus the Chief, as the Court’s “soft middle.”

The separate concurrence in Vance from Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch warrants a more careful study. In due course.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ATZz6Z
via IFTTT

Chinese Smartphone Shipments Slump In June, Casting Doubts On Economic Revival

Chinese Smartphone Shipments Slump In June, Casting Doubts On Economic Revival

Tyler Durden

Mon, 07/13/2020 – 09:20

Smartphone shipment data from China suggests consumers are weighing on overall economic growth, reducing the odds of a “V-shaped” recovery.

Smartphone shipments in the world’s second-largest economy fell 16% Y/Y in June, according to China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT). 

Reuters notes smartphone demand in China “remains lukewarm despite the country’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.”  

CAICT said phone manufacturers shipped 27.7 million units in June, down from 32.7 million in the same month last year. June’s disappointing decline follows -10% in May, from 36.4 million in May 2019 to 32.6 million in May 2020. 

After a slump in smartphone shipments in 1Q20, due to virus-related shutdowns across the Asian country, April numbers rebounded and grew 17% annually.

We noted in May that US credit card data showed Apple recorded a “shape decline” in iPhone sales in April. 

While Apple and other top phone manufacturers have yet to publicly release China shipment figures, Nomura’s latest report shows iPhone and domestic brands sales in June were underwhelming: 

Overseas-branded smartphone shipments (proxy for iPhones) declined 17% y/y in June at 1.3mn (vs down 16% at 2.8mn in May, up 44% at 3.7mn in April, up 16% at 2.8mn in March). We suspect the month over month shipment declines in May and June reflect in part strong iPhone SE sell in beginning in late March through April. – Nomura 

Nomura also shows domestic brands saw steep declines for June: 

Chinese-branded smartphone shipments declined 17% y/y in June at 26.6mn (vs down 10% in May at 30.2mn, up 15% at 37.3mn in April, down 26% at 18.2mn in March) in part due to a seasonally slower period in demand. 5G shipments were steady and ticked up to 17.5mn (vs ~16mn in April and May).  Apple is obviously not participating in the 5G market growth just yet. – Nomura

The continued decline in smartphone shipments in China is a reflection of an economic recovery that is not a “V-shaped” as consumers are less willing to splurge on expensive phones. 

Weak consumer sentiment in China cast doubt over an economic revival in the second quarter, as deterioration in consumption should weigh on overall economic growth through summer. 

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

Rabobank: “We Live In A Pretty Crazy World Right Now”

Rabobank: “We Live In A Pretty Crazy World Right Now”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 07/13/2020 – 09:00

Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank

Crazy World

I think we can all agree that we live in a pretty crazy world right now: and that’s an appropriate title for the Daily today too, for reasons that will be explained shortly.

It’s a world where we are seeing staggering increases in public-sector deficits. We have already seen WW2 level spending in the UK, for just one example: and yet the British Chancellor is now planning to introduce 10 deregulated “free ports” across the country where UK taxes and tariffs will not apply at all. It’s obviously the inverse tactic of spending more money on left-behind places. Yet will somewhere like Luton hypothetically become the next mini-Hong Kong just because there are no regulations and no taxes to be paid there? We shall see: and those deficits will swell even further. Laffer would approve of course: and using the logic his fans always push for, by cutting taxation to zero, presumably tax revenue will now be infinity.

Equally, it’s a world where despite one in three Americans worrying about making rent, there appears reticence from the White House to push for a new major fiscal package. Is this all political timing, and huge stimulus looms in weeks? Or do the it-will-all-be-fine arguments from economic advisors like Stephen Moore and Larry Kudlow reflect the official line?

It’s a world where despite all this state largesse, or absence of state largesse, bond yields continue to move lower anyway: the US 5-year touching 0.25% last week (though at the giddy heights of 0.29% at time of writing) as it does not throw in the kitchen sink; the UK 5-year gilt is at -0.07% even though they ARE throwing in that ‘no-taxes-here’ sink.

It’s a world where global stocks continue to be the inverse of movement in bond yields, and one where Barstool Dave uses Scrabble letters to outperform hedge funds: that trick still wins until he, or someone else, starts doing the same with a tin of Alphabetti Spaghetti.

Politics is naturally in its own special little crazy world on so many fronts one hardly knows where to begin: it’s all as up is down and down is up as market; the latest being that Joe Biden is successfully managing to present himself as an angrier economic outsider than Donald Trump.

Meanwhile in Poland, which has benefitted from EU membership more than most, the presidency is down to the wire but it seems incumbent anti-EU candidate populist Duda has narrowly beaten his pro-EU rival. As Piotr Matys reports, Duda’s victory (if confirmed) should not have a major impact on the PLN and local assets over the next 12 months; indeed, his re-election to some extent is positive as the economy is in a recession and it is crucial that the government and the president work together. However, from the longer-term perspective, Duda’s second term will allow the ruling PiS to tighten its grip on power further. For the EU that threatens another problem to try and ignore, armed as they are primarily with lofty rhetoric.

Of course, all this up-is-down-and-down-is-up was fine in the past when it was flowing in the direction markets enjoyed. We had former UK Trotskyites evolve into market-loving New Labour; and the Italian Democratic Party, happy to support a ‘sensible’ neoliberal Eurozone consensus in power today, was originally the Italian Communist Party. This was not seen as crazy. It was just zeitgeist.

On which note, the title of today’s Global Daily is a tribute to the 1990 album by German metalmeisters The Scorpions, which contained the power ballad ‘Winds of Change’. You know the one…”I follow the Moskva; Down to Gorky Park; Listening to the Winds of Change”. There are now allegations this massive hit was actually a CIA psy-op meant to sell the former Soviet bloc on the necessity for peaceful change. This is denied by the band: it’s not good for rocker rep to work for the CIA. What will be next? That Ozzy Osbourne worked for MI6?

Yet it is a doubly crazy world that this story is getting ‘summer season’ attention while real Cold War incidents, not conspiracies, are playing out all round us – and to a series of polite shrugs from markets, who would rather listen to Winds of Change than face up to the deeply unpleasant geopolitical headwinds blowing in their face.

Exhibit ‘A’ for today is a Bloomberg story today –“China Presses Global Yuan Role as US Tensions Explode Into FX”– underlining that China is determined to internationalize CNY to strengthen its hand and neuter the ‘USD weapon’. The article gives a long list of Chinese experts supporting the necessity of that move: and then it correctly argues that to do so either China has to open up its capital account, which it can’t do without a crash, or import far more to run a current account deficit, which it won’t do either because that means being more vulnerable too. So China must do something China can’t do. Fortunately, the conclusion is still that the US won’t use the USD weapon anyway ‘because this would be bad’.

How about if Trump needs to change the narrative pre-debate against ‘Beijing Biden’? How about if having lost the November election Trump uses his lame-duck period in office to trigger exactly that USD weapon? Apparently such risks are still ‘crazy’ – even in today’s world. Are they?

“Rock You Like a Hurricane,” as The Scorpions also sing.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2BZ9KI2 Tyler Durden