Clean Free Market Policy Beats a Carbon Tax. Here’s Why.

Roughly half of the Democratic presidential candidates believe a carbon tax “is the most straight-forward and efficient strategy for quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” in the words of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). They claim a carbon tax will, as Sanders put it, “help give energy efficiency and renewable energy the level playing field they deserve, making these technologies even more affordable.” 

This claim deserves scrutiny. First of all, the notion that a carbon tax will make renewable energy cheaper or more affordable is simply false. Instead, it will make fossil fuels more expensive, setting a higher benchmark price for renewable competitors, sending a weak signal to shift capital toward clean energy.

The second and more crucial issue is that a carbon tax does nothing to address the true culprits slowing deployment of clean energy solutions: the real-world monopoly barriers and technological constraints.

Carbon tax advocates believe fossil fuel penalties will force a shift to clean energy, but that shift is sometimes blocked by closed markets in which arcane rules protect incumbent monopolies. It’s also sometimes blocked by the limitations of geography—solar energy thrives in Chile, for example, but it will be more expensive for fewer hours a day in Canada

Nor would a carbon tax make it easier for entrepreneurs to start auto companies, get vehicles through safety testing, or navigate complex Environmental Protection Agency rules on fuel diversity—the kinds of innovations that are crucial to confronting climate change. 

Given these real world constraints, to trigger a rapid shift from high to low carbon energy, we’d need a very high carbon price—one that would make energy prohibitively expensive, imposing crippling costs on both consumers and businesses. Fear of such high costs sparks opposition. Gridlock has made a carbon tax federally dead on arrival, and thus completely ineffective as a policy proposal.

There’s a third problem, too: All of this is outdated and off-target. Clean energy technologies are now less expensive than fossil fuels. Price is no longer the critical barrier. Technology limitations and politically-imposed market barriers are what’s slowing deployment.

Fortunately, new and better policy tools are at hand.

If clean technologies can now compete and win, then we need to open closed markets by removing barriers to participation. 

That’s the core proposal of clean free market policy. Several free market think tanks (including the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit which publishes Reason) have distilled this insight into The Declaration on Energy Choice & Competition, which calls on government leaders to protect everyone’s right to produce, buy, or trade the clean, reliable energy of their choice, and remove barriers to energy competition. The Declaration will be presented December 12 at the Climate & Freedom Colloquium, a side event at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Madrid, Spain, with hopes of reminding delegates that competitive power markets deliver more low- and zero-emission energy faster and cheaper than uncompetitive markets. 

That might even be an understatement. Worldwide, expensive, monopolistic utilities fail to deliver reliable, affordable energy. Globally, 2.5 billion people must cook, heat, and light their homes by burning dung, coal, and garbage. In too many nations, because there’s no reliable power, there’s no hope for development. Competition offers a solution to these issues and all the ills that follow. 

But more barriers loom beyond bureaucracy and monopoly privilege. Investment taxes present politically imposed barriers to capital and offer a new policy lever we can now pull. In order to directly target technology constraints and accelerate capital flows to clean innovations, clean free market policy pioneers propose tech- and pollutant-neutral Clean Tax Cuts (CTCs), which lower marginal tax rates on investments that significantly reduce or eliminate pollution.

Just like other investment tax rate cuts widely preferred by free market economists, CTCs reduce the distortions caused by negative externalities. Unlike conventional subsidies, CTCs don’t rob Peter to pay unprofitable Paul. CTCs expand freedom for Paul to deploy more of his own hard-earned profits. And unlike investment tax credits, CTCs don’t constrict the market to a narrow niche of tax credit investors with huge incomes to shelter.

One kind of CTC expands investment opportunity to every class of investor. Tax-exempt private Clean Asset Bonds & Loans (CABLs) apply a supply-side tax cut directly to financial leverage. They would allow projects deploying qualifying pollution-reducing technologies to acquire tax-free debt. Tax-free interest would reduce the interest rate by about 30 percent.

CABLs also leverage up return on equity. They attract every kind of investor to both the tax-exempt debt and the taxable equity. Easier to use and more broadly attractive than tax equity, CABLs allow low cost innovators to expand faster. Far more cost effective than conventional subsidies, they give up tax revenue where it is low (the average return on debt in the U.S. is 4 percent) and harvest it where it is high (the average return on equity is 13.6 percent). If we assume those returns for a new business financed with 50 percent CABLs, 50 percent taxable equity, then the IRS would take in 340 percent more tax revenue on equity profits than they forgo on the tax-exempt debt.

Unlike conventional subsidies, CTCs and CABLs create incentives for competition, innovation, and popular participation. They give an advantage to competitive markets, increase the incentives to open markets, and let investment flow from all kinds of investors, large and small. 

Together, they would beat a carbon tax and do so with no new taxes, direct government spending, or coercive regulation.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35W3Ss8
via IFTTT

Trader: What We’ve Seen In The Past Two Years Is At Odds With Everything

Trader: What We’ve Seen In The Past Two Years Is At Odds With Everything

Global equities are gliding serenely into the end of 2019, even in the face of a dire economic landscape. To justify an exuberance that looks anything but rational, global activity will need to turn around dramatically.

After a brief moment back above zero, Citigroup’s global economic surprise gauge has dropped back into negative territory

Maybe that’s why markets have been so eager to celebrate data beats such as U.S. GDP and China Caixin PMIs, despite indicators remaining at anemic levels. Shockingly poor releases last week like the South Korean and Japanese industrial output, or the Chicago PMI were shrugged off as revealing nothing new. [ZH: today’s dreadful ISM however was not as easily overlooked].

While the overall tone of the data being released is far more stable, the tinge of green in the economic landscape is more redolent of a stagnant swamp than shoots ready to sprout.

Just look at 3Q U.S. GDP. The 2.1% second reading beat expectations, sure, but it isn’t anything to get hugely excited about. Economists forecast the U.S. will expand less than 2% in each of the next two years — the slowest pace since the 2009 recession.

Meanwhile, global GDP sagged dramatically last year as stocks melted down. Since then, activity has stayed depressed even as equities rebounded.  This behavior is at odds with past episodes – typically growth and stocks bounce back together after such a decline.

Hence the stubborn bid for bonds, which have been reflecting a fragile global economy all year. That’s why swaps are still pricing in rate cuts for many major central banks.

Recent equity rallies were largely driven by optimism the U.S. and China will reach a phase-one deal, so much of the trade upside has been priced in. A milquetoast accord, or more prevarication could lead to a savage reversal. Even a strong agreement would leave stocks still in need of a data rebound to justify further gains.

If economic prospects darken, central banks are just about out of ammunition. Further Fed easing from here would signal the previous insurance cuts failed to head off recession. The 2019 FOMO rally’s resilience has taken it far enough in the face of a cloudy forecast.

Any declines from here could get very steep indeed.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/02/2019 – 14:45

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

Clean Free Market Policy Beats a Carbon Tax. Here’s Why.

Roughly half of the Democratic presidential candidates believe a carbon tax “is the most straight-forward and efficient strategy for quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” in the words of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). They claim a carbon tax will, as Sanders put it, “help give energy efficiency and renewable energy the level playing field they deserve, making these technologies even more affordable.” 

This claim deserves scrutiny. First of all, the notion that a carbon tax will make renewable energy cheaper or more affordable is simply false. Instead, it will make fossil fuels more expensive, setting a higher benchmark price for renewable competitors, sending a weak signal to shift capital toward clean energy.

The second and more crucial issue is that a carbon tax does nothing to address the true culprits slowing deployment of clean energy solutions: the real-world monopoly barriers and technological constraints.

Carbon tax advocates believe fossil fuel penalties will force a shift to clean energy, but that shift is sometimes blocked by closed markets in which arcane rules protect incumbent monopolies. It’s also sometimes blocked by the limitations of geography—solar energy thrives in Chile, for example, but it will be more expensive for fewer hours a day in Canada

Nor would a carbon tax make it easier for entrepreneurs to start auto companies, get vehicles through safety testing, or navigate complex Environmental Protection Agency rules on fuel diversity—the kinds of innovations that are crucial to confronting climate change. 

Given these real world constraints, to trigger a rapid shift from high to low carbon energy, we’d need a very high carbon price—one that would make energy prohibitively expensive, imposing crippling costs on both consumers and businesses. Fear of such high costs sparks opposition. Gridlock has made a carbon tax federally dead on arrival, and thus completely ineffective as a policy proposal.

There’s a third problem, too: All of this is outdated and off-target. Clean energy technologies are now less expensive than fossil fuels. Price is no longer the critical barrier. Technology limitations and politically-imposed market barriers are what’s slowing deployment.

Fortunately, new and better policy tools are at hand.

If clean technologies can now compete and win, then we need to open closed markets by removing barriers to participation. 

That’s the core proposal of clean free market policy. Several free market think tanks (including the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit which publishes Reason) have distilled this insight into The Declaration on Energy Choice & Competition, which calls on government leaders to protect everyone’s right to produce, buy, or trade the clean, reliable energy of their choice, and remove barriers to energy competition. The Declaration will be presented December 12 at the Climate & Freedom Colloquium, a side event at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Madrid, Spain, with hopes of reminding delegates that competitive power markets deliver more low- and zero-emission energy faster and cheaper than uncompetitive markets. 

That might even be an understatement. Worldwide, expensive, monopolistic utilities fail to deliver reliable, affordable energy. Globally, 2.5 billion people must cook, heat, and light their homes by burning dung, coal, and garbage. In too many nations, because there’s no reliable power, there’s no hope for development. Competition offers a solution to these issues and all the ills that follow. 

But more barriers loom beyond bureaucracy and monopoly privilege. Investment taxes present politically imposed barriers to capital and offer a new policy lever we can now pull. In order to directly target technology constraints and accelerate capital flows to clean innovations, clean free market policy pioneers propose tech- and pollutant-neutral Clean Tax Cuts (CTCs), which lower marginal tax rates on investments that significantly reduce or eliminate pollution.

Just like other investment tax rate cuts widely preferred by free market economists, CTCs reduce the distortions caused by negative externalities. Unlike conventional subsidies, CTCs don’t rob Peter to pay unprofitable Paul. CTCs expand freedom for Paul to deploy more of his own hard-earned profits. And unlike investment tax credits, CTCs don’t constrict the market to a narrow niche of tax credit investors with huge incomes to shelter.

One kind of CTC expands investment opportunity to every class of investor. Tax-exempt private Clean Asset Bonds & Loans (CABLs) apply a supply-side tax cut directly to financial leverage. They would allow projects deploying qualifying pollution-reducing technologies to acquire tax-free debt. Tax-free interest would reduce the interest rate by about 30 percent.

CABLs also leverage up return on equity. They attract every kind of investor to both the tax-exempt debt and the taxable equity. Easier to use and more broadly attractive than tax equity, CABLs allow low cost innovators to expand faster. Far more cost effective than conventional subsidies, they give up tax revenue where it is low (the average return on debt in the U.S. is 4 percent) and harvest it where it is high (the average return on equity is 13.6 percent). If we assume those returns for a new business financed with 50 percent CABLs, 50 percent taxable equity, then the IRS would take in 340 percent more tax revenue on equity profits than they forgo on the tax-exempt debt.

Unlike conventional subsidies, CTCs and CABLs create incentives for competition, innovation, and popular participation. They give an advantage to competitive markets, increase the incentives to open markets, and let investment flow from all kinds of investors, large and small. 

Together, they would beat a carbon tax and do so with no new taxes, direct government spending, or coercive regulation.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/35W3Ss8
via IFTTT

The Student Loan Bubble – Gambling With Your Future

The Student Loan Bubble – Gambling With Your Future

Via SchiffGold.com,

Have you heard? The Democrats are going to fix the student loan mess! They’ve brought up the issue in almost every  Democratic Party presidential debate. All we need is a good government program and we can easily solve this $1.64 trillion problem.

Never mind that government programs caused the problem in the first place.

The student loan bubble continues to inflate. Student loan balances jumped by $32.9 billion in the third quarter this year, pushing total outstanding student loan debt to a new record. Student loan balances have grown by 5.1% year-on-year.

Over the last decade, student loan debt has grown by 120%.  Student loan balances now equal to 7.6% of GDP. That’s up from 5.1% in 2009. This despite the fact that college enrollment dropped by 7% between 2010 and 2017, with enrollment projected to remain flat.

In a nutshell, we have fewer students borrowing more money to finance their educations.

Before the government got involved, college wasn’t all that expensive. It was government policy that made it unaffordable. And not only did it manage to dramatically drive up the cost of a college education, but it also succeeded in destroying the value of that degree. Peter Schiff summed it up perfectly:

Before the government tried to solve this ‘problem,’ it really didn’t exist.”

Peter isn’t just spouting rhetoric. Actual studies have shown the influx of government-backed student loan money into the university system is directly linked to the surging cost of a college education.

Millions of Americans carrying this massive debt burden is a big enough problem in-and-of-itself. But it becomes an even more significant issue when you realize the American taxpayer is on the hook for most of this debt. Education Secretary Betsy Devos admitted that the spiraling level of student debt has “very real implications for our economy and our future.”

The student loan program is not only burying students in debt, it is also burying taxpayers and it’s stealing from future generations.”

This is yet another bubble created by government. Despite the campaign rhetoric coming out of the Democratic Party presidential primary debates, it seems highly unlikely Congress will do what is necessary to address the growing student loan bubble. And the Democrats’ solution seems to be to simply erase the debt – as if you can just make more than $1 trillion vanish without serious implications.

Like all bubbles, this one will eventually pop.

The bottom line is that the student debt bubble will ultimately impact US markets and average Americans.

*  *  *

You can learn more, and how to prepare yourself, in Peter’s white paper The Student Loan Bubble: Gambling with America’s Future. Get the free download HERE.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/02/2019 – 14:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37XZb31 Tyler Durden

In Stuttering, Stumbling Address Christine Lagarde Vows To Link QE To Climate Change

In Stuttering, Stumbling Address Christine Lagarde Vows To Link QE To Climate Change

In her much anticipated first appearance as president of the ECB before at the European Parliament, Christine Lagarde asked EU lawmakers on Monday to give her time to “learn the ropes” of her new job and to reshape the ECB’s monetary policy in what is likely to be a lengthy policy review, and said the ECB will be “resolute” in restoring euro-zone price stability, while stressing that an upcoming strategy review will be wide-ranging, including climate change as well as inflation.

“The ECB’s accommodative policy stance has been a key driver of domestic demand during the recovery, and that stance remains in place,” she said ahead of her first monetary policy meeting at the ECB on Dec. 12.

Christine Lagarde arrives to testify before the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee; December 2, 2019. Photos: Reuters.

Similar to the Fed, the former convicted criminal and IMF chief who left Argentina near bankruptcy, has promised an overarching review of ECB business ranging from how it defines its inflation objective to whether it includes a fight against climate change among its responsibilities.

“I’m indeed trying to learn German but I’m also trying to learn central bank language,” Lagarde, a former lawyer told the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in a regular hearing. “So bear with me, show a little bit of patience, don’t over-interpret, if I may say,” said a seemingly nervous Lagarde, who often diverged from the text of her prepared speech and stumbled at times, leaving out phrases or repeating herself.

Lagarde said that a key focus of the review would be to determine whether its objective of keeping inflation at close to but below 2% was still valid, given changes in the global economy.

Speaking a day after it was unveiled that the Fed – which is also in the process of reviewing its policies – was considered launching a new rule that would let inflation run above its 2% target to make up for lost inflation, Lagarde also said the review would look at whether the target should by symmetric, meaning it should be used to tackle both low and high inflation and not just the latter, if the ECB should have leeway in reaching that target, or whether there should be a tolerance band around it.

Of course, just like the Fed, the issue for the ECB is two-fold:

i) ignoring soaring asset price inflation which is where central banks have blown the biggest asset bubble in history, and

ii) failing to properly measure consumer price inflation, instead applying a spate of adjustments that make it seem inflation is subdued when in reality for many prices are rising so high, the cost of living is no longer bearable.

Then there is the question of whether targeting higher prices is sensible at a time when the middle class is shrinking across the developed world. As a reminder, back in June, a Bloomberg report looked at the stark disconnect between Fed policy and well, everybody else but banks and the 1%.

While the Fed sees low inflation as “one of the major challenges of our time,” Shawn Smith, who trains some of the nation’s most vulnerable, low-income workers stated the obvious: people don’t want higher prices.  Smith is the director of workforce development at Goodwill of Central and Coastal Virginia.

In fact, he said that “even slight increases make a huge difference to someone who is living on a limited income. Whether it is a 50 cents here or 10 cents there, they are managing their dollars day to day and trying to figure out how to make it all work.’’ Indeed, as we discussed in  How The Fed’s New Monetary Policy Will Crush America’s Poorest“, it is the low-income workers – not the “1%”ers, who are most impacted by rising prices, as such all attempts by the Fed to “help” just make life even more unaffordable for millions of Americans.

None of this was a concern to Lagarde, however, who said taht the ECB’s “strategy review will be guided by two principles: thorough analysis and an open mind,” Lagarde told lawmakers. “This will require time for reflection and for wide consultation.”

In a recent note, HSBC discussed several options in terms of changing the mandate, from small tweaks to more fundamental changes, which the ECB may pursue. The problem, however, as HSBC noted is that the success of some of these options depends on the degree of confidence in the ECB’s ability to meet it. As a result, the risk of creating a new mandate, only to fail to achieve it as soon as it is implemented, is significant, particularly with policy already so loose and little left in the tank. This was a risk already flagged by Mario Draghi at the September meeting.

These risks, alongside seemingly inevitable compromises in the Governing Council – hawks will likely be averse to any option that risks persistently elevated inflation – lead HSBC to believe that if there will be changes in the ECB mandate as a result of the strategic review, they are likely to be fairly minor. Even moving to a 2% inflation target – removing the uncertainty created by the “below, but close to” – might be too contentious for some.

None of this prevented Lagarde from thinking big. As in climate change big. Because what was more shocking for a central bank which admits it has failed dismally in hitting its price inflation, was its mission creep into seeking to “tame” climate change as well. 

Many of the questions at the parliament hearing focused on climate change, an area where the central bank has come under increasing pressure to play a bigger role. In response, Lagarde said that while inflation is the bank’s primary objective, the fight against climate change should be a central part of policy. She said that the ECB’s economic analysis should include the impact of climate change and that its bank supervision arm should also be asking lenders for transparency disclosures and climate risk assessments.

And the punchline: while the ECB’s private sector bond purchases have been market neutral, Lagarde said it was also worth discussing whether climate concerns should impact the ECB’s QE.

How would that work we wonder: “It’s hot outside, so let’s print more money?”

So far the ecofascists have not completely taken over yet, and as we reported previously, German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann warned against heavy-handed steps such as barring the bonds of polluters from QE, as proposed recently by a group of activists and academics in an open letter to Lagarde. Lagarde said she agreed with Weidmann, but that it doesn’t stop the ECB looking into incorporating climate change into its operations, economic analysis and bank supervision.

To be sure, any mission creep in the ECB’s mandate will only serve to make future monetary easing, well, easier and what better virtue-signaling smokescreen than to use “global warming” as an excuse to print an extra trillion here and there.

Ironically, her linking of QE to climate change took place even as she acknowledged the adverse side effects of the ECB’s ultra-loose policy, and said the review will try to gain a better understanding of how longer-term trends affect what the central bank can control.

One wonders: perhaps the ECB should have conducted such reviews before it bought nearly €3 trillion in assets starting in 2015, long after the European sovereign debt crisis was over, and was merely meant to stabilize risk prices and avoid a market crash.

The take home message however was clear: it is now only a matter of time before the ECB becomes the EcoCB and is “tasked” with a loose, vague and intangible climate change mandate, one which gives the central bank a carte blanche to do virtually anything “in the name of the environment.” Sure enough, at the Parliament hearing, Lagarde said that while the ECB’s primary mandate is price stability, the secondary mandate – to support the general economic policies of the European Union – can cover climate change. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to turn Europe into the first climate-neutral continent in the world by 2050, and green parties made significant gains in recent parliamentary elections.

Finally, reaffirming the ECB’s most recent assessment of the economy, Lagarde added that growth looks weak but that the ECB was determined to use all it available tools to reach its mandate.  Asked to predict what the inflation rate will be in eight year’s time when her term ends, Lagarde refused.

“I don’t think that anybody in their right mind would venture to forecast any number, be it growth or inflation, eight years from today,” she said, yet clearly confident it is her job to predict how the climate will do over the same time period.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/02/2019 – 14:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2DC3HWK Tyler Durden

PATRIOT Act Clause Invoked to Keep Man Imprisoned Even After He Served His Sentence

A man who has already completed a lengthy sentence for sending money to terrorist groups continues to be held indefinitely behind bars, thanks to a provision of the PATRIOT Act.

Adham Amin Hassoun, a Palestinian, was detained in 2002 for outstaying his visa. He was subsequently charged and convicted in 2007 of directing financial aid to terrorist groups in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, disguising it as humanitarian aid for oppressed Muslims. He received much less media attention than his alleged co-conspirator Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen accused of plotting a “dirty bomb” attack against the United States.

Hassoun was was supposed to be released in 2017 after serving his time. There was a problem, though: No country wanted to take him post-release. Hassoun was born in Lebanon, but he is not a citizen of the country. Israel and Jordan will not allow him back to the West Bank. Unlike Padilla, Hassoun isn’t an American citizen. He’s committed a deportable offense, but there’s nowhere to deport him to.

So rather than releasing him in the United States, the federal government is now using a section of the PATRIOT Act, passed after the September 11 attacks, to keep him detained, potentially forever.

Spencer Ackerman reports in The Daily Beast that the Department of Homeland Security has invoked Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act against lawyers seeking Hassoun’s release. Section 412 allows the government to detain a suspected terrorist before deportation if the attorney general determines that releasing the prisoner would threaten national security. This holding period is only supposed to last for six months—the section is even labelled “limitation on indefinite detention”—but it can be reviewed and renewed without limit.

Hassoun was not convicted of engaging in any terrorist acts. He was convicted of helping fund overseas organizations, and most of that money was sent prior to 9/11.

Furthermore, and much more importantly, he has served his time. This section of the PATRIOT Act was intended to let the authorities take terror suspects into custody and deport them. It was not intended to keep holding a convict after his sentence has been completed. Ackerman reports:

Attorneys for Hassoun, who were in federal court on Friday to argue for his freedom, are stunned at the invocation of Section 412. They noted that the PATRIOT Act provision is written to “take [a non-citizen] into custody,” not to retroactively designate someone already in detention as a threat.

“If the government were to prevail in its claim of extraordinary and unprecedented executive power, the government would be free to lock up non-citizens indefinitely based solely on executive say-so, even after they completed serving their sentences,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.

While the Supreme Court has determined that the federal government cannot simply lock up foreigners on American soil indefinitely if they aren’t able to deport them (in Zadvyas v. Davis in 2001), it has been reluctant to intervene in terrorism related cases. In a subsequent case (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), the Supreme Court gave the feds clearance under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to indefinitely detain prisoners determined to be enemy combatants. And even though our military actions in 2019 bear little resemblance to the “war on terror” launched after 9/11, the Supreme Court in June declined to reconsider any limits to that authority.

And no, this bureaucratic cruelty isn’t unique to the Trump years. Barack Obama’s Justice Department attempted a similar move against Mohammed Rashed, who set off a bomb on Pan Am flight 830 back in 1982, killing one man. Rashed, like Hassoun, was a Palestinian (officially born in Jordan); after his sentence was completed in 2013, no country wanted to take him in. The Obama administration kept him in detention, but before a judge could rule on whether it had the authority to do so, Mauritania agreed to take him.

But with Hassoun, unlike Rashed, the feds have never even made a case tying his actions to any identifiable victims. What’s more, a federal judge rejected a request for a life sentence, noting that the feds had surveilled him for years and knew he was sending money abroad some time before charging him, contradicting any claim that the man “poses such a danger to the community that he needs to be imprisoned for the rest of his life.”

Nevertheless, unless judges intervene (or another country agrees to take him in), Hassoun will continue to be punished with imprisonment long after his sentence has ended.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2qbQ65u
via IFTTT

PATRIOT Act Clause Invoked to Keep Man Imprisoned Even After He Served His Sentence

A man who has already completed a lengthy sentence for sending money to terrorist groups continues to be held indefinitely behind bars, thanks to a provision of the PATRIOT Act.

Adham Amin Hassoun, a Palestinian, was detained in 2002 for outstaying his visa. He was subsequently charged and convicted in 2007 of directing financial aid to terrorist groups in places like Bosnia and Kosovo, disguising it as humanitarian aid for oppressed Muslims. He received much less media attention than his alleged co-conspirator Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen accused of plotting a “dirty bomb” attack against the United States.

Hassoun was was supposed to be released in 2017 after serving his time. There was a problem, though: No country wanted to take him post-release. Hassoun was born in Lebanon, but he is not a citizen of the country. Israel and Jordan will not allow him back to the West Bank. Unlike Padilla, Hassoun isn’t an American citizen. He’s committed a deportable offense, but there’s nowhere to deport him to.

So rather than releasing him in the United States, the federal government is now using a section of the PATRIOT Act, passed after the September 11 attacks, to keep him detained, potentially forever.

Spencer Ackerman reports in The Daily Beast that the Department of Homeland Security has invoked Section 412 of the PATRIOT Act against lawyers seeking Hassoun’s release. Section 412 allows the government to detain a suspected terrorist before deportation if the attorney general determines that releasing the prisoner would threaten national security. This holding period is only supposed to last for six months—the section is even labelled “limitation on indefinite detention”—but it can be reviewed and renewed without limit.

Hassoun was not convicted of engaging in any terrorist acts. He was convicted of helping fund overseas organizations, and most of that money was sent prior to 9/11.

Furthermore, and much more importantly, he has served his time. This section of the PATRIOT Act was intended to let the authorities take terror suspects into custody and deport them. It was not intended to keep holding a convict after his sentence has been completed. Ackerman reports:

Attorneys for Hassoun, who were in federal court on Friday to argue for his freedom, are stunned at the invocation of Section 412. They noted that the PATRIOT Act provision is written to “take [a non-citizen] into custody,” not to retroactively designate someone already in detention as a threat.

“If the government were to prevail in its claim of extraordinary and unprecedented executive power, the government would be free to lock up non-citizens indefinitely based solely on executive say-so, even after they completed serving their sentences,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.

While the Supreme Court has determined that the federal government cannot simply lock up foreigners on American soil indefinitely if they aren’t able to deport them (in Zadvyas v. Davis in 2001), it has been reluctant to intervene in terrorism related cases. In a subsequent case (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), the Supreme Court gave the feds clearance under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to indefinitely detain prisoners determined to be enemy combatants. And even though our military actions in 2019 bear little resemblance to the “war on terror” launched after 9/11, the Supreme Court in June declined to reconsider any limits to that authority.

And no, this bureaucratic cruelty isn’t unique to the Trump years. Barack Obama’s Justice Department attempted a similar move against Mohammed Rashed, who set off a bomb on Pan Am flight 830 back in 1982, killing one man. Rashed, like Hassoun, was a Palestinian (officially born in Jordan); after his sentence was completed in 2013, no country wanted to take him in. The Obama administration kept him in detention, but before a judge could rule on whether it had the authority to do so, Mauritania agreed to take him.

But with Hassoun, unlike Rashed, the feds have never even made a case tying his actions to any identifiable victims. What’s more, a federal judge rejected a request for a life sentence, noting that the feds had surveilled him for years and knew he was sending money abroad some time before charging him, contradicting any claim that the man “poses such a danger to the community that he needs to be imprisoned for the rest of his life.”

Nevertheless, unless judges intervene (or another country agrees to take him in), Hassoun will continue to be punished with imprisonment long after his sentence has ended.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2qbQ65u
via IFTTT

Platts: 6 Commodity Charts To Watch This Week

Platts: 6 Commodity Charts To Watch This Week

Via S&P Global Platts Insight blog,

As COP25 kicks off in Madrid, S&P Global Platts editors take a look at the CO2 impact from OPEC oil production. European gas and nuclear, and IMO 2020’s impact on commodities as diverse as fuel oil and iron ore, are also on the agenda in this week’s pick of charts.

1. OPEC oil-only CO2 output dwarfs EU total emissions

Click to enlarge

What’s happening? OPEC is meeting this week to decide on output quotas, but climate change isn’t on the agenda for the group of 15 major oil producers. OPEC’s total crude output for 2018 would have been responsible for carbon dioxide pollution equal to 5 billion mt, calculated based on average emissions figures for oil from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That exceeds Europe’s total emissions of the greenhouse gas, from all sources, last year. The cartel currently has no plan in place to mitigate the impact its oil has on global warming despite the growing pressure from consuming nations and business to cut back investment in fossil fuels.

How did we get to these numbers? A barrel of crude weighs about 300 lb, or 136 kg. The CO2 from fuel weighs more than the fuel itself because the carbon element combines with oxygen in the air to form CO2 gas. Carbon-based fuels derived from oil give off CO2 which is on average 3.15 times the weight of the fuel. A standard barrel is 159 liters, and in the US gets refined into 44.1% gasoline, 20.8% distillate fuel oil, 9.3% kerosene-type jet fuel and 5.2% residual fuel oil. So an average barrel of oil will produce at least 317 kg CO2 for just the above four fuels, making the EPA’s average figure of 430 kg seem quite sensible.

What’s next? OPEC and its allies, which pump more than 45% of the world’s crude, are scheduled to meet on December 5 and December 6 in Vienna where a decision on a possible extension to the production cut deal could be taken. The gathering coincides with the 25th Conference of the Parties, or COP, held in Madrid where 200 countries will discuss climate change action as new figures released by the World Meteorological Organization show that green house gas levels reached their highest recorded levels last year.

2. European gas spot prices have risen but December turns bearish

What’s happening? Europe’s benchmark prompt gas contract, the Dutch TTF Day-ahead, crept to a seven-month high last week despite healthy supply. Lower temperatures, reduced storage withdrawals and continued buying combined to tighten the market. The contract has risen Eur6/MWh since October 31, when it dipped below Eur10/MWh. Utility traders are holding onto stocks in anticipation of a greater premium in Q1 2020.

What’s next? While Q1 2020 TTF gas remains over Eur16/MWh, front month December is coming under pressure as Europe’s gas glut looks set to continue. A deluge of LNG is expected to complement already comfortable Russian and Norwegian supply, while gas is seen by market participants as detaching from carbon, and temperatures forecasts have ticked up. Q1 2020 has been more resistant to bearish sentiment because of the risk that transit talks will fail between Russia and Ukraine.

3. French nuclear at record-low lifts December power prices

What’s happening? French nuclear generation is set for a record-low fourth quarter due to maintenance delays and safety inspections at the Cruas nuclear plant following an earthquake. November output averaged 40 GW, down 11% on year, the third month in a row with a double-digit on year decline.

What’s next?  17 of France’s 58 reactors won’t be available at the start of December. French spot power prices are set to hit their highest so far this winter this week despite a generally bearish market, characterized by cheap gas and growing wind output. Colder weather is set to boost demand above 80 GW on Tuesday for the first time this winter with a strike looming as well on Thursday. French gas and coal plants are poised to fill the nuclear shortfall, while stronger hydro and reduced exports should act to ease French price.

4. IMO 2020 sends high sulfur fuel oil cracks tumbling…

What’s happening? Global cracks for high sulfur fuel oil have weakened sharply over the past two months after a year of abnormal strength, reflecting the drastic change in oil products demand due to the International Maritime Organization‘s impending sulfur limit on marine fuels. This month regional prices for HSFO in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas have all reached record discounts to crude as demand falls in the run-up to the IMO 2020 rule limiting sulfur content to 0.5% from January 1, although in some regions they have rebounded somewhat in the past two weeks.

What’s next? Most market watchers believe HSFO prices have now largely bottomed out and are set for a recovery next year. Uncertainty persists, however, over the extent of recovery as pricing economics and uptake of exhaust gas scrubbers – which allow ships to continue burning HSFO – will play a key role in determining HSFO demand.  Looking ahead to 2020, the HSFO crack forward curve in Europe is in contango, suggesting regional prices are already set for a recovery.

5. …and complicates shipping costs for iron ore buyers

What’s happening? Iron ore contract buyers this year may be paying as much as $10/dmt more for FOB cargos using industry freight formulas, rather than pricing off spot freight rates. Freight rates are used for invoicing FOB iron ore prices based on benchmark China CFR indices such as Platts IODEX 62% Fe, and Platts 65% Fe fines index. Greater comparative volatility has emerged between spot and long-term industry freight formulas, for Brazil-China Capesize dry bulk rates used to reference contract FOB iron ore prices. Agreeing formulas rather than spot rates may be becoming more complex as bunker oil, a key component in determining long term freight rates under formulas, switches to use lower sulfur marine fuel under IMO 2020 fuel regulations.

What’s next? The extent to which IMO 2020 affects bunker fuel prices and demand for grades consumed, and continued use of industry longer-term freight formulas, remains to be seen. The changes in fuel oil and shipping rates may be discussed by iron ore buyers as they move into new iron ore pricing contracts for 2020 calendar year and fiscal 2020-2021 terms. Some suppliers are already moving contract pricing terms away from formulas to reference spot freight rates, to simplify pricing comparisons with iron ore delivered to markets in China and the rest of the world.

6. Corn prices shoot up in Brazil’s Mato Grosso

 

What’s happening? Corn prices in Mato Grosso, Brazil’s largest producer, are surging as supplies dwindle and domestic consumption rises, according to Mato Grosso Institute of Agricultural Economics. The state accounts for over 42% of second corn crop, or safrinha, produced in the country. Last week, corn prices in the state hit Reais 29.51 per 60 kg ($116.39/mt), up 53% from the same period a year ago. Strong domestic demand is mainly coming from the ethanol and animal protein industries.

What’s next? As Brazil is the world’s second-largest corn exporter, markets will be closely watching the price movements, as higher corn prices may encourage farmers to expand the crop area for second corn. The second corn planting in the state begins in February. Any increase in domestic consumption is also expected to reduce the supply for exports. The state exported 18.8 million mt of corn in January-October, 54% of Brazil’s total exports of the crop, up from 17.7 million mt in the full calendar year of 2018.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/02/2019 – 13:49

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PiLP99 Tyler Durden

Biden Reinvents Himself, Drags Wife Around Iowa For Massive ‘No Malarkey’ Push

Biden Reinvents Himself, Drags Wife Around Iowa For Massive ‘No Malarkey’ Push

Joe Biden is reinventing himself as he embarks on an eight-day bus tour of Iowa, a key state which he’s largely failed to impress – unlike many of his Democratic competitors angling for the White House in 2020.

The “No Malarkey!” tour got off to an awkward start on Saturday, when Joe bit former Second Lady Jill Biden on the finger as she introduced him at a Council Bluffs kickoff event.

One almost has to feel sorry for Jill. After going out on a high note in 2016, she watched the establishment reanimate her senile husband – only to have clips of him creeping on women and children flood the internet. Then there was Hunter Biden’s rental car crackpipe adventures, Burisma, and now an out-of-wedlock grandchild with an Arkansas stripper. And then Joe bites her finger as they announce the stupidest campaign slogan ever.

“We’re going to go to 18 counties, on a 660-mile trip across the state, and we’re going to touch on what we think is a forgotten part of most campaigns — the rural part of your state, rural America,” said Biden, speaking at the Saturday event.

For months, Biden’s campaign has been dogged by criticism among supporters and critics alike that his Iowa operation was slow to get off the ground. Given the nature of the caucuses, where voters choose the nominee by gathering in public spaces like school gymnasiums, churches and community centers for one night in February, a robust organization that encourages people to participate is critical to success. –Bloomberg

Aside from the eight scheduled stops, Biden will take two side-trips; one in Chicago to raise money – returning to Iowa on Tuesday for a single organizing event in Mason City, and then a jaunt to New York that evening to attend more fundraisers before returning on Wednesday afternoon for more Iowa action.

“I’m running to win. I’m not running to lose. I’m not running to come in third or fourth or fifth or anything like that. So I feel good about it,” said Biden.

No Malarkey?

Seeking to turn Biden into an affable elder statesman after a series of ‘Mr. Magoo’ gaffes, the Biden camp decided to go hard at the depression-era demographic with the slogan “No Malarkey!” – something his grandfather used to say.

As Bloomberg describes it, “The “No Malarkey” theme — emblazoned on the side of Biden’s tour bus — nods at both the candidate’s reputation for truth-telling and Trump’s supposed aversion to it.”

The other guy’s all lies, so we want to make sure there’s a contrast,” said Biden at one stop.

Of course, things may get awkward when someone asks Joe about ‘if you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” or discussing Hunter’s business dealings with his stimulant-addicted son.

Biden will be traveling with former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who served as Obama’s agriculture secretary. Also joining the tour will be Vilsack’s wife, Christie.

As he stops in small towns, he’s sure to allude to rural values and rural needs and to mention that he’s secured the support of Vilsack, the popular two-term governor, who urged Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to spend more time in rural areas.

“With all due respect to folks who talk about bold, new ideas, the reality is, you’re going to have an incredibly difficult time until the country comes together,” Vilsack told Bloomberg news in an interview in November. –Bloomberg

That said, Vilsack thinks Biden – the current Democratic frontrunner, is best positioned to enact progressive change because he appeals to a much broader audience than other candidates – particularly in swing states. 

“The vice president is speaking to a much broader audience than some of the other candidates. I think he’s speaking to the audience that any Democrat is going to have to speak to consistently through this campaign in order to have the people who will decide this election in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Iowa and Wisconsin basically saying, ‘Yeah this guy has been consistent throughout,’” said Vilsack.

If Biden’s attempt to reinvent himself in Iowa doesn’t work as planned, what does it mean for the rest of the 2020 campaign?


Tyler Durden

Mon, 12/02/2019 – 13:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34Iwntk Tyler Durden

Trump Once Again Falsely Claims That Ukraine’s President Has Exonerated Him of Abusing His Powers for Personal Gain

President Donald Trump is once again claiming that Ukraine’s president has exonerated him of improperly using foreign policy for personal ends, conduct that is at the heart of the impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee will begin to consider on Wednesday. “The President of Ukraine has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls,” Trump tweeted this morning. “If the Radical Left Democrats were sane, which they are not, it would be case over!”

Trump seems to have in mind a recent interview in which Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said “it just goes without saying” that his country’s relationship with the United States is “not about a quid pro quo.” Contrary to Trump’s spin, Zelenskiy’s comments do not show that Trump “has done nothing wrong.” In fact, the interview, which was conducted by reporters from Time and three European publications, shows that Zelenskiy is desperate for U.S. support and keen to prevent the impeachment inquiry from threatening it.

Zelenskiy, like anyone else who follows the news, understands that Trump’s impeachment in the Democrat-controlled House will almost certainly be followed by his acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate, meaning the Ukrainian government will have to deal with Trump until January 2021 at least and quite possibly for another four years after that. Given that prospect, anything Zelenskiy says about Trump’s alleged abuse of power in pressuring Ukraine to conduct investigations that would be politically useful to him has to be taken with a grain of salt.

During the interview, Zelenskiy emphasized the importance of U.S. support in Ukraine’s confrontation with Russia over Crimea. “As for the United States,” he said, “I would really want—and we feel this, it’s true—for them to help us, to understand us, to see that we are a player in our own right, that they cannot make deals about us with anyone behind our backs. Of course they help us, and I’m not just talking about technical help, military aid, financial aid. These are important things, very important things, especially right now, when we are in such a difficult position.”

Zelenskiy also said only the U.S. government has the influence to alter plans for a pipeline from Russia to Germany that would bypass Ukraine, depriving its government of some $3 billion in annual income from the transport of natural gas. “We don’t have influence over the Europeans’ decision,” he said. “We don’t have it, and that’s it. I don’t have any leverage. I can only count on the strong support that I see on this question from the United States of America.”

Zelenskiy is worried that Ukraine’s reputation for corruption, reinforced by Trump’s comments on the subject, will deter vital foreign investment. “The United States of America is a signal, for the world, for everyone,” he said. “When America says, for instance, that Ukraine is a corrupt country, that is the hardest of signals….Everyone hears that signal. Investments, banks, stakeholders, companies, American, European companies that have international capital in Ukraine, it’s a signal to them that says, ‘Be careful, don’t invest.’ Or, ‘Get out of there.’…For me, it’s very important for the United States, with all they can do for us, for them really to understand that we are a different country, that we are different people. It’s not that those things don’t exist. They do. All branches of government were corrupted over many years, and we are working to clean that up. But that signal from them is very important.”

Given his country’s dependence on the United States, Zelenskiy cannot afford to alienate Trump or Democratic supporters of Ukraine by seeming to take sides on the impeachment question. But he did object to the temporary freeze that Trump imposed on $391 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine. “If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us,” he said. “I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo.”

There is strong circumstantial evidence, of course, that Trump did have in mind a quid pro quo: Ukraine would get the military aid once it publicly committed to investigating former Vice President Joe Biden’s alleged interference with a probe of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that employed Biden’s son Hunter as a board member, as well as the bizarre theory that Ukrainians hacked Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 presidential campaign and framed Russia for that crime. Several current and former administration officials have testified that the connection between the aid and the investigations was clear.

Trump himself has said that what he was seeking from Zelenskiy during a much-scrutinized July 25 telephone conversation was “very simple”: “a major investigation into the Bidens,” aimed at digging up dirt on a leading contender to oppose Trump in next year’s presidential election. Trump broached that subject immediately after Zelenskiy expressed his gratitude for U.S. military aid and mentioned Ukraine’s planned purchase of anti-tank missiles from the United States. “I would like you to do us a favor, though,” Trump said at that point, before describing the investigations he wanted. And although Zelenskiy himself did not know about the aid freeze at the time of the call, other Ukrainian officials were already asking about it.

Zelenskiy has nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by describing Trump’s request as improper. “There was no blackmail” during the phone call, he said in October. “They blocked the military aid before we had our conversation, but we did not discuss it. Later we discussed it with the defense minister, and he said, ‘We have a problem. They’ve blocked this money.'”

By that point, Zelenskiy must have surmised that the otherwise inexplicable aid freeze had something to do with the “favor” Trump wanted. And in case any doubt remained, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, has said he made the connection explicit in a conversation with a senior Zelenskiy adviser on September 1. Sondland also testified that a White House meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump was contingent on the investigations.

Zelenskiy is in an unenviable position, trying to protect the U.S.-Ukrainian relationship while standing at the center of a bitter partisan dispute. In that context, his statements about quid pro quos should be viewed as aspirational rather than factual.

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