House Votes To Send Impeachment Articles to Senate as New Evidence Comes to Light

The House of Representatives voted 228-193 on Wednesday to formally send articles of impeachment to the Senate, signaling the start of President Donald Trump’s trial. While the tally fell mostly along party lines, Rep. Collin Peterson (D–Minn.) voted against the articles’ advancement and Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) voted in favor.

Also announced on Wednesday were the impeachment managers, who will prosecute the case against Trump. Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) is at the helm with help from Reps. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.), Hakeem Jeffries (D–N.Y.), Jason Crow (D–Colo.), Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), Val Demings (D–Fla.), and Sylvia Garcia (D–Texas).

The move capped off a contentious back-and-forth between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), after the former initially said she would withhold the articles for an unspecified period of time. Pelosi told ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos that she primarily did so to make the public case for witnesses after McConnell intimated that he would resist allowing any during the trial. The Kentucky senator, who has emphasized his desire for speedy proceedings, has since said that he will follow the impeachment model used during the Clinton administration, where senators vote on a resolution to start the trial and later vote on whether or not to allow witnesses.

Pelosi has come under fire for charging ahead with impeachment without waiting to hear from many in Trump’s close circle, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton, whom the White House had instructed not to testify. Bolton recently announced that, if subpoenaed, he would comply.

Trump was impeached by the House in December amid accusations that he improperly leveraged his position to pressure Ukraine into publicly announcing investigations into his political foes. He is the third president in U.S. history to face a Senate trial.

Wednesday’s House vote coincided with the Tuesday release of records that provide additional fodder for the notion that Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and his associate, Lev Parnas, were working to ensure that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced those probes. The tranche of documents includes a handwritten note from Parnas that says, “get Zalensky to Annouce that the Biden case will Be Investigated.” It further contains a correspondence between Parnas and Robert F. Hyde, a Republican congressional candidate in Connecticut, where Hyde implies that he is surveilling Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted by Giuliani

After informing Parnas that Yovanovich’s computer was off, Hyde said he could solicit help in tracking her whereabouts. “They are moving her tomorrow. The guys over [there] asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them,” Hyde said via WhatsApp. “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price. Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money.”

Additionally, a letter from Giuliani to Zelenskiy requests a meeting between the two. In the letter, Giuliani tells the Ukrainian leader that the president has “knowledge and consent” of his actions. Democrats are likely to emphasize the latter, as Republicans have argued that Trump may have been unaware or not directly involved in Giuliani’s actions.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2tlvk54
via IFTTT

Why LBJ’s Great Society Flopped—and What It Means for the 2020 Election

In a 1964 speech delivered at the University of Michigan, President Lyndon Johnson announced his plans for what he called “the Great Society,” a sweeping set of programs that marked the most ambitious expansion of the federal government since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Johnson declared war on poverty, jacked up federal spending on education, and pushed massive new entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, which promised to deliver high-quality, low-cost health care to the nation’s elderly and poor. When Republican Richard Nixon succeeded Johnson, a Democrat, as president after the 1968 election, he continued and even expanded many of the Great Society programs despite being from a different political party.

But did the Great Society achieve its goals of eradicating poverty, sheltering the homeless, and helping all citizens participate more fully in the American Dream? In Great Society: A New History, Amity Shlaes argues that Lyndon Johnson’s bold makeover of the government was a massive failure despite the good intentions of its architects and implementers.

Shlaes, who is the author of The Forgotten Man, a best-selling history of The Great Depression (read her interview with Reason), and the chair of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation, says remembering the failure of the Great Society is especially relevant in an election year when presidential candidates are promising to spend huge amounts of money on all sorts of new government programs. “Once again, many Americans rate socialism as the generous philosophy,” writes Shlaes. “But the results of our socialism were not generous. May this book serve as a cautionary tale of lovable people who, despite themselves, hurt those they loved. Nothing is new. It is just forgotten.”

Nick Gillespie sat down to talk with her about the origins of the Great Society, its failure, and what it all means for 21st century America.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

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

18 Signs That Social Decay In America Is Worse Than It’s Ever Been Before

18 Signs That Social Decay In America Is Worse Than It’s Ever Been Before

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

In recent years, so many Americans have become completely obsessed with the ups and downs of the political world, but meanwhile our nation as a whole continues to swirl even further down the toilet with each passing day

Virtually any measure of social welfare that you want to look at tells us that the fabric of our society is rapidly deteriorating, and there is no future for us if we stay on this highly self-destructive path.  Sometimes I get criticized for writing articles like this, but there is actually a very positive reason why I talk about these things.  My goal is to greatly shock people with the truth of what we are facing so that they will choose to fundamentally change the direction of their own lives.  And if we get enough people to start changing direction, that could potentially have a dramatic impact on society as a whole.  Unfortunately, most Americans seem to think that things are just fine.  So they are not open to radical solutions, because they generally feel pretty good about their own lives and the nation as a whole.

The choices that we make individually and collectively as a nation are life and death choices.

If we choose what is right, that will lead to great blessings, but if we choose what is wrong that will only lead to great curses.

It has been that way all throughout human history, and great empires have fallen because they consistently made the wrong choices.

When America falls, it will be because of what we have done to ourselves.

The following are 18 signs that the social decay in America is worse than it has ever been before…

#1 America has a very serious drinking problem.  According to new numbers that were just released, the average American consumes 500 alcoholic drinks a year.  That is the highest level in modern American history.

#2 The number of alcohol-related deaths in the United States has reached an all-time record high.  In fact, the number of alcohol-related deaths has actually doubled during the past 20 years.

#3 The number of Americans dying due to a drug overdose has reached an all-time record high.

#4 The number of Americans that are killing themselves has reached an all-time record high.

#5 The suicide rate for young people in the U.S. rose 56 percent in just one recent 10 year period.

#6 The suicide rate for the overall population increased by 41 percent between 1999 and 2016.

#7 The number of mass killings in the United States set a brand new record in 2019.

#8 A whopping 46 percent of all Americans have taken at least one legal pharmaceutical drug within the last 30 days.

#9 The anal cancer death rate in the United States has doubled over the last 15 years.

#10 The mouth cancer rate in the United States has reached an all-time record high.

#11 According to the CDC, there are 110 million STD infections in the United States at any given moment.

#12 Approximately 40 million people in the United States will visit a pornographic website on any given day.

#13 According to our own State Department, the United States is ranked #1 in the entire world in sex trafficking.

#14 Today, approximately 40 percent of all babies in America are born to unmarried women.

#15 Tucker Carlson says that downtown San Francisco is now filthier than downtown Mumbai, India.

#16 One poll discovered that the average American spends 86 hours a month on a cellphone.

#17 An organizer for Bernie Sanders was recently caught on camera saying that U.S. cities will “burn” if President Trump wins again in November.  Sadly, he is probably right.

#18 In one recent year, 17 million more American adults were diagnosed as having “a major depressive disorder”.  It is critical to understand that is not the total of all Americans that have been diagnosed with “a major depressive disorder”.  Rather, that is just the number that were added to the overall total in one year.

Recently, I had someone try to tell me that America has not fallen to the level of Sodom and Gomorrah quite yet.

Really?

The numbers above are exceedingly clear, and they have just continued to get worse year after year after year.

Before I close this article, there is one more thing that I would like to share with you.  The following story more or less sums up how sick and delusional our society has become at this point…

A pedophile told a judge he identifies as an eight-year-old girl as he claimed free speech laws entitle him to look at child sex abuse images. Joseph Gobrick, 45, was sentenced to up to 20 years in prison this week in Grand Rapids, Michigan by judge Paul Denenfeld, who did not buy Gobrick’s strange claims. At his sentencing, Gobrick told the judge: ‘I’ve always been an eight-year-old girl. And even in my drawings and fantasies, I am always an eight-year-old girl.’

Sadly, there are a whole lot more people like him out there.

In fact, the number of registered sex offenders in the United States will soon cross the 1 million mark.

The good news is that the broken pieces of any of our lives can be transformed into a beautiful thing if we are just willing to start making better choices.

In previous generations, God, family and country were top priorities for most Americans, and values that had been proven to work throughout human history were embraced and taught to future generations.

But today patriotism is out of style, the traditional family unit is under relentless attack, and God has been pushed out of every corner of public life.

Instead, we have got hordes of people running around doing whatever they feel like doing, and the result is utter chaos.

What we are doing is clearly not working, and if we keep going down this road there is no possible way that our story ends well.

Both individually and collectively as a nation, there is an opportunity to start making better choices, but if we are going to change direction we better do so very quickly.

Because time is running out, and it won’t be too long before it is gone completely.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/15/2020 – 16:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2u2dQL7 Tyler Durden

House Votes To Send Impeachment Articles to Senate as New Evidence Comes to Light

The House of Representatives voted 228-193 on Wednesday to formally send articles of impeachment to the Senate, signaling the start of President Donald Trump’s trial. While the tally fell mostly along party lines, Rep. Collin Peterson (D–Minn.) voted against the articles’ advancement and Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) voted in favor.

Also announced on Wednesday were the impeachment managers, who will prosecute the case against Trump. Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) is at the helm with help from Reps. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.), Hakeem Jeffries (D–N.Y.), Jason Crow (D–Colo.), Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), Val Demings (D–Fla.), and Sylvia Garcia (D–Texas).

The move capped off a contentious back-and-forth between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), after the former initially said she would withhold the articles for an unspecified period of time. Pelosi told ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos that she primarily did so to make the public case for witnesses after McConnell intimated that he would resist allowing any during the trial. The Kentucky senator, who has emphasized his desire for speedy proceedings, has since said that he will follow the impeachment model used during the Clinton administration, where senators vote on a resolution to start the trial and later vote on whether or not to allow witnesses.

Pelosi has come under fire for charging ahead with impeachment without waiting to hear from many in Trump’s close circle, such as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton, whom the White House had instructed not to testify. Bolton recently announced that, if subpoenaed, he would comply.

Trump was impeached by the House in December amid accusations that he improperly leveraged his position to pressure Ukraine into publicly announcing investigations into his political foes. He is the third president in U.S. history to face a Senate trial.

Wednesday’s House vote coincided with the Tuesday release of records that provide additional fodder for the notion that Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and his associate, Lev Parnas, were working to ensure that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced those probes. The tranche of documents includes a handwritten note from Parnas that says, “get Zalensky to Annouce that the Biden case will Be Investigated.” It further contains a correspondence between Parnas and Robert F. Hyde, a Republican congressional candidate in Connecticut, where Hyde implies that he is surveilling Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine who was ousted by Giuliani

After informing Parnas that Yovanovich’s computer was off, Hyde said he could solicit help in tracking her whereabouts. “They are moving her tomorrow. The guys over [there] asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them,” Hyde said via WhatsApp. “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price. Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money.”

Additionally, a letter from Giuliani to Zelenskiy requests a meeting between the two. In the letter, Giuliani tells the Ukrainian leader that the president has “knowledge and consent” of his actions. Democrats are likely to emphasize the latter, as Republicans have argued that Trump may have been unaware or not directly involved in Giuliani’s actions.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2tlvk54
via IFTTT

“Sell The News”? Stocks, Dollar, & Bond Yields Slide After Signing Trade Deal

“Sell The News”? Stocks, Dollar, & Bond Yields Slide After Signing Trade Deal

Is the market about to hit a speedboat bump?

China was down overnight…

Source: Bloomberg

European markets closed lower on the day…

Source: Bloomberg

US markets slid notably after the US-China trade deal was signed, but the algos were determined to keep stocks green on the day…

The Dow topped 29k once again, Trump mentioned it, and efforts were engaged to keep it there for the first close above the line…

Defensives continue to dominate cyclicals…

Source: Bloomberg

“Off”-Target…

Source: Bloomberg

More bank earnings did nothing for WFC but JPM and C erased some of yesterday’s gains…

Source: Bloomberg

Credit markets were notable laggards today…

Source: Bloomberg

Treasury yields were lower across the curve with the long-end outperforming (2Y -1bps, 30Y -4bps)…

Source: Bloomberg

30Y Yields closed at their lowest in over a month…

Source: Bloomberg

The yield curve continued to flatten significantly…

Source: Bloomberg

The Dollar drifted lower but still in a tight range…

Source: Bloomberg

Cryptos extended the week’s solid gains, led by Bitcoin Cash…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin accelerated to two-month highs, breaking above its 100- and 200DMA…

Source: Bloomberg

Bitcoin is off to its best start to a year since 2012…

Source: Bloomberg

PMs outperformed as crude and copper drifted…

Source: Bloomberg

Oil continued to sink (on IEA fears and major product inventory builds)

And as oil sinks, HACK (the cybersecurity ETF) shows the real Iran risk trade…

Source: Bloomberg

Gold rallied back above pre-Soleimani levels…

Finally, there’s this…

Source: Bloomberg


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/15/2020 – 16:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Tr37o3 Tyler Durden

Quant Legend Seeks $1.5 Billion For New Fund Dedicated To Fighting Climate Change

Quant Legend Seeks $1.5 Billion For New Fund Dedicated To Fighting Climate Change

One Wall Street luminary is bringing together two of the biggest trends in finance: the shift toward AI-driven quantitative trading, and sustainability-focused investing.

On the same day that BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink announced that his firm (the world’s biggest asset manager) is planning to avoid investing in polluters, BBG has published another story that might interest ESG die-hards.

Of course, since BlackRock’s biggest business line depends on passively buying the entire market, we strongly doubt that BR will completely divest itself of most energy-related firms, simply because they remain part and parcel of many of the index’s that BR’s funds track.

But if any wealthy investors were touched by Fink’s letter (even though it’s almost certainly nothing more than a PR stunt), they’re bound to love this: David Vogel, whom Bloomberg describes as a machine-learning “pioneer”, is seeking $1.5 billion for a new fund that aims to make profits by exploiting market inefficiencies linked to climate change.

Seemingly crafted to cash in on the ESG craze, Vogel’s Voloridge Sustainability Fund “will focus on companies affected by events such as floods, fires and natural disasters; firms that invest in efficient technologies; and electric-car makers and their suppliers,” according to anonymous sources cited by Bloomberg.

Vogel

Here’s a rundown of the fund’s business plan:

About 30% of the Voloridge fund’s risk will be attributed to the three climate-related strategies, with the remainder made up of Voloridge Investment Management’s medium-term equity strategy – but include ESG rules and rankings. That strategy holds the average trade for about 45 days.

The new fund will also be market neutral – bets on rising shares will be matched by wagers on falling stocks – and invest in companies that are more efficiently spending money on sustainability and ways to address environmental issues, while wagering against those that aren’t. It will short industries usually excluded from ethical investing, such as firearms, tobacco and casinos, but won’t take long positions on them.

The new fund started trading this month using only internal capital. Vogel’s firm is coming off a hot year after its $2 billion Voloridge Fund gained 37% in 2019, while its $1 billion Voloridge Trading Aggressive Fund, which is closed to outside investors, gained about 31%. The firm manages about $3.1 billion.

Vogel has reportedly spent years closely studying data pertaining to climate change, and is also extremely passionate about the issue: He also runs a nonprofit focused on studying the effects of climate change.

According to Bloomberg, Vogel’s biggest challenge will be selling the fund to Wall Street:  Just 23% of hedge fund managers surveyed by JPMorgan Chase & Co. said they believed ESG principles will help them outperform.

But cagey investors might spot another problem: Vogel’s 70-man firm is based in Jupiter, Fla., which is situated along the state’s Atlantic coast. 

If one believes Greta Thunberg & Co., that city will be underwater in a decade or two.

For somebody who’s trying to sell a fund based on the idea of capitalizing on climate change, he sure doesn’t seem too worried about it’s impact.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/15/2020 – 15:50

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

Will Any 2020 Candidate Offer an Alternative to Trump’s Trade Protectionism?

Whether President Donald Trump wins re-election this year, his protectionist economic views and skepticism about the benefits of foreign trade are likely to continue guiding federal policy for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, leading Democratic presidential candidates are far more likely to pander to the victims of Trump’s trade war—farmers and manufacturing workers chief among them—than they are likely to call for reversing the policies that are actually causing the problems. Instead of taking the opportunity to draw a sharp distinction with the current administration—which has spent three years hiking tariffs, raising barriers to trade, and causing economic turbulence for American farmers and manufacturers—Democrats on Tuesday night’s debate stage largely agreed with what Trump is trying to do for trade policy, even if they disagreed with some of his methods.

“This new trade deal is a modest improvement,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), referring to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Trump’s proposed replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

But when Warren and Trump say the USMCA is an improvement over NAFTA, what they mean is it allows for less free trade. The new deal includes higher barriers to duty-free trade for automobiles and car parts, imposes new labor standards meant to hike the cost of manufacturing in Mexico, and has a 16-year sunset clause that increases long-term uncertainty.

Though Warren is happy to vote for those backward steps, she also makes clear that she’d like to take a few more.

“It will give some relief to our farmers. It will give some relief to our workers. I believe we accept that relief, we try to help the people who need help, and we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal,” she said Tuesday.

Again, keep in mind that when Warren says “better” she really means “more protectionist” (as her own trade policy paper makes clear). Warren opposed the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has said she would block all new trade deals that do not impose American environmental and labor standards on other nations. That makes little sense, since one of the benefits of signing trade agreements (from a poorer country’s perspective) is the opportunity to develop. History has shown repeatedly that labor standards increase as countries get richer—but those incremental changes depend to some degree on foreign investment. Refusing to sign trade deals with developing countries will not cause those places to magically advance. More likely, it will cause them to stagnate.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg also endorsed Trump’s USMCA deal on Tuesday night. Former Vice President Joe Biden offered a generally positive review of the deal, though he did not explicitly endorse it.

The only real note of disagreement came from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), a candidate who never misses an opportunity to remind voters he also voted against NAFTA. Sanders broke with his Senate colleagues and promised to vote against Trump’s USMCA because it does not go far enough.

“The answer is we could do much better than a Trump-led trade deal,” Sanders said. (Again, “better” equals “more protectionist.”) He said he would not vote for any trade deal that did not put an end to the outsourcing of American jobs, or one that “does not incorporate very, very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world.”

The disagreement between Warren and Sanders on trade earned some post-debate headlines, but the difference between their stances is mostly cosmetic. Both want to see less free trade than we have now, and are on the record supporting more barriers to trade than what Trump has already erected. That Warren is willing to accept Trump’s protectionism as a stepping stone to her more competent version of his trade wars tells us that she is more practical about policy-making than Sanders is (but we already knew that). It also comes as little comfort to anyone who actually favors free trade.

If anyone in the Democratic primary field is going to stand against the Trump-Warren-Sanders consensus that trade is bad for Americans, you’d expect it to be Biden. He voted for NAFTA. He tried (and failed) to get Congress to pass the TPP when he was part of the Obama administration. And he occasionally makes a good point about the benefits of trade, as he did Tuesday night when he pointed out that exports are essential to American economic growth.

That’s the part of the trade equation that Trump doesn’t understand. A byproduct of imposing tariffs and fighting trade wars is that your own exports suffer. That happens because some of your trading partners will respond (as China has) by cutting off purchases of farm goods or raising their own tariffs in response. It also happens because your own tariffs backfire by making the goods manufactured in your own country more expensive, and therefore less competitive, in the global market.

Exports matter—and Biden understands this!

“I don’t know that there’s any trade agreement that [Sanders] would ever think made any sense,” Biden said Tuesday, dismissing the Vermont socialist’s absurd anti-trade stance. “But the problem is that 95 percent of the customers are out there.”

Biden also seems to be getting pulled towards the “no new trade deals” view espoused by Warren—though without attaching as many conditions as she does. “There will be no trade agreements signed in my administration without environmentalists and labor at the table,” he said, just three sentences before making his point about the importance of exports. “And there will be no trade agreement until we invest more in American workers.”

Maybe Biden’s mixed signals on trade are a defensive tactic he’s using to appease everyone and maintain his fragile front-runner status. Perhaps we will see a more pro-trade version of Biden if he wins the nomination and gets to spar with Trump, but don’t hold your breath.

The winner in all of this? Trump. He’s handed the Democrats (and their labor union allies) a rewrite of NAFTA that fulfills many of things on their wishlist. He has effectively neutered the pro-trade voices within the Republican Party. And he may end up getting to run for re-election against an opponent who can’t make a compelling argument against his trade policies—or, better yet, one who condemns Trump’s trade wars while telling voters that her own trade wars will be good and easy to win.

No matter who wins, Trump’s shifting of American trade policy is likely to stick. And that’s bad news for pretty much everyone.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NtOqN0
via IFTTT

Why LBJ’s Great Society Flopped—and What It Means for the 2020 Election

In a 1964 speech delivered at the University of Michigan, President Lyndon Johnson announced his plans for what he called “the Great Society,” a sweeping set of programs that marked the most ambitious expansion of the federal government since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Johnson declared war on poverty, jacked up federal spending on education, and pushed massive new entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, which promised to deliver high-quality, low-cost health care to the nation’s elderly and poor. When Republican Richard Nixon succeeded Johnson, a Democrat, as president after the 1968 election, he continued and even expanded many of the Great Society programs despite being from a different political party.

But did the Great Society achieve its goals of eradicating poverty, sheltering the homeless, and helping all citizens participate more fully in the American Dream? In Great Society: A New History, Amity Shlaes argues that Lyndon Johnson’s bold makeover of the government was a massive failure despite the good intentions of its architects and implementers.

Shlaes, who is the author of The Forgotten Man, a best-selling history of The Great Depression (read her interview with Reason), and the chair of the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation, says remembering the failure of the Great Society is especially relevant in an election year when presidential candidates are promising to spend huge amounts of money on all sorts of new government programs. “Once again, many Americans rate socialism as the generous philosophy,” writes Shlaes. “But the results of our socialism were not generous. May this book serve as a cautionary tale of lovable people who, despite themselves, hurt those they loved. Nothing is new. It is just forgotten.”

Nick Gillespie sat down to talk with her about the origins of the Great Society, its failure, and what it all means for 21st century America.

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

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

Will Any 2020 Candidate Offer an Alternative to Trump’s Trade Protectionism?

Whether President Donald Trump wins re-election this year, his protectionist economic views and skepticism about the benefits of foreign trade are likely to continue guiding federal policy for the foreseeable future.

Indeed, leading Democratic presidential candidates are far more likely to pander to the victims of Trump’s trade war—farmers and manufacturing workers chief among them—than they are likely to call for reversing the policies that are actually causing the problems. Instead of taking the opportunity to draw a sharp distinction with the current administration—which has spent three years hiking tariffs, raising barriers to trade, and causing economic turbulence for American farmers and manufacturers—Democrats on Tuesday night’s debate stage largely agreed with what Trump is trying to do for trade policy, even if they disagreed with some of his methods.

“This new trade deal is a modest improvement,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), referring to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Trump’s proposed replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

But when Warren and Trump say the USMCA is an improvement over NAFTA, what they mean is it allows for less free trade. The new deal includes higher barriers to duty-free trade for automobiles and car parts, imposes new labor standards meant to hike the cost of manufacturing in Mexico, and has a 16-year sunset clause that increases long-term uncertainty.

Though Warren is happy to vote for those backward steps, she also makes clear that she’d like to take a few more.

“It will give some relief to our farmers. It will give some relief to our workers. I believe we accept that relief, we try to help the people who need help, and we get up the next day and fight for a better trade deal,” she said Tuesday.

Again, keep in mind that when Warren says “better” she really means “more protectionist” (as her own trade policy paper makes clear). Warren opposed the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has said she would block all new trade deals that do not impose American environmental and labor standards on other nations. That makes little sense, since one of the benefits of signing trade agreements (from a poorer country’s perspective) is the opportunity to develop. History has shown repeatedly that labor standards increase as countries get richer—but those incremental changes depend to some degree on foreign investment. Refusing to sign trade deals with developing countries will not cause those places to magically advance. More likely, it will cause them to stagnate.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg also endorsed Trump’s USMCA deal on Tuesday night. Former Vice President Joe Biden offered a generally positive review of the deal, though he did not explicitly endorse it.

The only real note of disagreement came from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), a candidate who never misses an opportunity to remind voters he also voted against NAFTA. Sanders broke with his Senate colleagues and promised to vote against Trump’s USMCA because it does not go far enough.

“The answer is we could do much better than a Trump-led trade deal,” Sanders said. (Again, “better” equals “more protectionist.”) He said he would not vote for any trade deal that did not put an end to the outsourcing of American jobs, or one that “does not incorporate very, very strong principles to significantly lower fossil fuel emissions in the world.”

The disagreement between Warren and Sanders on trade earned some post-debate headlines, but the difference between their stances is mostly cosmetic. Both want to see less free trade than we have now, and are on the record supporting more barriers to trade than what Trump has already erected. That Warren is willing to accept Trump’s protectionism as a stepping stone to her more competent version of his trade wars tells us that she is more practical about policy-making than Sanders is (but we already knew that). It also comes as little comfort to anyone who actually favors free trade.

If anyone in the Democratic primary field is going to stand against the Trump-Warren-Sanders consensus that trade is bad for Americans, you’d expect it to be Biden. He voted for NAFTA. He tried (and failed) to get Congress to pass the TPP when he was part of the Obama administration. And he occasionally makes a good point about the benefits of trade, as he did Tuesday night when he pointed out that exports are essential to American economic growth.

That’s the part of the trade equation that Trump doesn’t understand. A byproduct of imposing tariffs and fighting trade wars is that your own exports suffer. That happens because some of your trading partners will respond (as China has) by cutting off purchases of farm goods or raising their own tariffs in response. It also happens because your own tariffs backfire by making the goods manufactured in your own country more expensive, and therefore less competitive, in the global market.

Exports matter—and Biden understands this!

“I don’t know that there’s any trade agreement that [Sanders] would ever think made any sense,” Biden said Tuesday, dismissing the Vermont socialist’s absurd anti-trade stance. “But the problem is that 95 percent of the customers are out there.”

Biden also seems to be getting pulled towards the “no new trade deals” view espoused by Warren—though without attaching as many conditions as she does. “There will be no trade agreements signed in my administration without environmentalists and labor at the table,” he said, just three sentences before making his point about the importance of exports. “And there will be no trade agreement until we invest more in American workers.”

Maybe Biden’s mixed signals on trade are a defensive tactic he’s using to appease everyone and maintain his fragile front-runner status. Perhaps we will see a more pro-trade version of Biden if he wins the nomination and gets to spar with Trump, but don’t hold your breath.

The winner in all of this? Trump. He’s handed the Democrats (and their labor union allies) a rewrite of NAFTA that fulfills many of things on their wishlist. He has effectively neutered the pro-trade voices within the Republican Party. And he may end up getting to run for re-election against an opponent who can’t make a compelling argument against his trade policies—or, better yet, one who condemns Trump’s trade wars while telling voters that her own trade wars will be good and easy to win.

No matter who wins, Trump’s shifting of American trade policy is likely to stick. And that’s bad news for pretty much everyone.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NtOqN0
via IFTTT

No Matter How Much Money The Fed Prints, We Still Can’t Afford Nice Things

No Matter How Much Money The Fed Prints, We Still Can’t Afford Nice Things

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

When will the American wage-earner finally tire of the skims, scams, fraud and lies that are now the foundations of everyday life?

You’d think that with the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars since 2008, we’d all be able to afford nice things. But you’d be wrong: after 11 years of Fed money-printing, nice things are even more out of reach for all but the favored few who’ve received the Fed’s bounty of freshly created currency.

The Fed’s trillions were supposed to trickle down into the real economy, but they never did. All those trillions boosted asset prices and the wealth of the $100 million yachts and private jets elite.

Instead costs have soared while wages have stagnated. If this widening gap between wages and costs were accurately presented, there would a political revolt against the Fed and those few who have benefited so immensely from Fed money-printing: the banks, financiers, corporations buying back their own shares, the owners of high-frequency trading computers, etc.

Despite the best efforts of the government’s “suppress all evidence of runaway cost inflation” functionaries, a few facts have slipped through. Let’s start with income from 1980 to the present, as per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Note that this is all pre-government-transfer (Social Security, food stamps, etc.) income, both earned (wages) and unearned (investment income).

The top households have done very, very well in the past 20 years of Fed largesse, while the incomes of the bottom 80% have gone nowhere.

Meanwhile, big-ticket costs of living such as rent have skyrocketed: so how do we buy nice things if our wages are stagnant but the cost of essentials is rising? We borrow more money.

Exhibit A for borrowing trillions of dollars to afford nice things is student loan debt. A college degree has long been worshiped as the ultimate Nice Thing everyone who aspires to middle class Nice Things must have, and thanks to cartels and financialization, student debt-serfs now labor under a crushing load of debt:

Healthcare is also a Nice Thing that is no longer affordable. Wages nudge up a few pennies while healthcare costs continue soaring.

A new vehicle is another Nice Thing that’s increasingly out of reach unless you borrow a small fortune. My colleague Bill Rice Jr. did the grunt work of comparing apples to apples on the least expensive autos and discovered a massive divergence between “official inflation” and real-world inflation: according to the BLS, inflation in the category of “New Vehicles” has been practically non-existent for decades, while the real-world cost of new autos has risen by over 200%. No, Autos Are Not “Cheaper Now” (June 28, 2019)

Yes, autos are safer, but are they “better”? Just wait until the electronic motherboard of your Nice Thing vehicle goes out and the repair bill totals thousands of dollars. There goes your “rainy day fund” if you have one, and few do.

The real-world costs are masked or buried until The Moment of Truth: the co-pays of your healthcare are arcane and obscure until the soul-crushing bill arrives, and then your next stop is bankruptcy court.

Meanwhile, the financial assets of the Fed’s Favored Few have grown to the point that they now dominate the economic and political order. Corporations can borrow billions to buy back their own shares, further enriching the already-rich, while in the real world we watch other shoppers returning items to the supermarket shelves–they’re no longer affordable and so the customer has to put the Nice Thing back on the shelf.

While Apple stock soars to new heights, those outside the the Fed’s Favored Few are happy to get a 5-year old hand-me-down iPhone since their old iPhone or Windows OS phone died.

While Mr. Softee (Microsoft) stock soars to new heights, tens of millions of their customers with Windows 7 computers received a notice that Microsoft will no longer support Windows 7, and Mr. Softee “recommends” buying a new computer with Windows 10. Windows 7 is a perfectly adequate operating system, but like the rest of America’s tottering economy, “growth” comes only as a result of planned obsolescence, not actual improvements.

When will the American wage-earner finally tire of the skims, scams, fraud and lies that are now the foundations of everyday life? Probably never, until the toll is paid in failed health and breakdown. Tax donkeys and debt-serfs can be whipped to continue for only so long, and then they break down and cannot go on any longer. The trickle of tax donkeys and debt-serfs who can no longer go on will swell to a flood, and the Fed’s Favored Few will finally face the life-changing consequences of the Fed’s lopsided giveaway to the super-wealthy.

*  *  *

My recent books:

Audiobook edition now available:
Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World ($13)
(Kindle $6.95, print $11.95) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 (Kindle), $12 (print), $13.08 ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.


Tyler Durden

Wed, 01/15/2020 – 15:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QU0NnM Tyler Durden