For a long time a great battle has been fought to determine the future direction of this country, and at this point one thing has become exceedingly clear. America is never going to be the country that it once was. Of course for millions of Americans this is actually very welcome news, but for those of us that have been working so hard for so long to restore the values that this nation was founded upon, it is incredibly sad to finally come to this realization. In order for America to return to her glory days, our nation would need to embrace the values that once made our nation so great, and the truth is that the American people have resoundingly rejected those values. This is especially true for our young people, and it won’t be too long before they are running everything. The other side has control of our education system, of our major media outlets, of our entertainment industry and of our legal system. They are literally systematically training future generations what to think, and that has proven to be an insurmountable advantage. The “culture war” has been over for a long time, and they won. But that doesn’t mean that the broader conflict is over.
A lot of people reading this article will be tempted to think that this is a Republican/Democrat thing, but that is not true at all. In fact, the truth is that many lawmakers that are considered to be “conservatives” today would be considered to be flaming liberals by our founders. Ultimately, nearly all of our political leaders have fundamentally rejected the values that so many previous generations of Americans fought so hard to defend. The United States has been overthrown, but it wasn’t by a foreign power. We have been conquered from within, and it was a very slow process, but now their victory is almost entirely complete.
If you doubt this, I would like for you to take a few moments to consider the following numbers. The following are 22 surveys which prove that Americans never want to go back to the way America used to be…
#1 According to an American Bar Association survey, only 38 percent of all Americans know that the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land.
#2 According to a new survey that was conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 76 percent of Americans support “red flag” gun laws.
#3 A recent Rasmussen survey discovered that 28 percent of all Democrats actually believe that it should be “illegal” to be a member of the NRA.
#4 A survey that was just conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 56 percent of Americans trust law enforcement authorities to use facial recognition technology “responsibly” even though it horribly violates our privacy rights.
#570 percent of Americans support “Medicare for all” – a national socialized single-payer healthcare system.
#646 percent of Americans have taken at least one pharmaceutical drug within the last 30 days.
#759 percent of Americans support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal to raise the top tax rate to 70 percent.
#8 When asked to name the greatest president in their lifetimes, more Americans named “Barack Obama” than anyone else by a wide margin.
#958 percent of American adults under the age of 35 agree that some version of socialism “would be good for the country”.
#12 One very alarming survey found that the average American spends 86 hours a month on a cellphone.
#1349 percent of Americans say that not having wifi would ruin their vacation.
#1434 percent of pet-owning adults in the United States say that their pet is their “favorite child”.
#15 According to a Quinnipiac University poll from last year, 63 percent of all Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade in place.
#16 According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of Americans now support gay marriage and only 31 percent of Americans are against it.
#1745 percent of U.S. college students believe that the phrase “In God We Trust” should be removed from our currency.
#18 Over the last three decades, the number of Americans with “no religion” has increased by 266 percent.
#19 During the 2016 election, more than 40 percent of Americans did not know who was running for vice-president from either of the major parties.
#20 Only 26 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government.
#21 One very shocking survey found that 74 percent of Americans don’t even know how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights.
#22 According to a survey that was conducted last year, Americans from the age of 18 to the age of 29 favor Democrats over Republicans by a 66 percent to 32 percent margin.
Once again, this is not a Republican/Democrat thing. Ultimately, both major political parties seem determined to take us down the tubes. One may want to do it at a faster pace than the other, but the destination is still the same.
I know that some will dismiss me as an out of touch pessimist, but I did not come to these conclusions lightly. In fact, not too long ago I spent an entire year talking to voters and trying to do what I could to point the country in the right direction, but I discovered that only a very small remnant actually wants to go in the right direction.
If George Washington, John Adams and the rest of the boys were around today, they would all be considered “dangerous extremists” and none of them would have a prayer of actually getting elected to public office.
I am certainly not giving up, and you shouldn’t either. In fact, my wife and I believe that the most exciting chapters of our lives are right around the corner.
But for the nation as a whole, our choices are going to have very severe consequences. The past few years represented yet another opportunity to amend our ways, but instead the American people have been running in the opposite direction as rapidly as they can.
Our country will be greatly rattled in the years ahead, and that process will wake many from their slumber. Let us use that time to win one heart at a time, and let us be thankful that we were born into such a critical time in history.
Many parents try to escape government-run schools for less-regulated “charter schools.”
Philadelphia mom Elaine Wells tells John Stossel that she wanted to get her boys into a charter because her local government-run school in inner-city Philadelphia was “horrible…there were fights after school every day.”
Her kids spent years losing lotteries that they hoped would get them into a charter.
“It’s heartbreaking,” Wells says.
In Philadelphia, thanks to government limits, only 7,000 kids get into charters. 29,000 apply.
But eventually, Wells got her kids into a new charter school: Boys’ Latin, founded by David Hardy.
Boys’ Latin does many unusual things. All kids learn Latin, wear uniforms, and stay longer hours—and it’s all-boys.
“The rules are there to set the stage for the students,” Hardy tells Stossel. “If the teacher can tell you to tuck in your shirt, they can tell you to be quiet in class…tell you to do your homework.”
Wells says that worked for her kids. “Before Boys Latin I would come home and say, ‘OK, I need you to read for an hour—read a book.’ And their response would be, ‘Why? What did we do?’ Like reading was a punishment! [After] Boys’ Latin…I would find books in the bathroom on the floor!”
Her son Ibrahim adds, “It came to the point where the teacher would tell our mom that I’d taken too many books.”
The school was better at hiring teachers who tried hard.
Wells recalls being shocked to find her sons talking to teachers at night: “He’s in his room and I hear him talking on the phone and it was 10 o’clock at night. I’m like, ‘Who are you on the phone with?’ and he was like, ‘Well, Mr. Bumbulsky told me to call him if I needed help with homework.'”
Stossel pushed back at some of David Hardy’s ideas, like making every student take four years of Latin. “It’s ridiculous. Nobody speaks Latin,” Stossel suggests to founder David Hardy.
“Well we picked Latin because it was hard,” Hardy replies.
“What’s the point of that?” Stossel asks.
“Because life is hard—to be prepared you have to work hard,” Hardy says. “We wanted to get that into the psyche of our students.”
Overall, Boys’ Latin gets somewhat better test scores than surrounding schools in most subjects.
“We deliver,” Hardy says. “Since the very first class we’ve sent more black boys to college than any high school in Pennsylvania.”
Despite that, government officials rejected his proposal to open a “Girls’ Latin” school. They’ve rejected a bunch of schools.
Opponents complain that charters “drain scarce resources” from government-run schools.
“You can’t tell me that,” Wells responds. “Every parent pays taxes…if I choose for my child to go to a charter school, then that’s where my taxes should go!”
In fact, Philadelphia and other cities don’t give charters the same amount of money they give to schools they control. Philadelphia gives them only 70 percent of that. So per student, Stossel notes, the government schools make money whenever a kid leaves for a charter. Over 13 years of schooling, Philadelphia saves $70,000 per kid.
Stossel asks Wells: What if those savings were passed onto the child?
“Absolutely! Give them the rest of the money!” Wells laughs.
But it won’t happen because, as Hardy notes, “It would also mean that there would be a whole lot less union jobs. The unions are not going to be for that.”
The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PYMpfv
via IFTTT
Many parents try to escape government-run schools for less-regulated “charter schools.”
Philadelphia mom Elaine Wells tells John Stossel that she wanted to get her boys into a charter because her local government-run school in inner-city Philadelphia was “horrible…there were fights after school every day.”
Her kids spent years losing lotteries that they hoped would get them into a charter.
“It’s heartbreaking,” Wells says.
In Philadelphia, thanks to government limits, only 7,000 kids get into charters. 29,000 apply.
But eventually, Wells got her kids into a new charter school: Boys’ Latin, founded by David Hardy.
Boys’ Latin does many unusual things. All kids learn Latin, wear uniforms, and stay longer hours—and it’s all-boys.
“The rules are there to set the stage for the students,” Hardy tells Stossel. “If the teacher can tell you to tuck in your shirt, they can tell you to be quiet in class…tell you to do your homework.”
Wells says that worked for her kids. “Before Boys Latin I would come home and say, ‘OK, I need you to read for an hour—read a book.’ And their response would be, ‘Why? What did we do?’ Like reading was a punishment! [After] Boys’ Latin…I would find books in the bathroom on the floor!”
Her son Ibrahim adds, “It came to the point where the teacher would tell our mom that I’d taken too many books.”
The school was better at hiring teachers who tried hard.
Wells recalls being shocked to find her sons talking to teachers at night: “He’s in his room and I hear him talking on the phone and it was 10 o’clock at night. I’m like, ‘Who are you on the phone with?’ and he was like, ‘Well, Mr. Bumbulsky told me to call him if I needed help with homework.'”
Stossel pushed back at some of David Hardy’s ideas, like making every student take four years of Latin. “It’s ridiculous. Nobody speaks Latin,” Stossel suggests to founder David Hardy.
“Well we picked Latin because it was hard,” Hardy replies.
“What’s the point of that?” Stossel asks.
“Because life is hard—to be prepared you have to work hard,” Hardy says. “We wanted to get that into the psyche of our students.”
Overall, Boys’ Latin gets somewhat better test scores than surrounding schools in most subjects.
“We deliver,” Hardy says. “Since the very first class we’ve sent more black boys to college than any high school in Pennsylvania.”
Despite that, government officials rejected his proposal to open a “Girls’ Latin” school. They’ve rejected a bunch of schools.
Opponents complain that charters “drain scarce resources” from government-run schools.
“You can’t tell me that,” Wells responds. “Every parent pays taxes…if I choose for my child to go to a charter school, then that’s where my taxes should go!”
In fact, Philadelphia and other cities don’t give charters the same amount of money they give to schools they control. Philadelphia gives them only 70 percent of that. So per student, Stossel notes, the government schools make money whenever a kid leaves for a charter. Over 13 years of schooling, Philadelphia saves $70,000 per kid.
Stossel asks Wells: What if those savings were passed onto the child?
“Absolutely! Give them the rest of the money!” Wells laughs.
But it won’t happen because, as Hardy notes, “It would also mean that there would be a whole lot less union jobs. The unions are not going to be for that.”
The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2PYMpfv
via IFTTT
China’s Xi: “I Can’t Believe What President Trump Says”
With equity futures gradually rolling over overnight, there was the obligatory dose of trade war optimism in this morning’s news flow, with Trump reiterating that China wants to talk, while China was said to be hopeful the US can create conditions for trade talks; this was followed by a CCTV report according to which U.S. delegates said they hope U.S.-China trade talks can achieve progress and reach a deal as soon as possible, while China’s premier Li was quoted as saying that China and US should find solutions to disputes based on consensus reached by leaders of the two nations, adding that “China treats domestic, foreign companies fairly” and “puts more focus on intellectual property protection”, noting that “companies including U.S. firms are welcome to increase investment in China.”
This was more than enough to stabilize the drop in futures. But a bigger problem may be emerging behind the scenes, as the true feelings of China’s president toward president Trump have finally emerged on the record.
According to Kyodo, President Xi Jinping voiced distrust of U.S. President Donald Trump during his meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in June amid the U.S.-China trade dispute, a source close to the matter said Tuesday.
“I can’t believe what President Trump says” concerning trade negotiations, Xi told Abe during a meeting on the fringe of the Group of 20 summit in Osaka. And while Abe told Xi that Trump trusts the Chinese president, Xi continued to air his grievances about his U.S. counterpart, the diplomatic source told Kyodo News.
The reason for Xi’s distrust: despite agreeing to Xi’s proposal on the phone to deal with Chinese telecommunication giant Huawei Technologies during the next working-level negotiations, “once the negotiations began, the U.S. side said that Huawei is not a trade issue but a security issue and did not deal with it,” Xi told Abe, pointing out that Trump’s remarks proved unreliable.
According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Xi had a telephone conference with Trump on June 18, during which he expressed China’s hope that “the U.S. side can treat Chinese firms in a fair manner.”
Xi further complained to Abe that while the Trump administration has repeatedly criticized Beijing for supporting state-owned companies with subsidies, “the U.S. is also providing Boeing with subsidies,” referring to the Chicago-based U.S. airplane manufacturer.
Last week, the United States slapped China with the first stage of a new round of tariffs that will see nearly all Chinese imports taxed. China retaliated on the same day with its own round of tariffs on U.S. goods and announced the following day its decision to lodge a case at the World Trade Organization over the latest U.S imposition of import duties on Chinese exports to the United States.
While the United States and China are planning to hold ministerial- level trade talks in October in Washington, it is uncertain whether there will be any breakthrough, especially with neither side trusting anything the other says.
Eager to claim a major trade victory to boost his 2020 re-election bid, Trump is likely to strengthen his hardline attitude toward China, according to Kyodo. But with no mutual trust between the two leaders, a major concession by Xi seems unlikely, making a prolonged conflict between the United States and China almost inevitable.
Meanwhile, relations between Japan and China have been improving recently, with the two sides preparing for Xi’s first state visit to Japan planned for next spring.
In Oransky v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 2019 WL 4242670 (D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2019), Paula Oransky was fired by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. She sued, claiming (among other things) that the firing violated a Colorado statute that barred firing employees for any “lawful [off-duty] activity”—in this case, her actions at a community meeting involving Anadarko Petroleum, an MMM customer. (For more on how state statutes limit employer retaliation for employee speech, see this article of mine.) The court held against her, partly because her actions weren’t lawful:
Ms. Oransky resides with her family in Erie, Colorado. On September 27, 2017, Anadarko hosted a “Community Forum” in Erie to discuss its plans for oil and gas development in the area. Ms. Oransky attended the forum, where she met and briefly chatted with an Anadarko official with whom she was acquainted through her work.
During the forum, Ms. Oransky—who is concerned about health and environmental consequences associated with oil and gas development—and others protested Anadarko’s activities. Ms. Oransky led protesters in a series of call-and-response chants to the effect of “We demand you [Anadarko] leave our community!” and “No drilling, no wells!,” among others. The protestors succeeded in causing the forum to be cancelled early. After the protest, Ms. Oransky bragged in an online message that she “helped shut down the meeting.” All of the protest activities, as well as the aftermath, were recorded on video and posted on the protestors’ public Facebook page … .
MMM’s motion first challenges whether Ms. Oransky can show that her protest activities at the forum were “lawful.” MMM argues that Ms. Oransky’s disruption of the forum constituted violations of Colorado state laws—e.g. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-108 (prohibiting persons from “disrupting lawful assembly” via “physical action, verbal utterance, or any other means”)—as well as provisions of the Erie, Colorado municipal code—e.g. Erie Mun. Code § 7-6-5(N) (prohibiting any “use or attempt to interfere with the use of any … space or facility within parks or recreation facilities … reserved for any other person or group by a permit”).
Ms. Oransky responds that no citations were issued by police as a result of the protest and that no one else was attempting to speak at the time when the protest occurred. [But a Colorado Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Colorado off-duty-lawful-activities statute] effectively disposes of Ms. Oransky’s contention that her conduct cannot be considered unlawful simply because she was not charged with a crime. In [that case], there was no suggestion that the employee [who had been fired for using marijuana off-duty] had been charged by federal authorities with possession of marijuana; indeed, the Supreme Court noted in a footnote that federal authorities had expressly indicated an unwillingness to enforce federal laws against persons like the employee who were otherwise complying with state medical marijuana laws.. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court concluded that the employee’s use of marijuana was unlawful because it was nominally prohibited by law, regardless of whether the law was actually being enforced against him. By the same reasoning, the question here is not whether a police officer actually cited Ms. Oransky with a state or local criminal violation, but whether an officer could have done so.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-108 provides that “a person commits disrupting lawful assembly if, intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he significantly obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action, verbal utterances, or other means.” [Another Colorado Supreme Court precedent] interprets that statute in two significant respects. First, it indicates that, in determining whether a person intended to disrupt a gathering, the factfinder must consider the nature of the meeting, the “implicit customs and usages or explicit rules germane to a given meeting”—i.e. that outdoor events tolerate more disruption than indoor ones, and that political conventions might expect “prolonged, raucous, boisterous demonstrations” whereas funeral services would not—and the extent to which the person “was aware that his conduct was inconsistent with the customs of the assembly and whether he thereby intended his conduct to disrupt the assembly significantly.” Second, it suggests that a “significant disruption” to the event must occur….
There is no dispute that the forum was a lawful meeting organized by Anadarko. It was held indoors, in a community room in the town’s Community Center, and scheduled to run from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In publicizing the forum, Anadarko explained that its purpose was to invite community members to “meet the Anadarko employees working on these planned activities, learn more about oil and natural gas development, and ask any questions you may have about our operations.” As such, the “implicit customs” of such meetings might encompass heated exchanges between individual residents and Anadarko representatives on a one-to-one basis, and perhaps protests and picketing outside the venue, but it would be unreasonable to conclude that such meetings are customarily expected to tolerate groups of 30 or more individuals holding up signs and chanting loudly so as to make other discussions between interested residents and Anadarko representatives impossible.
It is also undisputed that Ms. Oransky fully understood and expected that her conduct and that of the protesters acting in concert with her would disrupt the meeting. In an e-mail sent to protesters just hours before the meeting, Ms. Oransky laid out her plans and expectations. She intended that protesters initially enter the forum shortly before 6:00 p.m. and blend in with legitimate attendees: “Everyone should be looking at the displays, asking general questions to the Anadarko reps to kill time … Do not protest at this time.” Other protesters in an e-mail chain that included Ms. Oransky also stated that they would have to “sneak banners in” to the forum..Ms. Oransky’s e-mail indicated that at 6:00 p.m., she should give a signal to the protesters and they would begin chanting and displaying signs. Her e-mail makes clear that Ms. Oransky understood and expected that these actions would be disruptive enough that the protesters would be ejected from the forum: “Likely, … we will be asked to leave, which we will do.” These facts underscore that Ms. Oranksy knew that her actions and those of the group she was leading would be unwelcome at the forum and would have the effect of disrupting it.
The record is also undisputed that Ms. Oransky’s conduct did indeed significantly disrupt the forum. Approximately 2½ minutes after Ms. Oransky’s group began chanting—roughly at 6:02 p.m.—a representative of the Community Center announced that the facility was closing and that everyone had the leave the building. Ms. Oransky took credit for that announcement immediately telling a videographer “we closed it down!”
Ms. Oransky is more demure in her response brief, arguing that it is possible that the closure was not a result of her leading the chanting inside the forum room but rather a response to other protesters who were gathered in the hallway or outside the building. But the record is clear that Ms. Oransky was instrumental in the recruitment and instructing of those protesters as well. In a September 17 e-mail exchange, an individual named Theresa contacted Ms. Oransky and asked if she would like as many as 100 protesters from a Boulder-based organization to attend the September 27 forum and protest, and Ms. Oransky responded “I’d be all for that idea.” Another participant in the same e-mail chain later advised Theresa that “Paula”—Ms. Oransky—”is going to organize the Anadarko meeting it terms of any noise we need to make outside, etc. We are going to entrust Paula to take on this task.” In her e-mail on the day of the forum, Ms. Oransky gives specific instructions to both protesters who would be inside the forum room and “people outside” as well (whom she stated “we will use … as an important secondary event, almost a diversion”).
In this sense, when Ms. Oransky boasted that “we closed it down,” it is clear that she is referring to all of the protesters that she was directing, both inside and outside the venue. Thus, even if, as Ms. Oransky argues, the forum was cut short because of protesters in the hallway or outside the building, rather than as a result of Ms. Oransky personally leading the chanting inside the forum room, it remains undisputed that the entire protest operation was directed by Ms. Oransky and that the disruption of the forum was the result of her actions.
Under such circumstances, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of fact in the record and that, on the undisputed facts presented herein, Ms. Oransky’s conduct on September 27 could have been deemed to constitute a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-108, such that she cannot establish that her activities were “lawful.” As a result, MMM is entitled to summary judgment on her statutory claim….
The court also concluded that, in any event, Oransky’s actions would have fit within two exceptions to the statute, for activities that “reasonably and rationally relate[] to the employment activities of a particular employee or particular group of employees” (rather than all of the employer’s employees), or activities where disciplinary action “is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest” with the employee’s liability to the employer. Oransky, the court stressed, wasn’t just an average MMM employee, but rather was responsible for maintaining relationships with customers, including Anadarko. These exceptions raise separate and complicated questions, I think, and ones that are peculiar to the particular Colorado law (though they may also be influential in North Dakota, which has a very similarly worded statute). But the point about shouting down not being “lawful activity” may be relevant to many other kinds of disputes as well.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZZlkZy
via IFTTT
French President Emmanuel Macron failed to promote successfully his Iranian initiative with the US administration despite the initial blessing of his US counterpart. This failure led Iran to make a third gradual withdrawal from its JCPOA nuclear deal commitment, raising two main issues.
Iran has become a regional power to be reckoned with, so we can now scrap from reactions to its policies the words “submit,” or “bow to the international community”. Moreover, since Europe is apparently no longer in a position to fulfill its commitments, Iran will now be headed towards a total pull-out following further gradual withdrawal steps. Just before the US elections due in November 2020, Iran is expected to become a nuclear country with the full capability of producing uranium enriched to more than 20% uranium-235, weapons-usable and therefore in a position to manufacture dozens of nuclear bombs (for which uranium must be enriched to about 90%). However, this does not necessarily mean that this is Iran’s ultimate objective.
Screenshot of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani inspecting and touring a facility.
Industry data shows that half of the effort goes into enriching from 0.7% to 4%. If Iran reaches the level of 20%, the journey towards 90% is almost done. A few thousand centrifuges are needed to reach 20% enrichment while a few hundred are enough to cross from 20% to the 90% needed for a nuclear bomb.
When Iran announces it is reaching a level which is considered critical by the west, there is the possibility that Israel might act militarily against Iran’s capability as it did in Iraq in 1981, in Syria in 2009, and in assassinating nuclear scientists. If this happens, the Middle East will be exposed to a mega earthquake whose outcome is unpredictable. But if Israel and the US are not in a position to react against Iran’s total withdrawal from the JCPOA (nuclear deal), Iran will no longer accept a return to the 2015 deal. Its position will become much stronger and any deal would be difficult to reach.
Sources within the decision-making circle have said “Iran will become a state with full nuclear capability. It is also aiming for self-sufficiency and is planning to move away from counting solely on its oil exports for its annual budget. It is starting to generate and manufacture in many sectors and it will certainly increase its missile development and production. Missile technology has proved to be the most efficient and cheapest deterrent weapon for Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and the Yemen.”
Iran has been following a “strategy of patience” since US President Donald Trump unlawfully revoked the nuclear deal. Tehran allowed Europe, for an entire year, to think about a way to tempt Iran to stay within the nuclear deal on the basis of 4 (France, Russia, China, UK) + 1 (Germany), excluding the US. After that long waiting period, Iran has taken the initiative into its own hands and is gradually pulling out of the deal. It seems Trump did not learn from President Obama who signed the deal, convinced that US sanctions would be ineffective.
But Iran is not missing an opportunity worth trying to make its case. At the G7 in France, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif cut short his visit to Beijing to meet European leaders and ministers at the request of President Macron. It was hinted that there were chances for Iran to sell its oil and that Macron had managed to break through the US-Iran tension.
Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani thought there was a real opportunity to smooth over tensions and that Trump, according to the source in Tehran, was ready to ease the sanctions in exchange for a meeting and the beginning of discussion. This is why Rouhani overtly stated his readiness to meet any person if that helped. But Zarif was surprised to learn that Macron didn’t fulfil his promises – because Trump had changed his mind. The initiative was stillborn and all are back at square one.
Macron understood that the problem doesn’t lie with the US President but in his consigliere Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his neocon team of Pompeo-Bolton. The meeting between the French Minister of Armed Forces Florence Parly and the Pentagon Chief Mark Esper was an attempt to convince the US Secretary of Defence to distance himself from the Pompeo-Bolton team before the situation gets out of control and Iran became unstoppable.
“Trump rejected the French idea to offer Iran a line of credit of 15 billions of Euros (not Dollars). This credit is part of Iran’s acquired right since it has agreed with Europe to sell 700,000 barrels of oil daily as part of a signed deal. Following the US sanctions on any country or company buying Iranian oil, Europe refrained from honouring the agreement. Vice Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi calculated the amount at stake of 15 billion euros with European representatives. The agreement was that Iran would sell oil to Europe for this amount in the future, and that Iran could buy any product, not limited to food and medicine which were originally excluded from the US sanctions. Iran, according to the deal with European partners, would have had the right to take the money in cash and transfer it to any other country, including Iran”, said the source.
All this has been thrown to the winds. The result is simple: Iran will continue its nuclear program but will allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor development. It is relying on the nuclear deal articles 26 and 36 to partially withdraw, a deal that was not signed based on trust, but on respect for law. This is the reason why Iran announced its third withdrawal step, increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium and replacing its IR-1 and IR-2m with IR-6 centrifuges (supposed to happen in 2026, as stated in paragraph 39).
Europe has used all its resources to persuade Iran from taking withdrawal steps, but to no avail. Iran has moved from a “patience strategy” to an “aggressive strategy” and will no longer accept a soft approach. It has undergone sanctions since 1979 and though it has learned to live with them, its patience is exhausted.
The US has nothing to offer to Iran but further sanctions and additional pressure on Europe, so the old continent follows its withdrawal path. The US administration planned to form various coalitions, including an Arab NATO, but failed so far to pull off any such alliance. US officials believed the Iranian regime would fall in months and that the population would turn against their leaders. Nothing of the sort happened. On the contrary: Trump and his neocons brought Iranian pragmatists and hardliners together for the same cause. The US destroyed the possibility of any moderate argument with people like Rouhani and Zarif, and showed that it was too untrustworthy for any reliable deal or agreement.
Iran FM Javad Zarif with French President Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the recent G7 summit, via mfa.ir
Iran is feeling stronger: it has downed a US drone, sabotaged several tankers and confiscated a British-flagged tanker despite the presence of the Royal Navy nearby. It has shown its readiness for war without pushing for it. Iran knows its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Palestine will be united as one in the case of war. The Iranian officials did not use revolutionary or sectarian slogans to face down US sanctions but instead managed to create national solidarity behind its firm policy of confrontation with the US. Washington, largely responsible for the status quo in the Gulf, failed to weaken Iran’s resolve and has so far been unsuccessful in undermining the Iranian economy. It is putting about the idea that its “suffocation policy” has been successful, but Iran is not giving the submission signals the US administration wants and needs, to justify the tension it has created in the Middle East and the Gulf.
Iran is handling its policy towards the US and Europe in the same way Iranians weave carpets. It takes several years to finish an artisanal carpet and many more years to sell it. The nuclear deal needed several years of preparation but even more time for establishing acceptance and the bona fides of the signatories. Trump’s simple-minded decision destroyed all that work. The US and Europe have lost the initiative. Europe is not politically in any position to stand against the US sanctions, nor does it have sufficient tools or standing to offer Iran and thus force it to the negotiating table.
Iran is becoming stronger and much more difficult to tame than in the past. It is imposing itself as a regional power and a challenge to the west. It has advanced nuclear technology and capabilities, a self-sufficient armament program and it is strengthening its allies in the Middle East.
It is difficult to foresee any negotiation between Iran and the West before November 2020, the date of the US elections.Iran is no longer willing to accept in 2019 what it signed in 2015; Trump is responsible for the new scenario. Destroying the nuclear deal now redounds to the benefit of Iran. There will be a time when the US administration, due to the realization of its ignorance in Iranian affairs, will feel regret, and will ask to return to the negotiating table – perhaps after Trump? But conditions will definitely no longer be the same and it may very well come too late to see Iran accepting what it signed for in 2015.
In Oransky v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 2019 WL 4242670 (D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2019), Paula Oransky was fired by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. She sued, claiming (among other things) that the firing violated a Colorado statute that barred firing employees for any “lawful [off-duty] activity”—in this case, her actions at a community meeting involving Anadarko Petroleum, an MMM customer. (For more on how state statutes limit employer retaliation for employee speech, see this article of mine.) The court held against her, partly because her actions weren’t lawful:
Ms. Oransky resides with her family in Erie, Colorado. On September 27, 2017, Anadarko hosted a “Community Forum” in Erie to discuss its plans for oil and gas development in the area. Ms. Oransky attended the forum, where she met and briefly chatted with an Anadarko official with whom she was acquainted through her work.
During the forum, Ms. Oransky—who is concerned about health and environmental consequences associated with oil and gas development—and others protested Anadarko’s activities. Ms. Oransky led protesters in a series of call-and-response chants to the effect of “We demand you [Anadarko] leave our community!” and “No drilling, no wells!,” among others. The protestors succeeded in causing the forum to be cancelled early. After the protest, Ms. Oransky bragged in an online message that she “helped shut down the meeting.” All of the protest activities, as well as the aftermath, were recorded on video and posted on the protestors’ public Facebook page … .
MMM’s motion first challenges whether Ms. Oransky can show that her protest activities at the forum were “lawful.” MMM argues that Ms. Oransky’s disruption of the forum constituted violations of Colorado state laws—e.g. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-108 (prohibiting persons from “disrupting lawful assembly” via “physical action, verbal utterance, or any other means”)—as well as provisions of the Erie, Colorado municipal code—e.g. Erie Mun. Code § 7-6-5(N) (prohibiting any “use or attempt to interfere with the use of any … space or facility within parks or recreation facilities … reserved for any other person or group by a permit”).
Ms. Oransky responds that no citations were issued by police as a result of the protest and that no one else was attempting to speak at the time when the protest occurred. [But a Colorado Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Colorado off-duty-lawful-activities statute] effectively disposes of Ms. Oransky’s contention that her conduct cannot be considered unlawful simply because she was not charged with a crime. In [that case], there was no suggestion that the employee [who had been fired for using marijuana off-duty] had been charged by federal authorities with possession of marijuana; indeed, the Supreme Court noted in a footnote that federal authorities had expressly indicated an unwillingness to enforce federal laws against persons like the employee who were otherwise complying with state medical marijuana laws.. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court concluded that the employee’s use of marijuana was unlawful because it was nominally prohibited by law, regardless of whether the law was actually being enforced against him. By the same reasoning, the question here is not whether a police officer actually cited Ms. Oransky with a state or local criminal violation, but whether an officer could have done so.
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-108 provides that “a person commits disrupting lawful assembly if, intending to prevent or disrupt any lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, he significantly obstructs or interferes with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action, verbal utterances, or other means.” [Another Colorado Supreme Court precedent] interprets that statute in two significant respects. First, it indicates that, in determining whether a person intended to disrupt a gathering, the factfinder must consider the nature of the meeting, the “implicit customs and usages or explicit rules germane to a given meeting”—i.e. that outdoor events tolerate more disruption than indoor ones, and that political conventions might expect “prolonged, raucous, boisterous demonstrations” whereas funeral services would not—and the extent to which the person “was aware that his conduct was inconsistent with the customs of the assembly and whether he thereby intended his conduct to disrupt the assembly significantly.” Second, it suggests that a “significant disruption” to the event must occur….
There is no dispute that the forum was a lawful meeting organized by Anadarko. It was held indoors, in a community room in the town’s Community Center, and scheduled to run from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. In publicizing the forum, Anadarko explained that its purpose was to invite community members to “meet the Anadarko employees working on these planned activities, learn more about oil and natural gas development, and ask any questions you may have about our operations.” As such, the “implicit customs” of such meetings might encompass heated exchanges between individual residents and Anadarko representatives on a one-to-one basis, and perhaps protests and picketing outside the venue, but it would be unreasonable to conclude that such meetings are customarily expected to tolerate groups of 30 or more individuals holding up signs and chanting loudly so as to make other discussions between interested residents and Anadarko representatives impossible.
It is also undisputed that Ms. Oransky fully understood and expected that her conduct and that of the protesters acting in concert with her would disrupt the meeting. In an e-mail sent to protesters just hours before the meeting, Ms. Oransky laid out her plans and expectations. She intended that protesters initially enter the forum shortly before 6:00 p.m. and blend in with legitimate attendees: “Everyone should be looking at the displays, asking general questions to the Anadarko reps to kill time … Do not protest at this time.” Other protesters in an e-mail chain that included Ms. Oransky also stated that they would have to “sneak banners in” to the forum..Ms. Oransky’s e-mail indicated that at 6:00 p.m., she should give a signal to the protesters and they would begin chanting and displaying signs. Her e-mail makes clear that Ms. Oransky understood and expected that these actions would be disruptive enough that the protesters would be ejected from the forum: “Likely, … we will be asked to leave, which we will do.” These facts underscore that Ms. Oranksy knew that her actions and those of the group she was leading would be unwelcome at the forum and would have the effect of disrupting it.
The record is also undisputed that Ms. Oransky’s conduct did indeed significantly disrupt the forum. Approximately 2½ minutes after Ms. Oransky’s group began chanting—roughly at 6:02 p.m.—a representative of the Community Center announced that the facility was closing and that everyone had the leave the building. Ms. Oransky took credit for that announcement immediately telling a videographer “we closed it down!”
Ms. Oransky is more demure in her response brief, arguing that it is possible that the closure was not a result of her leading the chanting inside the forum room but rather a response to other protesters who were gathered in the hallway or outside the building. But the record is clear that Ms. Oransky was instrumental in the recruitment and instructing of those protesters as well. In a September 17 e-mail exchange, an individual named Theresa contacted Ms. Oransky and asked if she would like as many as 100 protesters from a Boulder-based organization to attend the September 27 forum and protest, and Ms. Oransky responded “I’d be all for that idea.” Another participant in the same e-mail chain later advised Theresa that “Paula”—Ms. Oransky—”is going to organize the Anadarko meeting it terms of any noise we need to make outside, etc. We are going to entrust Paula to take on this task.” In her e-mail on the day of the forum, Ms. Oransky gives specific instructions to both protesters who would be inside the forum room and “people outside” as well (whom she stated “we will use … as an important secondary event, almost a diversion”).
In this sense, when Ms. Oransky boasted that “we closed it down,” it is clear that she is referring to all of the protesters that she was directing, both inside and outside the venue. Thus, even if, as Ms. Oransky argues, the forum was cut short because of protesters in the hallway or outside the building, rather than as a result of Ms. Oransky personally leading the chanting inside the forum room, it remains undisputed that the entire protest operation was directed by Ms. Oransky and that the disruption of the forum was the result of her actions.
Under such circumstances, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of fact in the record and that, on the undisputed facts presented herein, Ms. Oransky’s conduct on September 27 could have been deemed to constitute a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-108, such that she cannot establish that her activities were “lawful.” As a result, MMM is entitled to summary judgment on her statutory claim….
The court also concluded that, in any event, Oransky’s actions would have fit within two exceptions to the statute, for activities that “reasonably and rationally relate[] to the employment activities of a particular employee or particular group of employees” (rather than all of the employer’s employees), or activities where disciplinary action “is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest” with the employee’s liability to the employer. Oransky, the court stressed, wasn’t just an average MMM employee, but rather was responsible for maintaining relationships with customers, including Anadarko. These exceptions raise separate and complicated questions, I think, and ones that are peculiar to the particular Colorado law (though they may also be influential in North Dakota, which has a very similarly worded statute). But the point about shouting down not being “lawful activity” may be relevant to many other kinds of disputes as well.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ZZlkZy
via IFTTT
Speaking at the University of Chicago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lamented the current politicized and polarized approach to judicial confirmations.
During the hourlong event, Ginsburg also lamented the increasingly partisan nature of Supreme Court confirmations, in which senators vote mostly along party lines.
She noted in particular the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005, Roberts was confirmed with a 78-22 vote. Sotomayor and Kagan—nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010, respectively—each received fewer than 70 affirmative votes.
“We really should get back to the way it was when people were examining qualifications of what it takes to be a judge, rather than trying to guess how they would vote on contentious cases,” said Ginsburg, who was confirmed in 1993 with a 96-3 vote, becoming the second woman to join the nation’s highest court.
“You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
Although subsequent judicial nominees have repeatedly sought to adopt this approach, Senators on the judiciary committee have been resistant, particularly with judicial nominees from the opposite side of the aisle.
Speaking of Justice Ginsburg, CNN reports on how she welcomed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Court after his confirmation.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3055P2f
via IFTTT
Speaking at the University of Chicago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lamented the current politicized and polarized approach to judicial confirmations.
During the hourlong event, Ginsburg also lamented the increasingly partisan nature of Supreme Court confirmations, in which senators vote mostly along party lines.
She noted in particular the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Nominated by President George W. Bush in 2005, Roberts was confirmed with a 78-22 vote. Sotomayor and Kagan—nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010, respectively—each received fewer than 70 affirmative votes.
“We really should get back to the way it was when people were examining qualifications of what it takes to be a judge, rather than trying to guess how they would vote on contentious cases,” said Ginsburg, who was confirmed in 1993 with a 96-3 vote, becoming the second woman to join the nation’s highest court.
“You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”
Although subsequent judicial nominees have repeatedly sought to adopt this approach, Senators on the judiciary committee have been resistant, particularly with judicial nominees from the opposite side of the aisle.
Speaking of Justice Ginsburg, CNN reports on how she welcomed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Court after his confirmation.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3055P2f
via IFTTT
US Futures Drift Higher On Chinese Invitation To Bagholders, Trade And Central Bank Optimism
There wasn’t the usual trade talk optimism overnight, nor central bank trial balloons that record low interest rates will be dragged even deeper into negative territory.
Instead, what helped send European equity markets and US equity futures back in the green after an overnight slump that pushed the Emini from 2,985 to 2,965, was news that China removed one more hurdle for foreign investment into its capital markets almost 20 years after it first allowed access, when Beijing scrapped quotas for approved foreign institutional investors in domestic bond and equity markets. This means that all those WeWork bagholders who may have lost a majority of their investments, can no go ahead and lose the other have by investing in China, where the auditors have a habit of “community adjusting” everything.
In any case, the news helped send the Emini back in the green from overnight session lows just after the European open..
… with global markets back to unchanged.
Meanwhile, what we said about no central bank trial balloons, well we were kidding, because just after 7am, Reuters leaked that the BOJ “may be open to debate additional easing”, because apparently the existing easing has worked so well. According to the report, the BOJ is considering taking rates further into negative territory if it decides to ease, but other options – such as tiering – also remain on the table, Reuters reports, citing unidentified people familiar. The BOJ’s decision on whether and when to ease is expected to be a close call; conclusion may not be final until the last minute which will be just after the Fed’s own rate cut announcement. Ultimately, the BOJ’s thinking is driven by the bank’s growing less confident about early pickup in global growth
Actually, it turns out that we were also kidding about the lack of trade optimism: according to Bloomberg, China’s Premier Li said that US and China should find a solution to the ongoing trade dispute, adding that he hopes (there’s that word again) that trade talks make progress. In response there was an immediate “risk on” move as European equity indices spiked higher as a result of these headlines with the DAX Sep’ 19 futures spiking higher to 12,265 from 12,235, while the crude complex and USD/JPY also saw positive ticks. That said, the sharp move higher in US equities was less pronounced and quickly faded.
The Stoxx Europe 600 Index dropped a second day, led by financial services and health-care shares, although it rebounded following the China Li and BOJ more easing news. The pound fluctuated as embattled British Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted he won’t ask for another Brexit delay, while U.K. wage and unemployment data beat estimates. Most euro-zone sovereign bonds nudged lower as European Central Bank officials prepare to meet.
Earlier in the session, Asian stocks fluctuated, with energy producers advancing and health-care firms retreating. Markets in the region were mixed as investors assessed the global growth outlook and China-U.S. trade negotiations with South Korea up and Thailand down. The Topix climbed 0.4%, as Japanese banks contributed most to gains following a rebound in long-term U.S. Treasury yields, which in turn pushed JGB yields modestly higher as well. The Shanghai Composite Index edged down 0.1%, snapping a six-day rising streak, with Kweichow Moutai and Ping An Insurance Group among the biggest drags. The big news out of China, as noted above, is that global funds no longer need approvals to purchase quotas to buy Chinese stocks and bonds, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange said in a statement on Tuesday. It removed the $300 billion overall cap on overseas purchases of the assets, about two-thirds of which remain unused.
Also overnight, China reported that its headline CPI inflation was flat at 2.8% year-on-year in August, just above consensus expectations and close to the 3% policy target; in month-on-month terms, headline CPI inflation moderated to +2.9% in August from +3.5% in July. A bigger problem was the second consecutive print of negative year-over-year PPI inflation, which moderated further to -0.8% yoy in August, on both a high base (PPI up 3.6% mom s.a. ann in August 2018) and a sequential decline of 2.8% mom s.a. ann in August. Inflation in the ferrous metals sector slowed the most, followed by petroleum industry, suggesting corporate profits will be further depressed in coming months.
In emerging markets, a four-day rally in equities stalled and the risk premium on sovereign debt rose as investors marked time before the resumption of trade talks between China and the U.S. as well as central-bank meetings in coming days. Developing-nation stocks climbed almost 4% in the previous four days after China and the U.S. announced face-to-face negotiations aimed at ending the tariff war would be held in Washington next month. China, meantime, removed one more hurdle for foreign investment into its capital markets almost 20 years after it first allowed access, when it said Tuesday that global funds no longer need approvals to purchase quotas to buy Chinese stocks and bonds.
With the European Central Bank announcing its policy decision in Thursday and the Federal Reserve next up, investors are hoping on increased monetary stimulus to prop up markets. A gauge of emerging-market currencies gained for a fifth day, the longest streak since June, with South Africa’s rand leading the advance.
“Markets were oversold, rebounded and without any genuinely positive catalysts are faltering again,” said Julian Rimmer, a trader at Investec Bank in London. “Funds were clearly bearishly positioned over the summer with the salami slicing of global growth expectations, low volumes and the worldwide hunt for yield. Some of that negativity has diminished slightly so we had some short-covering and a bit more risk-on, but fundamentally nothing has changed and all those concerns are still apparent.”
In rates, European bond markets inched lower while the region’s stocks declined for a second day ahead of Thursday’s ECB policy announcement. Bear steepening resumed in the German curve although the long-end claws back some initial weakness to trade back at 0%. Peripheral spreads widened to core, with the long-end of the Spanish curve underperforming. Gilts drifted lower after robust domestic employment and wages data, but as ever, Brexit keeps any hawkish repricing in check.
The recent pullback in the bond rally “is a correction to an outsized move in yields during August, not a turn in the trend,” Kit Juckes, chief global FX strategist at Societe Generale SA, wrote in his daily note. “Last Friday’s U.S. labor market data show, clearly enough for me, that the U.S. economy is slowing slowly but steadily as the global trade slowdown infects it.”
In geopolitical news, North Korea launched 2 projectiles; a Japanese Defence Ministry official later commented that the latest North Korea missiles pose no immediate threat to Japan’s national security. Pakistani Foreign Minister has told UN Human Rights council that India’s “illegal Kashmir military occupation” raises spectre of “genocide”. Additionally, Pakistan’s Qureshi says that he sees ‘no possibility of a bilateral engagement with India’.
In FX, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index halted a five-day slide Tuesday as the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries fell 2bps, its first decline in five days. The only G-10 currency to climb against the dollar was the Swiss franc but moves were limited; meanwhile, the largest losses were seen by the Swedish krona, as the currency weakened by almost 1% to the dollar and the euro after Swedish inflation unexpectedly slowed to its lowest in three years, in more bad news for the Riksbank which is keen to increase interest rates. Finally, the Norwegian krone tumbled alongside its Swedish peer after similarly disappointing inflation reading.
Elsewhere, oil extended gains to the highest level in almost six weeks as Saudi Arabia’s new energy minister signaled his commitment to production cuts ahead of an OPEC+ meeting later this week. Gold headed for its fourth day of declines, sinking to around $1,495 an ounce. Sweden’s krona tumbled after the country’s inflation unexpectedly slowed.
Expected data include NFIB Small Business Optimism. HD Supply and Zscaler are reporting earnings
Market Snapshot
S&P 500 futures down 0.1% to 2,973.75
STOXX Europe 600 down 0.5% to 383.96
MXAP down 0.01% to 156.79
MXAPJ down 0.2% to 507.06
Nikkei up 0.4% to 21,392.10
Topix up 0.4% to 1,557.99
Hang Seng Index up 0.01% to 26,683.68
Shanghai Composite down 0.1% to 3,021.20
Sensex up 0.4% to 37,145.45
Australia S&P/ASX 200 down 0.5% to 6,614.06
Kospi up 0.6% to 2,032.08
Brent futures up 0.2% to $62.74/bbl
Gold spot down 0.2% to $1,496.06
U.S. Dollar Index up 0.1% to 98.41
German 10Y yield rose 0.6 bps to -0.579%
Euro down 0.05% to $1.1043
Italian 10Y yield rose 6.6 bps to 0.603%
Spanish 10Y yield rose 1.5 bps to 0.233%
Top Overnight News from Bloomberg
After Parliament blocked his Brexit strategy, and then refused to give him the election he wanted, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is promising to work for a deal with the EU. Monday night saw him suffer his sixth consecutive defeat in a vote in the House of Commons, after his attempt to get approval for a snap poll was rejected for a second time
The U.K. economy continued to create jobs over the summer and wages jumped, despite the escalating turmoil over Brexit. The jobless rate fell to the lowest since the 1970s but jitters weighing on the wider economy were appearing. Employment growth was weaker than forecast; vacancies slipped to the lowest since 2017
Mario Draghi needs to go out with a bang if he’s to renew a surge in bond prices that sent yields to unprecedented lows. Markets have factored in the ECB slashing interest rates and restarting QE, so it will take a multi-faceted stimulus package in his penultimate meeting Thursday to impress investors
Germany’s worship of fiscal discipline is being challenged by a looming recession and tantalizingly cheap credit — and a silent revolution is under way at the finance ministry to shed its economic dogma
Executives of WeWork and its largest investor, SoftBank, are discussing whether to shelve plans for an initial public offering of the money-losing co-working company, said people with knowledge of the talks
China removed one more hurdle for foreign investment into its capital markets almost 20 years after it first allowed access
Asian equity markets traded mixed as they followed suit to the indecisive tone seen on Wall St amid a sell-off in treasuries and as the region also digested ambiguous inflation figures from China. ASX 200 (-0.5%) was negative with gold miners frontrunning the declines in Australia after the precious metal slipped below the psychological key USD 1500/oz level but with further losses in the index stemmed by strength in the energy sector following the recent rally in oil prices, while Nikkei 225 (+0.4%) was kept afloat by favourable currency moves. Elsewhere, Hang Seng (Unch.) and Shanghai Comp. (-0.1%) gave back initial gains despite the liquidity efforts by the PBoC and firmer than expected Chinese inflation data, as the figures were largely influenced by a 10% increase in food prices amid the swine fever epidemic and also showed PPI at its sharpest contraction in 3 years. Finally, 10yr JGBs were lower following the bear-steepening seen in US and broad declines across global bonds, while the absence of the BoJ from the market today also added to the lacklustre demand.
Top Asian News
North Korea Tests More Weapons After Floating Fresh U.S. Talks
Hong Kong Leaders Grow More Frustrated by Leaderless Protesters
Hong Kong Dollar Peg Questions Seen Fading One Way or Another
Chinese Exporters Cut Currency Hedges in Sign of Yuan Pessimism
European equities are modestly softer [Eurostoxx 50 -0.3%] following on from a mixed Asia-Pac session as participants remain on standby ahead of Thursday’s ECB monetary policy decision. Sectors are mixed with underperformance in the IT sector, whilst energy names outperform as the oil complex holds onto its recent gains and banking names remain supported by yesterday’s surge in yields (RBS +4.4%, UBS +3.4%, Barclays +4.5%). In terms of stocks on the move, EDF (-7.5%) share fell from the open after the Co. noted deviations in technical standards governing the manufacture of nuclear-reactor components. On the flip side, Subsea 7 (+2.7%) shares opened higher after the Co. announced its current COO as the new CEO effective January 1st 2020, additionally the Co. were awarded an offshore contract in Saudi Arabia. Finally, JD Sports (+3%) shares are supported post earnings after H1 sales rose 47% Y/Y and the Co. forecasts FY results to be at the mid-point of their previously guided range.
Top European News
EDF Flags Issues in Reactor Parts in Blow to Nuclear Industry
Spanish Banks Risk Setback in Fight Over Unfair Mortgage Claims
Germany Doesn’t Need to Splurge to Address Slowdown, Scholz Says
Sweden Inflation Slows to 3-Year Low in Blow to Riksbank
In FX, the major underperformers in wake of softer than forecast Swedish and Norwegian inflation data that calls into question hawkish guidance from the Riksbank and Norges Bank. Eur/Sek has rebounded from sub-10.7000 levels through 10.7500 and breached several technical resistance points in the process, including 10 and 21 DMAs plus a Fib retracement, while Eur/Nok is back above 9.9000 from almost 9.8500 and also taking on board the latest Norges Bank regional network survey showing that contacts envisage slightly slower growth in the coming 6 months.
USD – The Dollar is mixed to marginally firmer awaiting this week’s top-tier US data for more input ahead of the September FOMC after last Friday’s rather inconclusive BLS report and broadly upbeat comments from Fed chair Powell, on balance. However, the DXY remains rangebound between 98.260-463 and well within near term chart support and resistance not to mention recent highs and lows for the index.
CHF/NZD/AUD – The Franc has pared some losses vs the Greenback and single currency as risk appetite wanes/falters and selling abates into key technical psychological markers, like 0.9950 in Usd/Chf and 1.1000 in Eur/Chf. Meanwhile, the Aussie and Kiwi have lost some momentum, with Aud/Usd drifting back towards 0.6850 in wake of a downturn in NAB business sentiment and dip in conditions overnight, and Nzd/Usd fading ahead of 0.6450 as Aud/Nzd meanders between 1.0645-85.
GBP/CAD/JPY/EUR – Sterling staged another attempt to hunt out stops around 1.2385 vs the Buck and briefly crossed the 100 DMA against the Euro (0.8930), but failed to sustain momentum again amidst the ongoing UK political and Brexit paralysis. However, the ensuing Pound pull-back was arrested by more encouraging data as earnings beat consensus on a headline basis and the jobless rate eased to 3.8% from 3.9%. Note also, 2 bn option expiries in Cable at the 1.2300 strike have provided a buffer. Elsewhere, trade has been considerably more rangebound with the Loonie straddling 1.3175, Yen holding within 107.19-49 parameters and Euro stuck in a 1.1037-59 band awaiting Thursday’s ECB policy pronouncements for more direction.
EM – Contrasting fortunes again for the Rand and Lira, as Usd/Zar continues its deep reversal from 15.0000+ towards 14.6900 regardless of more SA ratings warnings from Moody’s, but Usd/Try elevated above 5.7500 in the run up to this week’s CBRT rate verdict and heeding even more dovish calls (-500 bp touted in a Turkish paper) alongside the persistent threat of US sanctions.
In commodities, WTI and Brent futures are holding onto most of its recent gains with the two benchmarks around 58.00/bbl and 63/bbl respectively at the time of writing. News-flow for the complex has been light, although reports stated that Russia’s Energy Minister Novak will be meeting with newly appointed Saudi Energy Minister Abdulaziz in Jeddah later today to discuss the energy market alongside strengthening Saudi-Russia cooperation ahead of Thursday’s JMMC meeting. Meanwhile, Nigeria’s Finance Ministry notes of strong indications of an oil glut next year, and thus lowered its benchmark forecast to 55/bbl from 60/bbl. This evening will also see the release of EIA’s Short-Term Energy Outlook with focus on global demand growth forecasts. Looking further ahead, participants will also be eyeing the weekly API crude inventory data with markets expecting a headline drawdown of 2.5mln barrels. Elsewhere, gold prices are largely unchanged below the 1500/oz mark amid the undecisive risk tone in the market ahead of this week’s key events. Meanwhile, copper prices have seen a more pronounced downside compared to yesterday with the red-metal flirting with 2.60/lb to the downside at the time of writing. Finally, Dalian iron ore prices advanced as much as 4% amid expectations that China will ratify further economic stimulus that would boost steel demand.
US Event Calendar
6am: NFIB Small Business Optimism, est. 103.5, prior 104.7
10am: JOLTS Job Openings, est. 7,331, prior 7,348
DB’s Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap
Every year in early September the financial world takes in a new breed of graduates and to you all I say welcome and good luck in your career. If you’d have started as a newbe last Thursday then the whole of your career would have been in a big bond bear market. You’d be excused for wondering if bonds ever actually rally. Indeed yesterday saw another fixed income sell-off, as reports on the German fiscal stance and positive comments on the US-China trade war supported investor sentiment. 10yr Bund yields rose +5.3bps, reaching their highest level in nearly a month at -0.59%, while 30y bunds rose +7.8bps but after spending much of the day in positive territory closed at -0.003%. Nearly but not quite. Lending to the German government out to 2049 will still involve a small haircut. For context the long run return on US equities has been around 9% p.a. over the last couple of hundred years and by my calculations that would mean you would earn 13 times your original investment over an average 30 year period through history. Even at the lower long run return for German equities of c.8% you would earn over 10 times your original investment over the same period. I’m not wildly excited about current equity valuations but this is food for thought for all you new graduates as you invest for your retirement. It’s too late for us but you can save yourselves.
The bond sell-off was global with 10y Treasuries up +7.7bps, BTPs up +6.7bps, and Gilts +8.5bps. Yield curves also steepened, with US 2s10s up +3.2bps to 4.9bps and to its highest level in three weeks. In credit, spreads widened in Europe, with Euro IG spreads +2.0bps and at a 7-week high, while Euro HY spreads were flat. In the US it was a different story as IG and HY spreads tightened further, down -1.3bps and -9bps respectively. Safe havens sold off across the board however, with gold down -0.53%, while the Swis Franc was the worst performing G10 currency, down -0.48% against the dollar, followed by the Japanese Yen (-0.32%).
The sell-off came as Reuters reported that Germany is considering creating a “shadow budget”, which would allow the government to get round the country’s fiscal rules. This would be done by setting up independent bodies, which could take advantage of the country’s low borrowing costs and invest in “infrastructure and climate protection”, but this spending would not count under the debt brake. Meanwhile, the euro strengthened after a letter obtained by Bloomberg News showed Bettina Hagedorn, a deputy finance minister, wrote that the government could change its plans to run balanced budgets if the economic situation required. The reports come ahead of this morning’s debate on the 2020 budget, which will be taking place in the Bundestag. These stories have become more frequent in recent weeks and whilst the market always gets more excited by the headlines than is justified by hard evidence of any change in policy, it’s fair to conclude that market pressure and chatter on this story is building.
Other drivers behind the bond sell-off included data which showed German exports unexpectedly rising by +0.7% (vs. -0.5% expected) in July, while imports fell by -1.5% (vs. -0.3% expected), sending the current account balance for July up to 22.1bn (vs. 16.4bn expected). So good news on exports even if declining imports might be demand led. Meanwhile comments from Secretary Mnuchin further helped things, as he said “we’ve made a lot of progress” in the trade talks, ahead of the planned meeting between China and the US in Washington next month. Ahead of Thursday’s much-anticipated ECB meeting, these positive developments seem to have marginally reduced the implied odds that markets have given to a larger 20bps reduction in the deposit rate, which now stand at 44%, having been at 61% just a week ago.
In equity markets, US stock indices were mixed with relatively high divergence between sectors. The S&P 500 ended just about flat (-0.01%) while the DOW gained +0.14%. Relatively more of the DOW is made up of bank stocks, which performed well (+3.15%) amid the higher yields. Tech lagged, with the NASDAQ down -0.19%. In Europe, the picture was similarly mixed, with the STOXX 600 losing -0.28%. Much of the fall came from UK stocks, with the FTSE 100 -0.72% as it reacted to sterling’s appreciation, but the CAC 40 (-0.27%) also declined, while the DAX and the FTSE MIB only made modest gains. European banks mirrored their American cousins’ positive performance, with the STOXX Banks up +2.72% on rising yields, while energy stocks also saw gains as Brent Crude rose +1.85% to reach a one-month high.
Overnight in Asia, markets are trading mixed with the Nikkei (+0.36%) and Kospi (+0.37%) both up while the Hang Seng (+0.08%) is trading flattish and the Shanghai Comp (-0.36%) is trading down. In Fx, all G10 currencies are slightly weaker against the greenback this morning with the exception of the New Zealand dollar (+0.19%). The onshore Chinese yuan is trading up c. 0.1% at 7.1164. Sovereign bond yields have ticked up in Asia this morning following the global sell-off with 10y JGB yields up +2.9bps at -0.234%. Elsewhere, futures on the S&P 500 are trading flattish (-0.06%) while WTI crude oil is up +0.45% after Saudi Arabia’s new energy minister signaled his commitment to production cuts ahead of an OPEC+ meeting on Thursday in Abu Dhabi to discuss their production pact. In terms of overnight data releases, China’s August CPI and PPI both came in one tenth higher than consensus at +2.8% yoy and -0.8% yoy, respectively.
In other news, top North Korean diplomat Choe Son Hui issued a statement this morning that the country would be willing to hold nuclear talks with the US, “at the time and place to be agreed late in September.” However, shortly after the statement North Korea fired two “short-range projectiles” into its eastern seas. Meanwhile, President Trump was a bit cautious in his response over the North Korean statement, citing the regime’s continued freeze on nuclear weapons testing and added, “We’ll see what happens, but I always say having meetings is a good thing, not a bad thing.”
In the UK, MPs rejected the chance of having a mid-October general election for the second time in a week, as the motion failed to reach anything close to the required two-thirds majority once again (239 to 46; PM Johnson needed 434 to call an early election). Opposition parties mostly abstained as they want Mr Johnson to be forced to ask for an extension he has said he will never do. Parliament has now been prorogued, so it won’t sit again until October 14th, which is also the week of the next European Council Summit. The political chatter now points to a late November election but there will be an incredible amount of water flowing under the bridge between now and then. Mr Johnson seems to have pushed his energy into getting a deal now but that is as far away as it ever has been. I wonder whether he may have one go at passing a deal through Parliament before October 31st just to show the electorate that he did everything he could to deliver Brexit by that date and hope the leave vote feels emboldened to vote for him by Parliament’s likely rejection of it.
DB’s Oli Harvey published his latest Brexit update yesterday (link here ), where his base case is that the government fails to secure agreement with the EU27 at the October Council meeting, leaving Johnson with a choice between requesting an extension, resigning as Prime Minister, or ignoring or circumventing the legislation. Looking at his full probabilities, he maintains his view that the cumulative probability of a no-deal Brexit is 50%, be that either at the end of October or after a general election, and places just a 10% chance on Johnson completing his aim of a successful renegotiation and a ratified Withdrawal Agreement by the end of October.
Earlier in the day, sterling rallied as markets approved of the more conciliatory remarks from Prime Minister Johnson, who described a no-deal Brexit as “a failure of statecraft”, and said that “I would overwhelmingly prefer to find an agreement.” The currency strengthened +0.49% against the dollar to its highest level in over a month.
In terms of data yesterday, as well as the aforementioned German export numbers, UK GDP surprised to the upside, with the economy growing by +0.3% mom in July (vs. +0.1% expected). All sectors outperformed, with services +0.3% (vs. +0.1% expected) and manufacturing production +0.3% (vs. -0.3% expected). Looking at the whole 3 months to end-July the UK economy saw a flat 0.0% growth rate over the previous three months.
Meanwhile the Federal Reserve’s consumer credit numbers showed a $23.29 billion expansion in credit, the largest monthly increase since 2017. Revolving credit, which includes mostly credit card debt, drove the increase as it rose by $10 billion, also the highest since 2017. Separately, the NY Fed’s inflation expectations survey showed 1-year expectations falling to their lowest level on record at 2.4%, while 3-year expectations also fell, by 0.1pp to 2.5%.
Looking at the day ahead, data releases include France’s July industrial and manufacturing production, along with Italy’s July industrial production. In the UK, the monthly employment report, including the unemployment rate and average weekly wage growth will be released, while from the US, we have the NFIB small business optimism index and the JOLTS job openings release.
