An Iowa Man Wins His Free Speech Suit After Being Charged for a Facebook Rant Against a Cop

Jon Goldsmith of Red Oak, Iowa, was charged with third-degree harassment after calling Adams County Sheriff’s Deputy Cory Dorsey, among other things, a “stupid sum bitch” on Facebook. Nearly a year after the incident, Goldsmith has won his free speech lawsuit against the sheriff’s office.

As Reason previously reported:

According to the lawsuit, Jon Goldsmith of Red Oak witnessed Adams County Sheriff’s Deputy Cory Dorsey stop a motorist and conduct a drug dog search on a vehicle at a festival in July 2018. No drugs were found. Goldsmith also said he saw Dorsey body-slam another man. When Goldsmith later saw the man’s mugshot on Facebook, he shared the picture in a post criticizing Dorsey.

Goldsmith called Dorsey out by name and accused him of being “butthurt” that the drug search was fruitless. He also called him a “stupid sum bitch” and offered to hire Dorsey to walk his dog and “pick up his shit” if he were fired over the incident.

A few weeks later, Goldsmith was accused of writing “a threatening and vulgar statement about Cory Dorsey on Facebook” by an affidavit. Sergeant Paul Hogan, Dorsey’s supervisor, had filed charges of third-degree harassment against Goldsmith on behalf of his subordinate.

The charges were short-lived after Goldsmith’s attorney managed to get them dropped for violating the First Amendment. A year later, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on his behalf against the county, Dorsey, and Hogan, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Goldsmith won his case, according to a Monday press release.

The Adams County Sheriff’s office will pay Goldsmith $10,000 in damages, which includes the cost of the lawyer he hired to defend himself in court. A judge also ordered the deputies to stop charging civilians for criticizing its law enforcement, as they’ve done at least two other times.

Officers will be receiving ACLU-approved training on free speech and implementing an ACLU-approved social media policy.

“As the Court’s injunction today confirms, people have a constitutional free speech right to criticize their government. Police are not allowed to charge people with crimes because they annoy the police or say things the police disagree with—on social media like Facebook, or otherwise. There is no exception because someone expresses anger in inartful ways, causes offense, or uses curse words,” said Rita Bettis Austen, the ACLU of Iowa’s legal director.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2G3Zygd
via IFTTT

Jeffrey Epstein’s Wikipedia Page Stealth-Edited To Remove Ties To Democrats

In the wake of Jeffrey Epstein’s weekend arrest, an observant Twitter user noticed that someone has edited the billionaire pedophile’s Wikipedia page to remove all mention of Democrats who have flown on the “Lolita Express” – the nickname given to his private Boeing 727 jet which was reportedly outfitted with a bed. 

On Sunday, the sentence “Epstein flrew Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Tucker to Africa in his private jet. Flight records show Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane 26 times” (a charge Clinton denied on Monday, claiming it was only four times). 

A reference to having ‘attended parties’ with Donald Trump was left untouched. 

And as Steve Straub of the Federalist Papers points out, “This comes after Christine Pelosi, Daughter of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and a top official with the Democratic National Committee (DNC), sounded the alarm over the weekend arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on sex trafficking charges. Pelosi speculated that “some of our faves“ may be indicted in the wake of Epstein’s arrest, the Daily Mail reports.” 

Epstein was hauled into court Monday after his Saturday arrest, where prosecutors revealed that they found nude photos of underage girls during a raid on his Manhattan home. He has pleaded not guilty, while his attorneys have argued that Epstein has immunity under a 2008 plea agreement in which he admitted to procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and felony solicitation of prostitution, serving just 13 months in a Florida state prison after cutting a sweetheart deal with current labor secretary, and then US Attorney, Alex Acosta. 

In court on Monday, attorneys for the billionaire argued that the case was “essentially a do-over” on “ancient stuff.” 

According to various reports the Miami Herald – which police used in their investigation, Epstein has victimized around 60 girls between his residences in Florida and New York. His next court appearance is Thursday. 

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

Here’s how to get a second passport (almost) for free

I remember the day like it was yesterday.

Fifteen years ago, I received my Italian passport in the mail, shipped to me directly by the Italian consulate in New York.

A few years prior, I found out I was eligible for an Italian passport through ancestry.

My grandparents are of Italian descent…so Italy deemed me eligible to become a citizen as well.

On top of that, I was able to get my passport almost for free (I only had to pay a small application fee).

That day was the first time I had really ever felt a real sense of freedom.

For the first time, I was no longer beholden to just one nation. No government authority would have exclusive rights over my sovereignty.

I now had more options… and more freedom.

Back then, I wasn’t fully aware of the possibilities and opportunities multiple passports (and residencies) would open up for me.

In fact, I was just beginning my journey to internationalize my life.

But now, looking back, getting that second passport radically changed my life forever- and for the better.

Today, I cannot stress enough the benefits of having a second passport— and I believe it’s a fundamental cornerstone of a solid Plan B.

That’s because a second passport is the ultimate insurance policy. And getting a second passport has only gotten more important since I first started Sovereign Man, ten years ago.

Most of us don’t second guess buying house insurance, car insurance, even rental insurance…

But most of us don’t think for a second of insuring ourselves against the idiocies of the country in which we were born.

Yet history has shown us time and time again that governments will never hesitate to put the wellbeing of their citizens LAST, after satisfying the interests of the status quo.

That’s why it’s so important to have a way out– a means to get out of dodge should your home country take away your freedoms.

Having a second passport ensures that no matter what happens in the world – and no matter what policies your home government decides to force upon you – you’ll always have a place to go.

A place where you and your family can thrive, build a business and take advantage of opportunities.

If you have children, a second passport can be passed onto them- imparting them with a unique generational gift that will pay dividends many years into the future.

And there are a couple of ways you can obtain a second passport.

Two of these require that an investment of personal resources – time and money – and the second two require that you be either flexible or part of a lucky bloodline.

For example, many Western countries will grant you citizenship after residing in the country for a given number of years. In Chile, it’s five, but in places like Argentina or Peru – it’s only two.

Other countries will give you a passport in exchange for a donation to their “investment fund.” These are usually found in the Carribean or other island nations.

Some countries will grant you citizenship just for being born there. The United States is undoubtedly the most famous of those, but others like Brazil or Argentina can be just as appealing.

And lastly, a handful of countries – mostly European, will consider you for citizenship if you can prove that some of your ancestors hailed from the country.

That’s how I got my first second passport. Like I said, my grandparents were Italian, and therefore I was eligible for Italian citizenship.

That means that not only do I have the right to live, work and do business in Italy but because of Europe’s Schengen Area, I can do all of the above in 26 countries in Europe without a visa… for the rest of my life.

That’s an incredible flexibility and a huge gift: having a second passport can really open doors to a whole new world.

There are a dozen or so of these options in Europe – notably in Hungary, Luxembourg, Ireland, and Italy.

But some countries like Spain will also grant citizenship to people of certain ethnic descent.

Generally, the process is relatively straightforward and hassle-free.

It’s something I recommend to absolutely everyone. If there’s a chance you might have European ancestors, it should be at the top of your list of priorities.

Just like other types of insurance- the time to obtain one is BEFORE you might need it.

To guide you through some of the options, my team put together a preview of one of our premium reports that’s usually only available to members of Sovereign Man: Confidential.

Inside this preview you’ll learn how to get an Italian second passport at almost no cost.

Usually, this process can take years (like it did for me), but inside we cover a unique shortcut that can cut the time to just a few months.

It’s a great example of the kind of information we strive to provide to members of Sovereign Man: Confidential: unique, little-known opportunities that have the potential to radically expand your options in the world – and ensure you thrive, no matter what happens next.

I hope you take action on this. If you do, I am almost certain your life will never be the same again.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/2JmUx4a
via IFTTT

An Iowa Man Wins His Free Speech Suit After Being Charged for a Facebook Rant Against a Cop

Jon Goldsmith of Red Oak, Iowa, was charged with third-degree harassment after calling Adams County Sheriff’s Deputy Cory Dorsey, among other things, a “stupid sum bitch” on Facebook. Nearly a year after the incident, Goldsmith has won his free speech lawsuit against the sheriff’s office.

As Reason previously reported:

According to the lawsuit, Jon Goldsmith of Red Oak witnessed Adams County Sheriff’s Deputy Cory Dorsey stop a motorist and conduct a drug dog search on a vehicle at a festival in July 2018. No drugs were found. Goldsmith also said he saw Dorsey body-slam another man. When Goldsmith later saw the man’s mugshot on Facebook, he shared the picture in a post criticizing Dorsey.

Goldsmith called Dorsey out by name and accused him of being “butthurt” that the drug search was fruitless. He also called him a “stupid sum bitch” and offered to hire Dorsey to walk his dog and “pick up his shit” if he were fired over the incident.

A few weeks later, Goldsmith was accused of writing “a threatening and vulgar statement about Cory Dorsey on Facebook” by an affidavit. Sergeant Paul Hogan, Dorsey’s supervisor, had filed charges of third-degree harassment against Goldsmith on behalf of his subordinate.

The charges were short-lived after Goldsmith’s attorney managed to get them dropped for violating the First Amendment. A year later, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on his behalf against the county, Dorsey, and Hogan, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Goldsmith won his case, according to a Monday press release.

The Adams County Sheriff’s office will pay Goldsmith $10,000 in damages, which includes the cost of the lawyer he hired to defend himself in court. A judge also ordered the deputies to stop charging civilians for criticizing its law enforcement, as they’ve done at least two other times.

Officers will be receiving ACLU-approved training on free speech and implementing an ACLU-approved social media policy.

“As the Court’s injunction today confirms, people have a constitutional free speech right to criticize their government. Police are not allowed to charge people with crimes because they annoy the police or say things the police disagree with—on social media like Facebook, or otherwise. There is no exception because someone expresses anger in inartful ways, causes offense, or uses curse words,” said Rita Bettis Austen, the ACLU of Iowa’s legal director.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2G3Zygd
via IFTTT

Gold Will Rise Even If The Fed Doesn’t Cut Interest Rates

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

There has been much speculation lately on the Federal Reserve and its ongoing tightening policy. If you were to only read mainstream economic news you would think the Fed had already reversed course and “capitulated”, but this is not the case. The Fed continues to hold interest rates at their neutral rate of inflation while also moving forward with asset dumps from their balance sheet. Nothing has changed since December/January when the Fed first made minor changes to its public statements hinting at “accommodation”.

By leaving such wording completely ambiguous and refraining from any specifics, the central bank has allowed the media and the investment world to assume that the phrase changes can mean whatever they want the changes to mean. In other words, the Fed has bamboozled the mainstream into projecting their own fantasy outcome. Meaning, they believe that the outcome they desperately want (near zero interest rates and QE4) is the outcome they are going to get. Not only that, but they also think they are going to get it all very soon.

In the alternative economic media, I have noticed that there is also a presumption that the Fed will revert back to stimulus measures at any given moment. In fact, I have heard predictions of Fed rate cuts every month for at least the past seven months. And, each time the Fed doesn’t cut rates, the same analysts argue that “this time was close and next month is certain.”

To be fair, many analysts are basing their assumptions partly on the current financial reality. They are aware of factors that the average person is mostly oblivious to. Even now in the wake of swift declines in almost every sector of the economy there are still economists and portions of the public arguing that we are in the midst of an economic renaissance. Those people predicting a Fed rate cut in the near term know better.

They see major indicators like the housing market suffering from a 7.8% overall drop in sales and an 8.1% drop in prices.

They see auto market sales at the slowest pace in four years as interest rates rise on auto loans.

They see historic levels of consumer debt and corporate debt. They see massive retail closures (more than 7100 closures announced so far this year), a grinding halt to shipping and freight, seven-year lows in Global manufacturing PMI, the weakest U.S. manufacturing PMI since 2009, and a three month running inversion in the treasury yield curve, etc.

All of these factors signal a violent drop in global and U.S. demand, while the squeeze in dollar denominated assets globally signals that the Fed is indeed tightening liquidity as it said it was doing. Only a fool or a liar would argue in the face of these facts that the economy is in “recovery”. We are in a recessionary crash right now.

In a world without agendas, the Fed would have openly admitted that all of this is going on and that they created this mess through ten years of unprecedented inflationary measures followed by rate hikes and policy tightening into ongoing economic weakness. Then again, in a world without agendas the Federal Reserve would not exist.

As Jerome Powell recently reiterated in his statements to the Council On Foreign Relations, the Fed continues to make false claims that U.S. economic growth remains “strong”, and that while they will be watching for “crosscurrents” (and blaming the trade war for the economic stagnation they created), they do not intend to let “short term swings in sentiment” push them into any policy changes to the Fed funds rate.

Translation: The Fed is not going to stop policy tightening until the crash has hit its peak. This is a classic central bank modus operandi. The Fed’s last policy statements indicate no rate cuts until well into the year 2020.

I have written extensively in past articles on exactly why the Fed will not admit that a financial crash is happening right now, and why they will continue to tighten liquidity until the crash becomes obvious to the general public. To summarize, the Fed is an economic exsanguination machine; they create bubbles deliberately, and then they crash them deliberately so that their international banking counterparts can bleed the public of ever more wealth. They also consolidate control over hard assets and centralize political governance during these periods of engineered crisis.

This is what the rate cut and stimulus crowd does not understand – they think the Fed’s motives are limited to self-preservation. They think the Fed will act to prop up the U.S. economy at all costs with whatever duct tape and false hope and quantitative easing (QE) they can muster, but this is not always the Fed’s agenda. The Fed is a saboteur, not a fix-it man. The Fed wants a crash, but it wants the timing of the crash to occur at the most opportunistic moment.

Another reason I believe the rate cut crowd remains insistent of a near term end to all Fed tightening is that many of them are hedging into gold. Again, this is smart, but it is important not to be blinded by bias in the hopes of profit. The assumption here being that the Fed needs to reintroduce QE before gold prices spike again. This is not necessary for gold valuations to rise, though.

In fact, gold will rise in the near term whether the Fed cuts rates and ends tightening or not. As a point of reference, consider gold’s price history in tandem with the history of the Fed funds rate.

In 2006 gold prices began an exponential rise and nearly doubled; at the same time the Fed was raising interest rates above 5%. Gold prices spiked despite higher rates and Fed tightening.

When the crash occurred in 2008 and as the Fed dropped rates to near zero, gold prices did decline for a time, and then the epic spike returned. So, to be clear, analysts hoping that the Fed will cut rates and cause a price rally in gold should stop. The current economic turmoil will accelerate and gold will rally even if the Fed does not cut rates soon. It’s not an either/or scenario. And, to be clear, financial conditions today are far worse than they were in 2007/2008.

Add to this the incredible gold stockpiling trend among foreign central banks in Russia, China, India, etc., and there is an obvious build-up to a gold market rally no matter what the Fed does. Ultimately, analysts should try not to ignore evidence of the Fed’s policy tightening and sabotage just because they want gold prices to jump.

The current market environment hangs by a thin thread of false perception. This perception is reliant on the notion that the Fed stands ready to save markets, but what if the Fed has no intention of doing this? When the public realizes the Fed’s accommodation will not be as immediate as they imagined, everything will change.

Stock market junkies and ticker trackers are oblivious to what is happening; their attention spans are short and they will argue that everything is fine because stocks are at all-time highs, but the facts say otherwise. The stock market is a trailing indicator of economic health, not a predictive indicator. Stocks always fall after a crash has already overrun the rest of the economy. In the meantime, gold remains a solid bet for those who educate themselves on the reality of the existing crisis and are seeking to protect their wealth in the long run.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

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

Job Opening Suffer Worst Start To A Year Since 2009

With US job openings hitting an all time high in late 2018, with more than 1.3 million more job openings than unemployed workers, and with April and May payrolls both coming in unexpectedly weak (only to rebound in June), it was to be expected that the May JOLTS report would be subpar, and so it was, with the BLS reporting that there were “only” 7.323 million job openings, down from 7.372 million in April (revised from 7.449 million), and below the 7.473 million expected.

This was the weakest print since February’s outlier number of 7.142 million, and one would have to go all the way back to May 2018 to find a consistently weaker number.

More notably, this was the weakest start to the year in terms of job openings since 2009.

That said, even with the disappointing openings print, there was still more than 1.3 million more job opening than unemployed workers.

More concerning is that the number of hires saw one of its biggest monthly drops in years, sliding by 266K to 5.725MM, if still in line with where the payrolls implied print should be. In other words, in an economy in which there was a perfect match between worker skills and employer needs, there would be zero unemployed people at this moment (of course, that is not the case.)

At the same time, another adverse trend emerged in the so-called “take this job and shove it indicator”, i.e., the total level of quits, which shows worker confidence that they can leave their current job and find a better paying job elsewhere, it also declined to a 2019 low of 3.425MM, dropping by 91K on the month.

Putting all this in context:

Job openings have increased since a low in July 2009. They returned to the prerecession level in April 2014 and

  • surpassed the prerecession peak in August 2014. There were 7.3 million open jobs on the last business day of May
  • 2019.
  • Hires have increased since a low in June 2009 and have surpassed prerecession levels. In May 2019, there were 5.7
  • million hires.
  • Quits have increased since a low in August 2009 and have surpassed prerecession levels. In May 2019, there were
  • 3.4 million quits.
  • For most of the JOLTS history, the number of hires (measured throughout the month) has exceeded the number of
  • job openings (measured only on the last business day of the month). Since January 2015, however, this relationship
  • has reversed with job openings outnumbering hires in all months.
  • At the end of the most recent recession in June 2009, there were 1.1 million more hires throughout the month than
  • there were job openings on the last business day of the month. In May 2019, there were 1.6 million fewer hires than job openings.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2S0IEDG Tyler Durden

Ross Perot Dead At 89 After Battle With Cancer

Ross Perot, the billionaire founder of Electronic Data Systems Corp. and Perot Systems Corp. and a two-time independent candidate for president, has died at the age of 89 after a five-month battle with leukemia, the Dallas Morning News reports.

P

Perot was diagnosed in February, but continued to show up to the office most days in his suit with an American flag on the lapel.

Widely credited with throwing the presidency to Bill Clinton in 1992, Perot got 19% of the popular vote as a third party candidate. He ran again in 1996.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2G6VoEi Tyler Durden

Kamala Harris’ Plan To End the Racial Homeownership Gap Doubles Down on the Worst Aspects of U.S. Housing Policy

Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) is out with a new plan to close the gaps in wealth and homeownership between white and minority Americans by subsidizing the down payments of homebuyers living in poorer, historically segregated neighborhoods.

“A typical black family has just $10 of wealth for every $100 held by a white family,” Harris said during a Saturday speech announcing her new policy, according to Politico. “We must right that wrong and, after generations of discrimination, give black families a real shot at homeownership—historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth in our country.”

Harris’ plan is to create a new $100 billion grant program to be run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This new program will give out as much as $25,000 to individuals making up to $75,000, and families making up to $125,000, which can be used to defray the costs of down payments on homes worth up to $300,000.

Borrowers would still have to prove creditworthiness to obtain a grant, according to Harris’ website, although the specific qualifying conditions aren’t specified. These grants would only be available to people who have lived in a historically “redlined” community—one that remains low-income—for more than 10 years.

Redlining refers to the federal government’s old practice of refusing to guarantee mortgages in predominately black neighborhoods, effectively walling off the people who lived there from New Deal and post-war federal homeownership subsidies.

Racially segregating these subsidies allowed white homeowners to build equity while depriving black families of the same opportunity.

“Although average African-American family incomes today are about 60 percent of average white family incomes, average African-American household wealth is only about 10 percent of average white household wealth. This enormous disparity is almost entirely the result of unconstitutional federal housing policy in the last century, which explains a good part of the racial inequality that we see all around us,” wrote Richard Rothstein, author of the Color of Law (a history of these discriminatory housing policies) for Reason in February.

Harris’ down payment subsidies are intended to right the wrongs of this policy. Goosing homeownership rates for black and Hispanic families, she claims, will help these same families build wealth.

But by trying to expand homeownership as a means of helping low-income earners build wealth, Harris is doubling down on one of the core contradictions of U.S. housing policy: that homes should be both affordable and a good investment.

A house is only a good tool for accruing wealth if it continues to increase in value over time. As Joe Cortwright at City Observatory notes “this sort of wealth building is predicated on a never-ending stream of new people who are willing and able to pay current home owners increasingly absurd amounts of money for their homes.”

This shouldn’t happen in a functioning housing market, where a mix of older homes’ physical deterioration and the construction of newer housing should see prices decline over time.

The only reason that homes have proven a good investment for many families is because of government restrictions on housing development have prevented new supply from keeping up with additional demand.

The result, in the most restrictive markets, is ever-rising home prices. Some 81 percent of homes in San Francisco are valued at more than $1 million, according to a 2018 study by real estate company Trulia.

That is good for incumbent homeowners. It’s bad for everyone else who has to pay more to purchase a home, or is priced out of the housing market altogether.  In a country where black and Hispanic people are disproportionally low-income, these restrictions on housing supply take on a racial dynamic.

Harris, rather than try to combat this affordability problem by removing restrictions on supply, wants to subsidize low-income people’s ability to get in on this racket. It’s a similar approach to her Rent Relief Act, which aims to combat increasingly unaffordable rents by subsidizing tenants’ monthly rents.

By subsidizing demand while leaving restrictions on supply in place, both of Harris’ policy proposals will likely just lead to increased prices. The value of the subsidies she’s offering will be absorbed by home sellers and landlords.

Harris’ plan to subsidize down payments has the additional downside of potentially saddling low-income homebuyers with mortgage debt they can’t afford, something we saw during the Great Recession.

Research suggests that homeownership is a particularly bad wealth creation tool for low-income buyers. They are more likely to buy at the top of the market—when prices are high but credit standards are looser—and are more easily pushed into default as a result of other financial shocks like job losses or sudden large medical bills.

If Harris wants to decrease the racial gap in homeownership rates, there’s a lot of other policies, from getting rid of single-family zoning to abolishing urban growth boundaries, she should endorse that could make that a reality without costing taxpayers a dime.

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

China Demands US “Sever Military Ties” With Taiwan After $2.2bn Arms Proposal

As expected on Tuesday China slammed the US State Department’s newly approved potential sale to Taiwan of M1A2T Abrams tanks, Stinger missiles and related equipment at an estimated value of $US2.2 billion. Beijing has long vehemently criticized US-Taiwan defense relations, which it sees as encroaching on its sovereignty and specifically its “one-China” principle regarding Taiwan. 

China’s Foreign Ministry said the planned weapons transfer “grossly interferes” with Chinese internal affairs and “undermines” its security interests, and further called on the US to “sever military ties with Taiwan”.

“The U.S. arms sales to Taiwan severely violate international law, the basic norms governing international relations, the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiques,” foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said. “It grossly interferes in China’s internal affairs and undermines China’s sovereignty and security interests.”

Taiwan is approved for Raytheon Stinger missiles as part of the potential sale. US Marine Corps photo

The statement underscored that China will take every action to safeguard its national sovereignty while “opposing foreign interference” as Taiwan is “an inalienable part of China’s territory,” according to official state run Xinhua News Agency.

“China urges the United States to honor its commitment to the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiques, immediately withdraw the aforementioned planned arms sales to and sever military ties with Taiwan to avoid further damage to bilateral relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,” said the spokesperson.

The possible deal is said to include 108 General Dynamics M1A2T Abrams tanks and 250 Stinger missiles, as well as mounted machine guns and ammunition. 

As a reminder, one month ago China’s Foreign Ministry last month said it was seriously concerned about US arms sales to self-ruled Taiwan, and urged the United States to halt the sales to avoid harming bilateral ties.

In response, acting U.S. Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan told the meeting that the United States would no longer “tiptoe” around Chinese behavior in Asia. Confirming that, a sale of more than $2 billion in weapons to Taiwan would be seen as a provocation to China’s national interest in the region, and a clear signal that the gloves are now off when it comes to geopolitical claims, potentially resulting in a worrisome escalation of a war which has so far been confined to the sphere of trade.

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

Kamala Harris’ Plan To End the Racial Homeownership Gap Doubles Down on the Worst Aspects of U.S. Housing Policy

Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) is out with a new plan to close the gaps in wealth and homeownership between white and minority Americans by subsidizing the down payments of homebuyers living in poorer, historically segregated neighborhoods.

“A typical black family has just $10 of wealth for every $100 held by a white family,” Harris said during a Saturday speech announcing her new policy, according to Politico. “We must right that wrong and, after generations of discrimination, give black families a real shot at homeownership—historically one of the most powerful drivers of wealth in our country.”

Harris’ plan is to create a new $100 billion grant program to be run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This new program will give out as much as $25,000 to individuals making up to $75,000, and families making up to $125,000, which can be used to defray the costs of down payments on homes worth up to $300,000.

Borrowers would still have to prove creditworthiness to obtain a grant, according to Harris’ website, although the specific qualifying conditions aren’t specified. These grants would only be available to people who have lived in a historically “redlined” community—one that remains low-income—for more than 10 years.

Redlining refers to the federal government’s old practice of refusing to guarantee mortgages in predominately black neighborhoods, effectively walling off the people who lived there from New Deal and post-war federal homeownership subsidies.

Racially segregating these subsidies allowed white homeowners to build equity while depriving black families of the same opportunity.

“Although average African-American family incomes today are about 60 percent of average white family incomes, average African-American household wealth is only about 10 percent of average white household wealth. This enormous disparity is almost entirely the result of unconstitutional federal housing policy in the last century, which explains a good part of the racial inequality that we see all around us,” wrote Richard Rothstein, author of the Color of Law (a history of these discriminatory housing policies) for Reason in February.

Harris’ down payment subsidies are intended to right the wrongs of this policy. Goosing homeownership rates for black and Hispanic families, she claims, will help these same families build wealth.

But by trying to expand homeownership as a means of helping low-income earners build wealth, Harris is doubling down on one of the core contradictions of U.S. housing policy: that homes should be both affordable and a good investment.

A house is only a good tool for accruing wealth if it continues to increase in value over time. As Joe Cortwright at City Observatory notes “this sort of wealth building is predicated on a never-ending stream of new people who are willing and able to pay current home owners increasingly absurd amounts of money for their homes.”

This shouldn’t happen in a functioning housing market, where a mix of older homes’ physical deterioration and the construction of newer housing should see prices decline over time.

The only reason that homes have proven a good investment for many families is because of government restrictions on housing development have prevented new supply from keeping up with additional demand.

The result, in the most restrictive markets, is ever-rising home prices. Some 81 percent of homes in San Francisco are valued at more than $1 million, according to a 2018 study by real estate company Trulia.

That is good for incumbent homeowners. It’s bad for everyone else who has to pay more to purchase a home, or is priced out of the housing market altogether.  In a country where black and Hispanic people are disproportionally low-income, these restrictions on housing supply take on a racial dynamic.

Harris, rather than try to combat this affordability problem by removing restrictions on supply, wants to subsidize low-income people’s ability to get in on this racket. It’s a similar approach to her Rent Relief Act, which aims to combat increasingly unaffordable rents by subsidizing tenants’ monthly rents.

By subsidizing demand while leaving restrictions on supply in place, both of Harris’ policy proposals will likely just lead to increased prices. The value of the subsidies she’s offering will be absorbed by home sellers and landlords.

Harris’ plan to subsidize down payments has the additional downside of potentially saddling low-income homebuyers with mortgage debt they can’t afford, something we saw during the Great Recession.

Research suggests that homeownership is a particularly bad wealth creation tool for low-income buyers. They are more likely to buy at the top of the market—when prices are high but credit standards are looser—and are more easily pushed into default as a result of other financial shocks like job losses or sudden large medical bills.

If Harris wants to decrease the racial gap in homeownership rates, there’s a lot of other policies, from getting rid of single-family zoning to abolishing urban growth boundaries, she should endorse that could make that a reality without costing taxpayers a dime.

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