Crude Crashes In Early Asia Trading

Crude Crashes In Early Asia Trading

Tyler Durden

Sun, 11/01/2020 – 18:25

WTI just tumbled to a $33 handle in early trading (after being above $40 just 3 days ago) as demand fears (European lockdowns) and supply concerns (Libya ramped up its production) combined to spark anxiety about the energy complex outlook.

Dec WTI Futs are down over 5%…

This is the lowest front-month oil price since May…

Additionally some have suggested that waning odds of a Biden victory are also perhaps adding to supply concerns as the end of fracking is delayed.

Here’s OilPrice.com’s Robert Rapier detailing how the oil industry has fared under the last nine US presidents.

With the 2020 presidential election looming — and with many claims and counterclaims about a president’s impact on the oil industry — I thought it might be of interest to review the history of U.S. oil production and consumption over the past 50 years. Here are the highlights from each president’s term in office.

Richard Nixon was inaugurated as the 37th president on January 20, 1969. When President Nixon took office, U.S. oil production was nearing a peak after over 100 years of increasing production. Imports made up 10% of U.S. consumption. In 1970, U.S. oil production reached 9.6 million barrels per day (BPD) and began a long, steady decline.

Richard Nixon began his second term on January 20, 1973. U.S. oil production had declined to 9.2 million BPD while consumption had increased by 3 million BPD from the first year of Nixon’s first term. As a result, oil imports would more than double during Nixon’s presidency, and American citizens would learn the danger of the dependence on imports with the OPEC oil embargo of 1973.

Gerald Ford was inaugurated as the 38th president on August 9, 1974 after Nixon resigned in disgrace. During President Ford’s term in office, domestic oil production continued to decline. U.S. oil consumption and imports continued to grow, and both were at all-time highs during Ford’s last year in office.

Jimmy Carter was inaugurated as the 39th president on January 20, 1977. Recent trends in consumption, production, and imports all reversed themselves during President Carter’s term. Consumption fell by 2%, U.S. production increased by 6%, and imports—after initially rising to record highs during his first year in office—were a fraction of a percentage lower at the end of his term than during Ford’s last year in office. Factors beyond Carter’s control—such as the Iranian Revolution and the Iran–Iraq War—heavily influenced the oil markets.

Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th president on January 20, 1981. Oil consumption continued to decline during most of President Reagan’s first term, and oil production crept back to levels that had not been seen in a decade. Oil imports fell by 35% during his first term.  

Ronald Reagan began his second term on January 21, 1985. The trends from his first term all reversed themselves, as consumption rose 10%, domestic production fell by 8%, and oil imports increased by 49%.

George H. W. Bush was inaugurated as the 41st president on January 20, 1989. Consumption fell slightly during his term, but domestic production fell even more—down 12%. Imports increased by 19%, back above 6 million BPD for the first time since the 1970s.

Bill Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd president on January 20, 1993. During his first term, consumption increased by another 7%, domestic production fell by 10%, and imports increased by another 23%—exceeding 7 million bpd for the first time in U.S. history.

Bill Clinton began his second term on January 20, 1997. His second term trends were almost identical to those of his first term. Consumption rose by another 8%, domestic production fell by another 10%, and imports increased by an additional 21%. Consumption and oil imports were at all-time highs, and production had fallen 40% from the 1970 production peak.

George W. Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd president on January 20, 2001. During his first term, consumption climbed above 20 million BPD for the first time in the nation’s history. Imports also reached new highs, above 10 million BPD. Domestic production continued to fall.

George W. Bush began his second term on January 20, 2005. During Bush’s second term, consumption began to decline as the nation entered a recession and oil prices reached record highs. Imports fell back to below 10 million BPD. The decline in domestic production continued, albeit at a slower rate of decline than during his first term. This marked the first trickle of oil production from hydraulic fracturing, which would make a major impact during the terms of the next two presidents. During Bush’s last year in office, the level of imports reached just over 50% of U.S. consumption.

Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president on January 20, 2009. The economic sluggishness initially continued, but the impact of hydraulic fracturing began to be felt in President Obama’s first year in office. In a reversal of the long decline that began in 1970, crude oil production would rise all four years of Obama’s first term.

President Obama began his second term on January 21, 2013. The fracking boom caused oil production to accelerate until 2015. But then overproduction led OPEC to initiate a price war that ultimately crashed prices and production. Production began to decline in 2015, but 2016 — the last year of Obama’s second term — was the first year of his presidency that annual oil production declined.

Between 2009 and 2015 oil production had increased by 4.4 million BPD. This was the fastest increase in oil production in U.S. history, and marked the largest increase in oil production during a single term of any president. If natural gas liquids (NGLs) are included, the gains during Obama’s first seven years were 6 million BPD. U.S. net imports of finished products like gasoline turned into net exports during Obama’s second term, and next imports of finished products plus crude oil fell by over 6 million BPD.

Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president on January 20, 2017. Oil production had declined during President Obama’s last year in office as the average annual price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell to $43.34/bbl. But in 2017 that rose to $50.79/bbl, and then to $65.20/bbl in 2018. Oil production followed prices higher. During the first three years of President Trump’s first term, annual U.S. oil production gained 3.4 million BPD. Net imports of crude oil and finished products turned into net exports in late 2019. U.S. oil production eclipsed the previous 1970 peak (although if you include NGLs, that peak was eclipsed in 2013).

But then the Covid-19 pandemic crushed oil demand. Now, less than a month before the election, U.S. oil production is at 10.5 million BPD — a significant decline from the 12.2 million BPD of 2019.

The net impact of the past 50 years of U.S. presidents was a long, slow decline of oil production that was only reversed when the hydraulic fracturing revolution began.

U.S. oil production didn’t fall under Bush and rise under Obama based on the policies of these presidents. Production behaved according to policies that had been put in place years earlier, and in accordance with the behavior of oil prices in previous years. Jimmy Carter experienced a rise in oil production because the Alaska Pipeline—approved by Nixon—was completed while Carter was in office. Obama and Trump experienced a rise in oil production following years of climbing oil prices — which led to a fracking boom.

Presidents publicly fretted for decades about the loss of energy independence for the U.S. They tried many different approaches to solving this problem—from serious intervention in the energy markets to letting the free market solve the problem. Many billions of dollars were spent on programs with the intent of eliminating dependence on foreign oil.

Yet in 1969, Americans depended on oil imports for 10% of their consumption, and in 2008 that number had risen to over 50% of consumption. That trend was only reversed when fracking caused U.S. oil production to surge.

Thus, a president may have some impact on U.S. oil production, but it is mostly a factor of influences well beyond their control.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3815JQF Tyler Durden

Congress, Not The Fed, Is The New Driver Of Financial Markets

Congress, Not The Fed, Is The New Driver Of Financial Markets

Tyler Durden

Sun, 11/01/2020 – 18:00

Submitted by Howard Wang at Convoy Investments

For as long as you’ve known me, I’ve been saying the Fed is the single most dominant player in the markets. That changed as of this year. The chart below may surprise you. Since the start of the pandemic, the ups and downs of the markets have exactly tracked changing inflation expectations.

Why is this significant? While the Fed can control short-term or long-term interest rates, they cannot directly control inflation. They can only influence inflation by changing interest rates, which are already anchored at close to zero. So the Fed is largely helpless in stimulating the economy and the markets. It is now in an era where it must rely on Congress bills in order to enact expansionary monetary policy.

Up until 2008, the Fed controlled the economy and the markets through short-term interest rates. By setting expectations of future short rates, the Fed can also indirectly influence long rates, thus impacting the financing rates of capital transfers over various time frames.

This approach was effective until 2008 when short rates hit zero and the Fed could no longer use this lever. In 2009, the Fed had to move further out on the yield curve and began to directly control long rates by buying bonds via quantitative easing. Because of the size of the bond market, these operations had to be in the $trillions in order to be effective. But ultimately it worked to lower borrowing rates and discount rates, propping up the economy and boosting financial assets.

When the pandemic hit this year and we saw historic levels of deterioration in the economy and the markets, QE was the lever the Fed immediately went to, quickly lowering long rates down to close to zero. Yet that wasn’t nearly enough stimulation for the economy.

At that point, the Fed had two options to avoid a deflationary depression, keep the same QE approach which would mean forcing long rates into the negative territory like Europe, or keep nominal interest rates low and steady and manage inflation expectations in order to force real interest rates negative. As you can see in the chart below, the Fed chose the second route. They kept the nominal interest rate nearly constant while stimulus checks from Congress boosted inflation expectations, thus suppressing real interest rates to be materially negative.

To the extent the US can, they will continue to prefer the second route because it is much less disruptive to the financial system to have low and steady nominal interest rates than negative ones, especially as the reserve currency of the world. While this second option seems more palatable, they both punish savers in the form of negative real returns. So what does this new era of monetary policy mean for the economy and markets?

First and foremost, the Fed is now no longer in control of monetary policy. Despite explicitly changing their mandate to target long-term average inflation, the Fed no longer has the tools to actually control inflation. All they can do is keep nominal interest rates steady and low, like they’ve been doing. To stimulate the economy during a downturn like the potential second COVID wave, they rely on the Congress passing fiscal stimulus to boost inflation expectations and drop real interest rates. Expansionary monetary policy relies solely on continued growth of US federal debt. This is why the Fed Chair Powell has been so desperately calling for more help from Congress recently.

Second, instead of economists fine tuning interest rates on a daily basis, monetary policy now depends on politicians passing stimulus bills. If the easing is overdone, the Fed can always increase interest rates or lower their bond holdings, but it is harder to take stimulus checks back once they are issued. This type of monetary policy is like doing a delicate surgery with a machete. Further, as we see in the recent gridlock around the second round of stimulus, the stability of the economy is often not the only goal in politics. I believe we are in an era of heightened volatility.

Finally, I believe market will dance to a new rhythm. In the 2010s, markets did well when the Fed bought bonds and did poorly when the Fed tapered buying. Now markets depend more on the timing of fiscal stimulus. As stimulus is being handed out, inflation expectations improve, commodity markets boom, real rates drop and almost all financial assets do well. When stimulus runs out, commodities markets drop, inflation expectations fall, real rates rise, and almost all financial assets lose money. Lack of political coordination on a second round of fiscal stimulus is why the markets have been so choppy in the last few months leading up to the US election. I expect continued market volatility until there is more coordination among the branches of the government.

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

Meet Brock Pierce, the Drug-Legalizing Cryptocurrency Entrepreneur on the Presidential Ballot in 16 States

Brockpic

Odds are you’ve heard about the nontraditional presidential candidacy of a certain Kanye West. Chances are decent, too, that you may recall the late-breaking run last time around by independent ex-CIA agent Evan McMullin.

But what if I told you that there was a 2020 candidate on more ballots than either the rapper or the Mormon, who also happened to be a fiscally hawkish cryptocurrency entrepreneur whose policy page begins with “Re-legalizing cannabis” and ends with “Your body is yours“?

Meet Brock Pierce, one of the more unusual characters to ever make it on the presidential ballot of 16 states. Pierce in his four decades on the planet has been a child actor (The Mighty Ducks), teenaged dot-com cautionary tale (at the notorious Digital Entertainment Network), online gaming pioneer, and founder of the cryptocurrency Tether. Controversy has followed him at every step, including during his 17 weeks as White House aspirant. (See this July interview with Forbes for Pierce’s responses to several of the accusations.)

“I obviously identify with and resonate with and connect with my libertarian brothers and sisters on so many levels,” Pierce told me in a phone interview Saturday. And yet, like Unity 2020‘s Bret Weinstein (with whom Pierce says he’s had several conversations), the independent believes that our current political crisis is grave enough (“we’re probably going to have another wave of riots, potentially civil war, economic sort of carnage,” he says) that all pre-existing third parties, as well as millions of disgruntled Democrats and Republicans, should assemble into a cross-partisan movement based more on values and integrity than tribal loyalty and narrow ideology.

Pierce, to be sure, also favors policies libertarians might find less congenial, such as a Universal Earned Income, and re-writing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Regardless, he vows, this is only the beginning: “I think by November 5th, I’m going to announce that I’ve already got 35 to 40 states [ballot access] already done” for 2024, he says. This may be the first time you’ve heard of Brock Pierce, but he swears it won’t be the last.

The following is an edited version of our conversation.

—

Reason: Why the hell are you running for president, Brock Pierce?

Pierce: I can summarize it in one word: Love.

Reason: Wow.

Pierce: Love for this country. Love for the American people at a time where we need love and unity. These United States feel very much like the divided states right now. We’re divided politically, economically, racially. We face very real existential threats environmentally, technologically, arguably pandemically. Conflicts potentially with other nation-states. We have to find a path to unity, we need visionary leadership that has their finger on the pulse regarding things like technology, fiscal policy, the list goes on.

Reason: You joined us in July, right? Why so kind of late in the scheme of things, or what was…the triggering mechanism that caused you to jump in in July, as opposed to July of the previous year?

Pierce: Well, I’m an independent candidate, and so July 4th is the day that I announced. An auspicious day for an independent candidate!

I turn 40 in two weeks, and so I am laying the foundation and the groundwork for a presidential run in 2024. I’ll have been running for essentially four and a half years.

Reason: I see. So look, I write for a libertarian magazine, we’re really disproportionately into stuff like blockchains, like ending the war on drugs, legalizing marijuana, balancing the budget. You’ve got all of those things checked off, and in fact, they are prominent in your emphases. Why not take a run at the Libertarian Party, which actually has ballot access in 50 states?

Pierce: I obviously identify with and resonate with and connect with my libertarian brothers and sisters on so many levels. The thing that I think needs to happen though is, we have to find a way of uniting the third parties. The last third party candidate to be elected president was Abraham Lincoln. And Abraham Lincoln was able to unite the third parties by creating a government of rivals, you know, divided we fall, united we stand. Clearly we need to bring on the libertarian community. We gotta like Voltron with all of these groups, because we are bigger, the independents are bigger, than the Republicans, the independents are bigger than the Democrats. But we’re consistently divided. And so I clearly intend to speak to and connect with libertarians.

In terms of 50-state ballot access, I’ve got that solved already. I was able to do 16 states, and could have done 25 at least, and that’s starting on July 4th. It took the Libertarian Party probably a couple of decades to figure out how to do it; I’ve got it figured out in six months. It’s not that hard.

Reason: What are the big priorities, or things that you think need to be changed, that your independent candidacy or presidency is uniquely poised to address or affect?

Pierce: Well, I think part of it is how we measure and define our success. What is our aim as a nation? If you don’t have an aim or a vision, you’re going to wander aimlessly. And so, how do we create a unified vision as a country?

One of the things I like to talk about is, the way that we’ve been measuring our success historically as a nation has been by growth, or GDP. The problem with growth is it assumes that we have infinite resources, which we’ve known for quite a while we don’t have. It also doesn’t differentiate between positive and negative growth, and we also have a lot of crony capitalism, right? And so I think how we measure and define our success is a conversation that needs to be had.

The founders of this country had a wonderful intention for us, which was “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And so here’s an idea that I propose: What if we started to measure our success by life expectancy? Did you know that life expectancy in this country has been in decline the last few years despite all the advancements in medicine, science, and technology? What if we started to measure our success by life? Policy and everything would start to change, and we’d start to have real wealth, which is our individual health.

What if we started to define and measure our success as a nation by our liberty? We are supposed to be the Land of the Free, after all. But we have more people in prison than any other country in the world, in total and per capita. It doesn’t sound like liberty is the goal. I believe in law and order; I think it’s a foundation of a well-functioning society. But it’s meant to protect and serve. Our police departments are arresting more people to get a bigger budget to hire more cops to arrest more people to get a bigger budget to hire….It’s growth, it’s just infinite growth, it’s blind growth, it’s not mindful growth, it’s not thoughtful growth. And so, what if we started to measure our success by liberty?

And then, of course, happiness. There’s already countries around the world that are measuring their success by happiness. So how do we upgrade the operating system of the United States? How do we define and measure our success? Because growth is not going to work anymore. So that’s just one concept.

Another thing is, let’s talk about the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar is the foundation of this nation, the foundation of this nation’s economy. If something negative were to happen to the dollar, it would have very material adverse effects on all of our lives, all of our businesses, and all of our institutions. And it is at risk because of our national debt, because of our fiscal policy. Did you know that 22 percent of all dollars in existence were created this year?

Reason: Wow, I did not.

Pierce: I mean, that’s a frightening number, isn’t it? [The dollar] is at risk because of the things that we’re doing here domestically that are eroding faith, trust, and confidence in it. And it’s also at risk because of external threats.

One of the things I did is I created the U.S. digital dollar in 2014, which is doing $10 trillion a year in transactional volume. Governments around the world are using that framework to enhance their currency with technology. The Chinese government is years ahead of everyone else with their new Chinese digital Wuan. We don’t even talk about fiscal policy in our election. I mean, these things matter, and they’re not being discussed.

Technology itself beyond just the dollar is also…We know technology is changing the world, and it’s doing so at an accelerated pace. Our technology leaders [just] testified before our elected officials, I mean, the questions they’re asking are embarrassing. At a time where the impact of technology is very real and technology is a tool, it is not good or bad, it’s how we use it will determine the impact it has. I mean, look at The Social Dilemma on Netflix, and how technology is impacting our democracy. The potential risks to free speech and the censorship that’s starting to happen. Which is not new, it just is becoming visible, and the whole country at least…is starting to see it.

Now with artificial intelligence, automation, robotics—I mean, the landscape of work is going to be changing rapidly. There are three and a half million truck drivers in this country, then add [the drivers for] Uber, Lyft, and taxis. This is not science fiction: Driverless cars, driverless trucks, they’re on the road already over the course of the next four to eight years. Then we’re talking about tens of millions of jobs that are going to disappear because they’ve been replaced by technology. We need leadership, visionary leadership with the foresight to navigate the road ahead with their finger on the pulse.

I continue back to the war on drugs: Yes, we need to end that. Let’s re-legalize nature. When did we outlaw nature to begin with and why? Oh yeah, it was for plastic, cotton, and paper. So, we outlawed nature because our new products couldn’t compete with hemp. I think it’s important to do that. Let’s end this war on drugs, let’s end locking people up in prison for victimless crimes, for cannabis-related things, and so forth. The answer for drug addiction isn’t locking people up in cages at great expense to the American people. This is a social issue, a mental health issue. Let’s actually help people help themselves to live a more prosperous life.

Reason: Silicon Valley companies [are] being hauled in front of Congress. It’s now kind of a bipartisan agreement, which is usually a scary moment, to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Where do you stand on that narrow question of, should that be rewritten in some way to affect the behavior of the Silicon Valley giants?

Pierce: I think the answer is yes. You’re either a platform or a publisher. As a platform, you don’t have liability because you are permitting free speech. The moment you choose to be a publisher and censor, then you become liable. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, and define what you are. If you want to be a platform, be a platform; if you want to be a publisher, be a publisher. These are companies that have that choice. You just can’t have both.

Reason: We have a comments section. Are we liable for every damn fool thing our commenters say, under your vision?

Pierce: Now, yeah, we’re getting further narrow…I mean, this is back to publisher or platform.

Reason: I mean, we’re a publisher that allows people—

Pierce: That’s tier two of the question. Tier one is, are you censoring speech as a social media platform? Or as a publisher, do you have comments sections? I think that’s a secondary issue. I think the primary issue is as the platforms, are they censoring major speech? When we’re getting into the nitty-gritty details of your comments section, I think that’s a lesser issue, but I see the point that you’re making.

Reason: It’s just that the platform-publisher distinction can be a gray area and when you increase the legal—

Pierce: Agreed, and I think they’re two very different issues. One is the comment sections and what your users are saying. Another is literally manipulating what an entire world, the nation, sees. I don’t know if you saw the leaked Google video where you had the senior Google executives saying that, “We’re just going to make it so that conservative opinions are not seen by anyone.” I mean, they’re very different issues but they fall into the same vein.

Reason: Talking about the truckers who are going to be replaced by automated driving…this gets into some Andrew Yangi-sm. He had the Universal Basic Income idea. You have the Universal Earned Income. Talk about that a little bit.

Pierce: So if we have tens of millions of jobs that are going to be disappearing because of technology—which doesn’t need to be a bad thing; I get up and I live to work, I live to serve. But a lot of people work to live or to survive….We can’t have tens of millions of people desperate. If tens of millions of people are desperate to survive, the pitchforks come out, so we have to find a solution to give people the necessary safety net to become re-skilled, to retrain, to find other ways to be productive members of society.

I think Universal Earned Income is the answer, similar to Universal Basic Income, except for there’s an earned component. How do you earn it? Is it by voting? Is it by being an American citizen? Is it you make your first dollar and then you just proceed the rest? These are the questions in the conversation that I wish to continue to have with all those parties that are interested in doing it.

Reason: So you are talking about unity, and getting people on the same page. Do you think in these times when we have a lot of polarized, tribal rhetorical warfare with one another, in which, for instance, Hollywood and Silicon Valley are seen as being definitely on one side of this issue—that’s kind of where you come from! Are you the person to convince people who are skeptical of those major centers of power to rally around an independent flag?

Pierce: I hope so. I mean, my message resonates with people on the far left and the far right, because I think I’m like a majority of Americans: people that want to live and let live, to take responsibility for our actions. I think the majority of us are in the middle. We’ve just been divided through these very polarized two limited choices that we have. You’re like, “Well, I don’t like that, I’m against that. Therefore, I’m going to vote for this.” I think as a nation, it’s less about what we’re against. We have to get out of that mindset and start to think about what we’re for. What do we stand for?

And I think that’s a big part of the problem. I mean like 70 percent of Democrats and Republicans are unhappy with their choices. So I think this country is going to stay in this perpetual loop until we start to act according to our conscience, to vote our conscience, not to vote out of fear, but to vote for what we believe in. I think that we need more choices. Hence, I’m presenting another one here now.

Reason: You started this conversation with the word “love.” On your website, one of your five major areas is “Regeneration.” Am I wrong to detect a little bit of overlap with Marianne Williamson here? There’s a spiritual component of yours that people might associate with a more kind of New Age uplift.

Pierce: You could call it “spirituality,” if that’s what resonates with you. I’m a very spiritual person. But it’s also all very logical. It’s based upon common sense, very logical sensible ideas. I’m a fan of Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang. And if the things that I’m doing trigger in a positive way those associations, I’m glad to hear it. You’re the first person to have said that.

Reason: Speaking of weird associations, or associations regardless of what one thinks about them, according to the very well-informed website Wikipedia, you did business with Steve Bannon at one point, 12, 13 years ago.

Pierce: Steve worked for me in my mid-20s.

Reason: What is your reflection on his role in the American political conversation since?

Pierce: Well, when he worked for me, he was still an investment banker. And so, he was my deal guy that executed my financings and things of that nature. So, his foray into the political realm occurred after his tenure of working for me. It’s been interesting to see—I guess inspiring in the sense that I saw someone basically jump into politics and fairly quickly ascend all the way through the ranks almost as far as one could go. But Steve and I are obviously very different people.

Reason: Building on that, you’re running against Donald Trump and Joe Biden in the year 2020. What is your biggest criticism of each?

Pierce: I tend not to get into criticisms of others. I mean, there’s so much of that happening right now. If you turn on your television, you open up anything, it’s pretty much all negative sort of messaging towards the two major-party candidates. So I don’t really spend time on that.

I’d say that the big difference is that I’ve got a strong technology background. I’ve been on the forefront of innovation for a very long time. I’m half of Joe Biden’s age, like, exactly: I’m 39, he’s 78. And so I think that we’re going to need younger leadership over the course of this next decade. Most of our leadership historically have been in their 40s and 50s; typically, our presidents are not in their 60s, certainly not in their 70s, ever. The oldest president ever elected in U.S. history in their first term was Donald Trump at 70. This is all new territory, at a time where I think we need people that are more in touch with the present reality.

Reason: What do you worry is going to happen in the next four years regardless of who wins?

Pierce: It’s going to be a rough road. I wish I could say otherwise. The ripple effects of shutting down the U.S. economy, the impact on the American Dream, unemployment, the 22 percent more dollars—and that’s going to be a lot more over the next year. We’re in for a lot of trouble and a lot of polarization. Just the next week alone—I mean, we’re probably going to have another wave of riots, potentially civil war, economic sort of carnage.

That’s why I’m running for office. I think we’re doomed if we don’t do something different, and I’m not the type of person that just sits on the sidelines; I’m going to do everything I can to fix it. That just means delivering a message and sharing vision and ideas. I don’t care who implements it. If these things get implemented and everybody wins, that’s good enough for me.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HLw8HO
via IFTTT

Watch: Caravan Of Vehicles For Trump Shut Down New Jersey Highway

Watch: Caravan Of Vehicles For Trump Shut Down New Jersey Highway

Tyler Durden

Sun, 11/01/2020 – 17:30

Days after a vehicle convoy of President Trump’s supporters escorted the Biden-Harris Bus down a Texas highway, another caravan of Trump supporters shut down a stretch of New Jersey roadway on Sunday. 

Videos surfaced on Twitter Sunday afternoon of what appears to be hundreds of vehicles, could be a lot more, of Trump supporters shutting down a stretch of Garden State Parkway in New Jersey.

One Trump supporter could be heard saying: “We shut it down.” 

Around noon, it appears one stretch of the Garden State Parkway was in gridlock, 

One Twitter user said: “whoever organized the trump parade on the garden state parkway, f**k you man, now i’m late to work.” 

Someone said the traffic jam is “miles long.” 

Many of the president’s supporters’ vehicles had flags that read “Trump 2020.” 

Ironically, some Trump supporters have previously complained about radical leftists shutting down highways; so it seems, no matter the political affiliation, shutting down roads and cities to make a political point appears to be a way to be heard.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3oOFYZS Tyler Durden

Meet Brock Pierce, the Drug-Legalizing Cryptocurrency Entrepreneur on the Presidential Ballot in 16 States

Brockpic

Odds are you’ve heard about the nontraditional presidential candidacy of a certain Kanye West. Chances are decent, too, that you may recall the late-breaking run last time around by independent ex-CIA agent Evan McMullin.

But what if I told you that there was a 2020 candidate on more ballots than either the rapper or the Mormon, who also happened to be a fiscally hawkish cryptocurrency entrepreneur whose policy page begins with “Re-legalizing cannabis” and ends with “Your body is yours“?

Meet Brock Pierce, one of the more unusual characters to ever make it on the presidential ballot of 16 states. Pierce in his four decades on the planet has been a child actor (The Mighty Ducks), teenaged dot-com cautionary tale (at the notorious Digital Entertainment Network), online gaming pioneer, and founder of the cryptocurrency Tether. Controversy has followed him at every step, including during his 17 weeks as White House aspirant. (See this July interview with Forbes for Pierce’s responses to several of the accusations.)

“I obviously identify with and resonate with and connect with my libertarian brothers and sisters on so many levels,” Pierce told me in a phone interview Saturday. And yet, like Unity 2020‘s Bret Weinstein (with whom Pierce says he’s had several conversations), the independent believes that our current political crisis is grave enough (“we’re probably going to have another wave of riots, potentially civil war, economic sort of carnage,” he says) that all pre-existing third parties, as well as millions of disgruntled Democrats and Republicans, should assemble into a cross-partisan movement based more on values and integrity than tribal loyalty and narrow ideology.

Pierce, to be sure, also favors policies libertarians might find less congenial, such as a Universal Earned Income, and re-writing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Regardless, he vows, this is only the beginning: “I think by November 5th, I’m going to announce that I’ve already got 35 to 40 states [ballot access] already done” for 2024, he says. This may be the first time you’ve heard of Brock Pierce, but he swears it won’t be the last.

The following is an edited version of our conversation.

—

Reason: Why the hell are you running for president, Brock Pierce?

Pierce: I can summarize it in one word: Love.

Reason: Wow.

Pierce: Love for this country. Love for the American people at a time where we need love and unity. These United States feel very much like the divided states right now. We’re divided politically, economically, racially. We face very real existential threats environmentally, technologically, arguably pandemically. Conflicts potentially with other nation-states. We have to find a path to unity, we need visionary leadership that has their finger on the pulse regarding things like technology, fiscal policy, the list goes on.

Reason: You joined us in July, right? Why so kind of late in the scheme of things, or what was…the triggering mechanism that caused you to jump in in July, as opposed to July of the previous year?

Pierce: Well, I’m an independent candidate, and so July 4th is the day that I announced. An auspicious day for an independent candidate!

I turn 40 in two weeks, and so I am laying the foundation and the groundwork for a presidential run in 2024. I’ll have been running for essentially four and a half years.

Reason: I see. So look, I write for a libertarian magazine, we’re really disproportionately into stuff like blockchains, like ending the war on drugs, legalizing marijuana, balancing the budget. You’ve got all of those things checked off, and in fact, they are prominent in your emphases. Why not take a run at the Libertarian Party, which actually has ballot access in 50 states?

Pierce: I obviously identify with and resonate with and connect with my libertarian brothers and sisters on so many levels. The thing that I think needs to happen though is, we have to find a way of uniting the third parties. The last third party candidate to be elected president was Abraham Lincoln. And Abraham Lincoln was able to unite the third parties by creating a government of rivals, you know, divided we fall, united we stand. Clearly we need to bring on the libertarian community. We gotta like Voltron with all of these groups, because we are bigger, the independents are bigger, than the Republicans, the independents are bigger than the Democrats. But we’re consistently divided. And so I clearly intend to speak to and connect with libertarians.

In terms of 50-state ballot access, I’ve got that solved already. I was able to do 16 states, and could have done 25 at least, and that’s starting on July 4th. It took the Libertarian Party probably a couple of decades to figure out how to do it; I’ve got it figured out in six months. It’s not that hard.

Reason: What are the big priorities, or things that you think need to be changed, that your independent candidacy or presidency is uniquely poised to address or affect?

Pierce: Well, I think part of it is how we measure and define our success. What is our aim as a nation? If you don’t have an aim or a vision, you’re going to wander aimlessly. And so, how do we create a unified vision as a country?

One of the things I like to talk about is, the way that we’ve been measuring our success historically as a nation has been by growth, or GDP. The problem with growth is it assumes that we have infinite resources, which we’ve known for quite a while we don’t have. It also doesn’t differentiate between positive and negative growth, and we also have a lot of crony capitalism, right? And so I think how we measure and define our success is a conversation that needs to be had.

The founders of this country had a wonderful intention for us, which was “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And so here’s an idea that I propose: What if we started to measure our success by life expectancy? Did you know that life expectancy in this country has been in decline the last few years despite all the advancements in medicine, science, and technology? What if we started to measure our success by life? Policy and everything would start to change, and we’d start to have real wealth, which is our individual health.

What if we started to define and measure our success as a nation by our liberty? We are supposed to be the Land of the Free, after all. But we have more people in prison than any other country in the world, in total and per capita. It doesn’t sound like liberty is the goal. I believe in law and order; I think it’s a foundation of a well-functioning society. But it’s meant to protect and serve. Our police departments are arresting more people to get a bigger budget to hire more cops to arrest more people to get a bigger budget to hire….It’s growth, it’s just infinite growth, it’s blind growth, it’s not mindful growth, it’s not thoughtful growth. And so, what if we started to measure our success by liberty?

And then, of course, happiness. There’s already countries around the world that are measuring their success by happiness. So how do we upgrade the operating system of the United States? How do we define and measure our success? Because growth is not going to work anymore. So that’s just one concept.

Another thing is, let’s talk about the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar is the foundation of this nation, the foundation of this nation’s economy. If something negative were to happen to the dollar, it would have very material adverse effects on all of our lives, all of our businesses, and all of our institutions. And it is at risk because of our national debt, because of our fiscal policy. Did you know that 22 percent of all dollars in existence were created this year?

Reason: Wow, I did not.

Pierce: I mean, that’s a frightening number, isn’t it? [The dollar] is at risk because of the things that we’re doing here domestically that are eroding faith, trust, and confidence in it. And it’s also at risk because of external threats.

One of the things I did is I created the U.S. digital dollar in 2014, which is doing $10 trillion a year in transactional volume. Governments around the world are using that framework to enhance their currency with technology. The Chinese government is years ahead of everyone else with their new Chinese digital Wuan. We don’t even talk about fiscal policy in our election. I mean, these things matter, and they’re not being discussed.

Technology itself beyond just the dollar is also…We know technology is changing the world, and it’s doing so at an accelerated pace. Our technology leaders [just] testified before our elected officials, I mean, the questions they’re asking are embarrassing. At a time where the impact of technology is very real and technology is a tool, it is not good or bad, it’s how we use it will determine the impact it has. I mean, look at The Social Dilemma on Netflix, and how technology is impacting our democracy. The potential risks to free speech and the censorship that’s starting to happen. Which is not new, it just is becoming visible, and the whole country at least…is starting to see it.

Now with artificial intelligence, automation, robotics—I mean, the landscape of work is going to be changing rapidly. There are three and a half million truck drivers in this country, then add [the drivers for] Uber, Lyft, and taxis. This is not science fiction: Driverless cars, driverless trucks, they’re on the road already over the course of the next four to eight years. Then we’re talking about tens of millions of jobs that are going to disappear because they’ve been replaced by technology. We need leadership, visionary leadership with the foresight to navigate the road ahead with their finger on the pulse.

I continue back to the war on drugs: Yes, we need to end that. Let’s re-legalize nature. When did we outlaw nature to begin with and why? Oh yeah, it was for plastic, cotton, and paper. So, we outlawed nature because our new products couldn’t compete with hemp. I think it’s important to do that. Let’s end this war on drugs, let’s end locking people up in prison for victimless crimes, for cannabis-related things, and so forth. The answer for drug addiction isn’t locking people up in cages at great expense to the American people. This is a social issue, a mental health issue. Let’s actually help people help themselves to live a more prosperous life.

Reason: Silicon Valley companies [are] being hauled in front of Congress. It’s now kind of a bipartisan agreement, which is usually a scary moment, to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Where do you stand on that narrow question of, should that be rewritten in some way to affect the behavior of the Silicon Valley giants?

Pierce: I think the answer is yes. You’re either a platform or a publisher. As a platform, you don’t have liability because you are permitting free speech. The moment you choose to be a publisher and censor, then you become liable. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, and define what you are. If you want to be a platform, be a platform; if you want to be a publisher, be a publisher. These are companies that have that choice. You just can’t have both.

Reason: We have a comments section. Are we liable for every damn fool thing our commenters say, under your vision?

Pierce: Now, yeah, we’re getting further narrow…I mean, this is back to publisher or platform.

Reason: I mean, we’re a publisher that allows people—

Pierce: That’s tier two of the question. Tier one is, are you censoring speech as a social media platform? Or as a publisher, do you have comments sections? I think that’s a secondary issue. I think the primary issue is as the platforms, are they censoring major speech? When we’re getting into the nitty-gritty details of your comments section, I think that’s a lesser issue, but I see the point that you’re making.

Reason: It’s just that the platform-publisher distinction can be a gray area and when you increase the legal—

Pierce: Agreed, and I think they’re two very different issues. One is the comment sections and what your users are saying. Another is literally manipulating what an entire world, the nation, sees. I don’t know if you saw the leaked Google video where you had the senior Google executives saying that, “We’re just going to make it so that conservative opinions are not seen by anyone.” I mean, they’re very different issues but they fall into the same vein.

Reason: Talking about the truckers who are going to be replaced by automated driving…this gets into some Andrew Yangi-sm. He had the Universal Basic Income idea. You have the Universal Earned Income. Talk about that a little bit.

Pierce: So if we have tens of millions of jobs that are going to be disappearing because of technology—which doesn’t need to be a bad thing; I get up and I live to work, I live to serve. But a lot of people work to live or to survive….We can’t have tens of millions of people desperate. If tens of millions of people are desperate to survive, the pitchforks come out, so we have to find a solution to give people the necessary safety net to become re-skilled, to retrain, to find other ways to be productive members of society.

I think Universal Earned Income is the answer, similar to Universal Basic Income, except for there’s an earned component. How do you earn it? Is it by voting? Is it by being an American citizen? Is it you make your first dollar and then you just proceed the rest? These are the questions in the conversation that I wish to continue to have with all those parties that are interested in doing it.

Reason: So you are talking about unity, and getting people on the same page. Do you think in these times when we have a lot of polarized, tribal rhetorical warfare with one another, in which, for instance, Hollywood and Silicon Valley are seen as being definitely on one side of this issue—that’s kind of where you come from! Are you the person to convince people who are skeptical of those major centers of power to rally around an independent flag?

Pierce: I hope so. I mean, my message resonates with people on the far left and the far right, because I think I’m like a majority of Americans: people that want to live and let live, to take responsibility for our actions. I think the majority of us are in the middle. We’ve just been divided through these very polarized two limited choices that we have. You’re like, “Well, I don’t like that, I’m against that. Therefore, I’m going to vote for this.” I think as a nation, it’s less about what we’re against. We have to get out of that mindset and start to think about what we’re for. What do we stand for?

And I think that’s a big part of the problem. I mean like 70 percent of Democrats and Republicans are unhappy with their choices. So I think this country is going to stay in this perpetual loop until we start to act according to our conscience, to vote our conscience, not to vote out of fear, but to vote for what we believe in. I think that we need more choices. Hence, I’m presenting another one here now.

Reason: You started this conversation with the word “love.” On your website, one of your five major areas is “Regeneration.” Am I wrong to detect a little bit of overlap with Marianne Williamson here? There’s a spiritual component of yours that people might associate with a more kind of New Age uplift.

Pierce: You could call it “spirituality,” if that’s what resonates with you. I’m a very spiritual person. But it’s also all very logical. It’s based upon common sense, very logical sensible ideas. I’m a fan of Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang. And if the things that I’m doing trigger in a positive way those associations, I’m glad to hear it. You’re the first person to have said that.

Reason: Speaking of weird associations, or associations regardless of what one thinks about them, according to the very well-informed website Wikipedia, you did business with Steve Bannon at one point, 12, 13 years ago.

Pierce: Steve worked for me in my mid-20s.

Reason: What is your reflection on his role in the American political conversation since?

Pierce: Well, when he worked for me, he was still an investment banker. And so, he was my deal guy that executed my financings and things of that nature. So, his foray into the political realm occurred after his tenure of working for me. It’s been interesting to see—I guess inspiring in the sense that I saw someone basically jump into politics and fairly quickly ascend all the way through the ranks almost as far as one could go. But Steve and I are obviously very different people.

Reason: Building on that, you’re running against Donald Trump and Joe Biden in the year 2020. What is your biggest criticism of each?

Pierce: I tend not to get into criticisms of others. I mean, there’s so much of that happening right now. If you turn on your television, you open up anything, it’s pretty much all negative sort of messaging towards the two major-party candidates. So I don’t really spend time on that.

I’d say that the big difference is that I’ve got a strong technology background. I’ve been on the forefront of innovation for a very long time. I’m half of Joe Biden’s age, like, exactly: I’m 39, he’s 78. And so I think that we’re going to need younger leadership over the course of this next decade. Most of our leadership historically have been in their 40s and 50s; typically, our presidents are not in their 60s, certainly not in their 70s, ever. The oldest president ever elected in U.S. history in their first term was Donald Trump at 70. This is all new territory, at a time where I think we need people that are more in touch with the present reality.

Reason: What do you worry is going to happen in the next four years regardless of who wins?

Pierce: It’s going to be a rough road. I wish I could say otherwise. The ripple effects of shutting down the U.S. economy, the impact on the American Dream, unemployment, the 22 percent more dollars—and that’s going to be a lot more over the next year. We’re in for a lot of trouble and a lot of polarization. Just the next week alone—I mean, we’re probably going to have another wave of riots, potentially civil war, economic sort of carnage.

That’s why I’m running for office. I think we’re doomed if we don’t do something different, and I’m not the type of person that just sits on the sidelines; I’m going to do everything I can to fix it. That just means delivering a message and sharing vision and ideas. I don’t care who implements it. If these things get implemented and everybody wins, that’s good enough for me.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HLw8HO
via IFTTT

Why this Religious Freedom Case is Different From the Others

Religious Freedom

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in  an important religious liberty case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Because it is coming the day after election day, Fulton isn’t getting as much public attention as it deserves. But the case is a very significant one, for multiple reasons. In this post, I focus on a key angle that makes this case very different from most other prominent religious-liberties claims in recent years: the fact that a win for the plaintiffs could cause serious harm to innocent third parties who have no way to avoid it.

Fulton is a challenge by  Catholic Social Services (CSS) and others, to the City of Philadelphia’s policy of refusing to place foster children with private service agencies that reject same-sex couples as potential foster parents. CSS refuses to do so for religious reasons, due to the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage and same-sex sexual relationships more generally.

CSS contends that the City is discriminating against them based on religious beliefs, and that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment entitles them to an exemption from even a neutral antidiscrimination policy. To prevail on the latter point, CSS would need to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule or at least substantially limit the scope of its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that, as a general rule, there is no constitutional religious-liberty exemption from neutral, generally applicable laws.

Smith was written by conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. At the time, it was heavily criticized by many liberals, while most conservatives supported it. Since then, the culture wars have shifted, and overruling Smith has become a major objective of social conservatives, while most liberals would prefer to keep it in place.

The fate of Smith is the main reason why this case has caught the eye of legal commentators understandably so. But there is another crucial angle that deserves greater consideration.

In most prominent religious-liberty cases, the the issue at stake is either the government discriminating on the basis of religion (as in the travel ban case and the recent Espinoza Blaine Amendment case),  or the state requiring private businesses to provide services that violate their religious beliefs, to willing customers or employees (as in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case and various cases involving photographers and bakers unwilling to serve same-sex marriages). The 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case raised both issues.

In cases like Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop, the workers and consumers involved had the option of going elsewhere. While Hobby Lobby’s religious commitments led them to refuse to provide contraception benefits to employees, the vast majority of employers (like the vast majority of Americans generally), have no such objections. Employees who value those benefits, accordingly, have many alternatives to working at Hobby Lobby. Indeed, workers as a class  benefit from allowing diversity in benefits, as some might prefer an employer who—instead of providing contraception benefits—offers higher pay or better benefits of some other kind. Similarly, same-sex couples have many alternatives to going to bakers or photographers who object to their wedding. Indeed, most such couples are likely to be better off choosing contractors who don’t have any such objections. Those who do object are unlikely to do a good job of helping to celebrate an event they abhor.

The situation in Fulton is very different: orphans and children in the foster care system—especially younger ones—generally do not have much choice when it comes to deciding which social service organizations will handle their cases. If they end up with CSS or another organization with similar views, they will lose the chance to be placed with a same-sex couple, even if that family is actually the best available home for the child in question. In that event, the child could be placed in a foster home less well-suited to her needs, or even none at all. Unlike people in search of a baker or a photographer,  children in the foster-care system generally don’t have the option of simply taking their “business” somewhere else.

This might not matter if you believe that religious-liberty claims are entitled to an absolute exemption from generally applicable laws. But most advocates of overruling Smith do not take any such absolutist position. Instead, they  generally support something like the “compelling interest” test that Smith overruled, which would allow restrictions on religious freedom so long as they are necessary to promote a compelling government interest. For example, virtually no one claims that religiously-motivated killers are entitled to an exemption from laws against murder and terrorism.

Placing foster children with the best available caregivers is pretty clearly a compelling interest, if anything is. And in this instance, unlike Hobby Lobby or Masterpiece Cakeshop, there may be no other way to ensure that the people in question can get the services they need. Unlike most customers and workers, the children are a captive market whose fate largely depends on decisions by government officials.

It’s also worth noting that the argument put forward by the plaintiffs in Fulton could just as easily be used by service organizations who have religious objections to placing children with interracial or interfaith couples. A few religious groups still condemn the former, and many more object to the latter. In that scenario, few would contend that the state must make use of these agencies without requiring them to consider potential foster parents irrespective of the  latter’s race or religion.

The issue of third-party harm may not be dispositive in the case. It obviously may not matter if the Supreme Court chooses to reaffirm Smith.

Furthmore, in addition to arguing for overruling or cutting back on Smith, the plaintiffs also contend that city officials discriminated against them based on “animus” towards their religious beliefs. My George Mason University colleague Helen Alvare—a prominent expert in this field—has a good defense of the latter argument here.

If she’s right, the Court could rule in favor of CSS without concluding that religious organizations are generally entitled to exemptions from this type of antidiscrimination policy.  While Helen makes good points, I remain skeptical that the City would have treated CSS differently if only the latter’s objections to same-sex couples were secular in nature or based on non-Catholic religious commitments. But I will not try to analyze the discrimination issue in detail here. It is enough to note that it potentially provides an alternative basis for CSS to win the case, one that would not require overruling or modifying Smith.

As a matter of policy, it might sometimes be better to place foster children with agencies that have discriminatory policies, if the available alternatives are even worse (e.g.—the children cannot be placed at all). But the issue at stake in Fulton is not whether the Constitution forbids such placements, but only whether the state should be allowed to avoid them.

When it comes to religious freedom cases, I am no slouch about the need to place tight limits on government power. I supported the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby, the travel ban case, the Blaine Amendment case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and various other cases on related issues. And I have done so even when I find the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs abhorrent, as with religious opposition to contraception (Hobby Lobby) and same-sex marriage (Masterpiece Cakeshop). I have criticized those on both right and left whose stances on these types of cases tends to vary based on whose ox is being gored.

But the issue in Fulton is very different from most other cases. And that difference might justify a ruling in favor of the government, even from a standpoint that is highly supportive of religious liberty claims in other contexts.

 

 

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37XHV0d
via IFTTT

Nate Silver Hedges Big: Pennsylvania Loss Would Make Biden Underdog

Nate Silver Hedges Big: Pennsylvania Loss Would Make Biden Underdog

Tyler Durden

Sun, 11/01/2020 – 17:00

Last week, pollster Nate Silver and his giant brain were so confident in a Biden win that he suggested the only way Trump is reelected would be through a ‘major polling error’ or cheating.

This weekend, however, Silver – sporting a ‘battle beard’ – shoehorned a giant caveat into weeks of confidently proclaiming a Biden win; Pennsylvania. 

“Pennsylvania has not bumped up to a 7- or 8-point Biden lead like we see in Michigan and Wisconsin. It’s 5 points,” Silver told ABC‘s “This Week,” adding that if Trump were to win, “it would come down to Pennsylvania.”

Silver then sets the expectation for an unfair vote, saying “Among the votes that were sent in by mail, there are some provisions about a naked ballot, a security envelope. That could make things more complicated. You could have the courts involved. You have some protests, looting in Philadelphia. There’s lots of stuff going on.”

And then, Silver says that if Biden doesn’t win PA, he’ll become the underdog.

“Maybe a lot of little things add up and Biden loses Pennsylvania by half a point, and then he doesn’t quite pull off Arizona or North Carolina. He does have other options. … But still, without Pennsylvania, then Biden becomes an underdog.”

Silver has given Trump a 10% chance of winning, down from the 28.6% chance he gave Trump vs. Clinton in 2016.

vs.

And here’s Nate’s giant hedge:

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3mHorRx Tyler Durden

Why this Religious Freedom Case is Different From the Others

Religious Freedom

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in  an important religious liberty case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Because it is coming the day after election day, Fulton isn’t getting as much public attention as it deserves. But the case is a very significant one, for multiple reasons. In this post, I focus on a key angle that makes this case very different from most other prominent religious-liberties claims in recent years: the fact that a win for the plaintiffs could cause serious harm to innocent third parties who have no way to avoid it.

Fulton is a challenge by  Catholic Social Services (CSS) and others, to the City of Philadelphia’s policy of refusing to place foster children with private service agencies that reject same-sex couples as potential foster parents. CSS refuses to do so for religious reasons, due to the Catholic Church’s opposition to gay marriage and same-sex sexual relationships more generally.

CSS contends that the City is discriminating against them based on religious beliefs, and that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment entitles them to an exemption from even a neutral antidiscrimination policy. To prevail on the latter point, CSS would need to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule or at least substantially limit the scope of its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which held that, as a general rule, there is no constitutional religious-liberty exemption from neutral, generally applicable laws.

Smith was written by conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. At the time, it was heavily criticized by many liberals, while most conservatives supported it. Since then, the culture wars have shifted, and overruling Smith has become a major objective of social conservatives, while most liberals would prefer to keep it in place.

The fate of Smith is the main reason why this case has caught the eye of legal commentators understandably so. But there is another crucial angle that deserves greater consideration.

In most prominent religious-liberty cases, the the issue at stake is either the government discriminating on the basis of religion (as in the travel ban case and the recent Espinoza Blaine Amendment case),  or the state requiring private businesses to provide services that violate their religious beliefs, to willing customers or employees (as in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case and various cases involving photographers and bakers unwilling to serve same-sex marriages). The 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case raised both issues.

In cases like Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop, the workers and consumers involved had the option of going elsewhere. While Hobby Lobby’s religious commitments led them to refuse to provide contraception benefits to employees, the vast majority of employers (like the vast majority of Americans generally), have no such objections. Employees who value those benefits, accordingly, have many alternatives to working at Hobby Lobby. Indeed, workers as a class  benefit from allowing diversity in benefits, as some might prefer an employer who—instead of providing contraception benefits—offers higher pay or better benefits of some other kind. Similarly, same-sex couples have many alternatives to going to bakers or photographers who object to their wedding. Indeed, most such couples are likely to be better off choosing contractors who don’t have any such objections. Those who do object are unlikely to do a good job of helping to celebrate an event they abhor.

The situation in Fulton is very different: orphans and children in the foster care system—especially younger ones—generally do not have much choice when it comes to deciding which social service organizations will handle their cases. If they end up with CSS or another organization with similar views, they will lose the chance to be placed with a same-sex couple, even if that family is actually the best available home for the child in question. In that event, the child could be placed in a foster home less well-suited to her needs, or even none at all. Unlike people in search of a baker or a photographer,  children in the foster-care system generally don’t have the option of simply taking their “business” somewhere else.

This might not matter if you believe that religious-liberty claims are entitled to an absolute exemption from generally applicable laws. But most advocates of overruling Smith do not take any such absolutist position. Instead, they  generally support something like the “compelling interest” test that Smith overruled, which would allow restrictions on religious freedom so long as they are necessary to promote a compelling government interest. For example, virtually no one claims that religiously-motivated killers are entitled to an exemption from laws against murder and terrorism.

Placing foster children with the best available caregivers is pretty clearly a compelling interest, if anything is. And in this instance, unlike Hobby Lobby or Masterpiece Cakeshop, there may be no other way to ensure that the people in question can get the services they need. Unlike most customers and workers, the children are a captive market whose fate largely depends on decisions by government officials.

It’s also worth noting that the argument put forward by the plaintiffs in Fulton could just as easily be used by service organizations who have religious objections to placing children with interracial or interfaith couples. A few religious groups still condemn the former, and many more object to the latter. In that scenario, few would contend that the state must make use of these agencies without requiring them to consider potential foster parents irrespective of the  latter’s race or religion.

The issue of third-party harm may not be dispositive in the case. It obviously may not matter if the Supreme Court chooses to reaffirm Smith.

Furthmore, in addition to arguing for overruling or cutting back on Smith, the plaintiffs also contend that city officials discriminated against them based on “animus” towards their religious beliefs. My George Mason University colleague Helen Alvare—a prominent expert in this field—has a good defense of the latter argument here.

If she’s right, the Court could rule in favor of CSS without concluding that religious organizations are generally entitled to exemptions from this type of antidiscrimination policy.  While Helen makes good points, I remain skeptical that the City would have treated CSS differently if only the latter’s objections to same-sex couples were secular in nature or based on non-Catholic religious commitments. But I will not try to analyze the discrimination issue in detail here. It is enough to note that it potentially provides an alternative basis for CSS to win the case, one that would not require overruling or modifying Smith.

As a matter of policy, it might sometimes be better to place foster children with agencies that have discriminatory policies, if the available alternatives are even worse (e.g.—the children cannot be placed at all). But the issue at stake in Fulton is not whether the Constitution forbids such placements, but only whether the state should be allowed to avoid them.

When it comes to religious freedom cases, I am no slouch about the need to place tight limits on government power. I supported the plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby, the travel ban case, the Blaine Amendment case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and various other cases on related issues. And I have done so even when I find the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs abhorrent, as with religious opposition to contraception (Hobby Lobby) and same-sex marriage (Masterpiece Cakeshop). I have criticized those on both right and left whose stances on these types of cases tends to vary based on whose ox is being gored.

But the issue in Fulton is very different from most other cases. And that difference might justify a ruling in favor of the government, even from a standpoint that is highly supportive of religious liberty claims in other contexts.

 

 

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37XHV0d
via IFTTT

The Complete Election Cheat Sheet: What Happens On And After November 3

The Complete Election Cheat Sheet: What Happens On And After November 3

Tyler Durden

Sun, 11/01/2020 – 16:30

It’s after midnight on Nov 3, the US population has voted, and the election results are popping up across the media landscape. When will we know who is the next president? Well, due to the special circumstances surrounding this election including a record number of mail in ballots and countless court challenges involving the voting process, we may have to wait…. a while.

Below we lay out a timeline of key events and catalysts that everyone should be aware of.

After Election Day on November 3, the results of the election need to generally be finalized by December 8, which is known as the Safe Harbor Day, as this is when states select their EC Voters.

As Bank of America’s Michelle Meyer writes, in the 2000 election, this date proved to be an important factor for why the Supreme Court stopped the controversial Florida recount, which gave President Bush the win. Those selected EC voters will then officially cast their votes on December 14, to be counted by the next Congress on January 6 who will then declare the winner. Finally, January 20 is Inauguration Day which will begin the next presidential term.

The battle for the Senate

According to the Iowa Electronic Markets, the probability of the Democrats taking over the Senate and maintaining the House (Democratic Sweep) is the mostly likely outcome with a 57.5% probability, although this probability slumped on PredictIt last week sparking the furious Monday Selloff as traders braced for the risk of gridlock. But back to the IEM, the second most likely outcome with an 18.5% probability is a continued split Congress with the Republicans holding the Senate and the Democrats holding the House.

In the Senate, there are 35 seats up for grabs with 12 currently held by Democrats and 23 by Republicans. 10 of the Democrat seats are in solid Democrat states and 11 Republican seats are in likely or solid Republican states, according to the Cook Political Report. As we have discussed extensively in the past few months, there are a few seats that are at risk to flip parties. Specifically, current polling suggest Arizona (McSally) and Colorado (Gardner) are likely to turn Democrat, while Alabama (Jones) should turn Republican. That would at the very least whittle the Republican majority by 1 to 52-48. That said, 7 of the Republican seats are currently rated as toss ups with 4 in battleground states, leaving open the possibility of a Democratic majority.

That said, the overall composition of the Senate is unlikely to be determined until sometime in January due to election rules in Georgia which stipulates the race goes to a runoff if no candidates garners 50% majority in the general election and currently no candidate is projected hit the 50% threshold.

And with that in mind, here is a key primer for…

How to follow the news on Election Day. Here are a few tips from Bank of America:

Here are a few tips:

  1. Be wary of exit polls: The track record of exit polls is tenuous at best. In 2004, exit polls showed John Kerry winning the popular vote by 51% to 48% only to ultimately lose by the same margin. Similarly, there were major flaws in the 2016 exit polls which substantially underestimated the number of white working-class voters while overestimating the number of college-educated white voters, leading to bias results favoring Hilary Clinton. Pollsters claim they have fixed the issues ailing Election Day polls but the better mouse trap is yet unproven. Moreover, there has been unprecedented surge in early voting (both in person and mail-in) with over 70mn votes cast nationwide to-date and there is a major skew in voter day preference by party. Admittedly, pollster are aware of this issue and will enhance their methodology by polling at large and early voting centers but nevertheless this creates greater uncertainty in their estimates.
  2. Brace for head fakes: Results from battleground states should begin to trickle in just after polls close within each state (Table 3). First battleground states to report will be Florida, Georgia and New Hampshire where polls close at 7pm EDT (polls in Florida’s panhandle will close at 8 pm), followed by North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Type of ballots reported first will vary across states. For example, according to reporting done by the Upshot blog of the New York Times, battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Arizona, and Iowa will report early in-person and processed mail-in votes first. Meanwhile, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nevada will not follow any specific order. Getting a clear sense of who is winning will be difficult given the large number of early voting by mail and absentee ballots and different rules around processing ballots, which we discuss below.
  3. Key demographics: In 2016, President Trump was able to tip the election by winning the older and suburban vote. A post-mortem of the 2016 election by the Pew research center showed that Trump won the age groups 50-64 and 65+ by a margin of 6 and 9 points, respectively and edged out the suburban vote by 2 points. During the 2020 election cycle, polls have shown President Trump consistently running below his 2016 election numbers in these key demographic groups. In this context, keep an eye on results coming out of suburban areas such as Maricopa County in Arizona and Peach County in Georgia and older leaning regions such as Sumter County and Pinellas County in Florida. Results in these regions could prove to be a canary in the coalmine.

For those who need a cheat sheet, here is a table summarizing the key election details including poll closing times, ballot processing and deadlines, heatmap of Electoral College votes, and competitive Senate races (Battleground states highlighted in blue, bold Senators indicate predicted flipped seat)

Of course, the one biggest features of this election is the record number of early voters, which at last check were over 93 million between 59 million ballots and 34 million in-person votes as of Nov 1, a whopping 67.6% of the total votes counted in the 2016 general election.

So how are the mail in ballots being counted?

According to BofA, states could have a challenging time working through such a large number of mail-in ballots. The rules also vary by state in terms of when the ballot can be sent and counted. The most common state deadline is on Election Day when the polls close (see Table 3 above).

However, some states will accept a mailed ballot if it is received after Election Day as long as it is postmarked prior. The rules differ in terms of when the ballots can be counted. Some states do not allow mail-in ballots to be opened before Election Day which could mean counting delays. This includes a few of the critical swing states – such as PA and WI. Moreover, mail-in ballots may be contested for signatures that don’t match voter registration cards.

A risk is that the lead in the race swings back and forth between Democrat and Republican candidate depending on what kinds of ballets are being counted. A recent WSJ/NBC poll found that 47% of Biden supporters plan to vote by mail whereas 86% of Trump supporters will vote in person (see here). Indeed, according to the US Elections Project website, there have been over 48 million ballots returned and of the states that identify party affiliation, 48% were Democrats, 29% were Republicans and 22% had no party affiliation. As these votes are tallied it could potentially give a lead to Biden, then in-person voting could swing the election toward Trump, then Biden could regain ground as officials work their way through remaining mail-in votes. In other words, political analysts may not feel comfortable calling the winner despite the data on hand.

Addressing this issue, Reuters has an article today discussing the “Red mirage, blue mirage”, in which it warns of early U.S. election wins:

Imagine that the polls have closed in Florida, counties are beginning to report early vote counts, and it looks like former Vice President Joe Biden is way ahead. An hour later, Pennsylvania counties begin to report and it seems to be a slam dunk for U.S. President Donald Trump.

Don’t be fooled, voting experts and academics say. Early vote counts in the most competitive, battleground states can be particularly misleading this election because of the surge in mail-in or absentee ballots, and the different ways that they are processed.

The states that count mail-in votes before Election Day are likely to give Biden an early lead, since opinion polls and early voting data suggest those ballots favor the Democrat. Conversely, the states that do not tally mail-in votes until Nov. 3 will likely swing initially for Trump.

These so-called red or blue mirages will disappear as more ballots are counted, though experts say it may take days or even weeks to process the huge number of mail-in ballots, spurred by voters seeking to avoid crowded polling stations because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Be patient,” said Gerry Cohen, a member of the Wake County Board of Elections in North Carolina. “You need to count all of the votes, and that’s going to take some time.”

As Reuters expands, here is what to expect in some of the most bitterly contested states :

Blue Mirage

Florida and North Carolina allow election officials to begin processing mail-in ballots weeks before Election Day, and the results of those counts are expected to be released as soon as polls close on Nov. 3. If both states follow that schedule, it is likely that Biden will appear to be ahead initially, as the latest Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll shows that people who already have voted in Florida and North Carolina support the Democratic challenger by a more than 2-to-1 margin over the president.

In both states, a majority of people who plan to vote in person on Election Day support Trump.  A blue mirage is not expected to last long in either state. Experts say they expect Florida and North Carolina to finish counting most of their mail-in and in-person ballots before the end of the night.

Texas, Iowa and Ohio – which Trump won easily in 2016 but polls show could be competitive this year – also allow early processing of mail ballots, so could show a similar blue mirage, according to experts. All three states are expected to finish counting most ballots on Nov. 3.

Red Mirage

In Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, mail-in ballots cannot be counted until Election Day. While Michigan did recently pass a law that allows many cities to start processing mail-in ballots, such as opening ballot envelopes, the day before the election, they cannot begin to count votes. Because mail-in ballots typically take longer to count than ballots cast in person, the initial results could skew Republican. Then, some experts say, expect a “blue shift” as election officials wade through the piles of mail-in ballots.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin may be slowed by their lack of experience with high volumes of mail-in ballots. About one in 20 votes in the two states were cast by mail in the 2018 congressional election, compared to a quarter of Michigan’s votes and about a third of Florida’s.

Pennsylvania’s vote counting could go on for days. Democrats in the state recently won a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court to allow officials to accept mail-in ballots up to three days after the election as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3.

“Something I’m prepared for on election night is for Pennsylvania to look more Republican than it may actually be, whoever ends up winning the state,” said Kyle Kondik, a political analyst at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Ballots in Wisconsin and Michigan must arrive by Election Day, although litigation is under way over whether the states should count ballots that arrive late if postmarked by Nov. 3.

Expect to wait for Arizona

On election night in 2018, Arizona Republican Martha McSally appeared to be on the road to victory in the state’s U.S. Senate race, telling her supporters she was going “to bed with a lead of over 14,000 votes.” Six days later, McSally conceded the race to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema as election officials tallied hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, including many from the Democratic-leaning metropolitan areas of Phoenix and Tucson that were handed in at voting centers on Election Day.

Arizona officials said they hope it will take less time to count ballots this year as Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, has upgraded its equipment and added an extra week to handle early mail-in ballots. But if the race is close, it could still take days to fully count the votes. That would be “an indication of things going the way they’re supposed to,” said C. Murphy Hebert, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Secretary of State. “The process is complex, and we would just invite folks to be patient.”

* * *

The risk of a contested election

As is becoming clear, it is possible if not probable that we don’t have a result of the election on November 4th. The economic implications will depend on the reason and duration of the delay. We see three scenarios:

  1. Benign: Results are delayed due to counting backlogs given the large number of absentee and mail-in ballots but a result is expected within days.
  2. Painful: If the count is close, it could result in a dispute about ballot validity and lead to a recount at the state level. C
  3. Crisis: Either side refuses to accept the results, leading to a legislative battle and a high degree of government dysfunction

According to Bank of America, the outcome of the election will impact the economy through two critical dimensions: confidence and stimulus expectations.

An uncertainty shock

Uncertainty about result of the election could mean the following: 1) businesses delay hiring and investment; 2) households may increase precautionary savings; 3) financing costs could rise due to market stress or concern over credit losses. Since the global financial crisis, there has been increased attention on the impact of uncertainty on the economy with substantial research coming out of academia and the Federal Reserve System. One of the most commonly referenced measures of uncertainty is the Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU) index from Baker, Bloom and Davis.

In a recent paper, Baker, Bloom, and Davis (2015) quantify the impact that uncertainty can have on the economy, using their news-based EPU measure. Using a VAR model, they found that a 90 point increase in the EPU index would lead to a peak GDP drag of 1.2pp. To put that into perspective, the news-based EPU index spiked to a high of 504 in May (on a monthly average basis) from a February level of 216 – a 288 point increase (Chart 3). Fortunately, uncertainty has come back down to 290 as of September, but this is still a net increase of 74 points.

It may not be that simple, however. Research by Jackson, Kliesen, and Owyang (2018) at the St. Louis Fed found that there are nonlinear effects of uncertainty. In order to trigger the nonlinearity of this model, uncertainty must rise above recent historical highs – as such, the potential damage from an election uncertainty shock will be lessened so long as the EPU index does not surpass the prior peak. Based on our read of the literature, if the EPU jumps half way back to the COVID peak as a result of a contested election, it could theoretically drag down GDP growth in 1H between 1-1.5pp. But this could be tempered by the fact that it is following a highly uncertain event, so there is already some degree of uncertainly already priced in. It also depends on how long the shock persists; presumably it would fade early next year. As such, we would assume something smaller than what the models imply, perhaps in the order of a 0.5-1.0pp hit to 1H GDP growth, all else equal.

The drag to the economy from heightened uncertainty would show through as a hit to confidence –confidence measures are still depressed with a modest improvement in business confidence. These confidence measures are vulnerable to the potential double whammy of a contested election + increase in the spread of the virus.

The story for stimulus

The first order impact of the election will be on the trajectory for additional stimulus. Here are our expectations:

  • Biden win + Democratic Congress (‘Blue wave’): $2.0 – 2.5tr in stimulus, including additional funds for the COVID health response. Passed right after inauguration.
  • Biden win + divided Congress: $500bn – 1tr in stimulus. Passed after inauguration but with some delay. There is also some chance of continued gridlock in this scenario.
  • Trump win + divided Congress (‘Status quo’): $1.5 – 2.0tr in stimulus. Passed in the lame duck session because neither side gains an advantage by waiting for a new government to form.

Needless to say, a clear victory could accelerate stimulus negotiations. This is particularly the case if it returns the status quo so neither side has a reason to delay. The two sides are not that far apart — both agree on additional unemployment insurance (around 100% replacement income which is about $300-400 additional/week) and aid for small businesses. They disagree over state & local aid and liability protections for businesses but these appear surmountable hurdles. It is even possible that stimulus is passed in the lame duck session with a status quo result.

The worst case scenario, and one which could lead to a 20% drop in markets according to BofA, a scenario of a Biden victory with a Republican Senate could make it harder to get any package through, creating a risk of sustained gridlock. By contrast, a “Blue Wave” would make a stimulus package very likely by February, one that is likely in excess of $2tr. Under any election result, there will be much more clarity on the path for fiscal stimulus with a fading of the uncertainty shock.

In the event of a contested election that looks like either scenario 2 or 3, the political environment creates a challenge for additional stimulus. Markets will likely become discouraged about the prospects for compromise. However, there is a threshold. If markets sell off violently and the economic data deteriorate, we could see Washington facilitate the passage of stimulus even in a highly contentious environment.

To summarize, BofA believes that an election result of status quo could lead to an earlier passage of stimulus (in lame duck), a “Blue Wave” makes a stimulus package very likely but only after inauguration and a highly contested election would likely create an impediment to stimulus but if the markets and economy deteriorate, an emergency stimulus could be triggered. A clear victory would be a net positive for the economy as it reduces some of the negative risk from higher uncertainty. A Blue Wave likely means greater stimulus which thereby provides the greatest near-term boost to the economy.

The Fed wild card

If there is not a result and financial conditions tighten due to a contested election, BofA believes the Fed’s credit facilities will once again be needed. The Fed could consider easing terms to facilitate the flow of credit. The Fed could also ramp up the QE program, buying Treasuries and MBS at a faster rate, as well as corporate credit as needed, particularly if it sees concerns over market liquidity. Ultimately the focus could be on credit (MBS and corporate credit) versus USTs in a risk-off scenario. Or as BofA recaps, “the Fed has tools and will use them.”

Legislation

The timeline for legislation action will depend on who controls the Senate. If there is a Blue wave, we can assume there will be parallels to the first 200 days of Presidents Obama and Trump in which both had a united Congress. When Obama took office in 2009 he faced an economic collapse from the Global Financial Crisis requiring immediate passage of stimulus. Indeed, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed on January 28, 2009, just 9 days after the inauguration. He then tackled his number one legislative priority – health care reform – but the Affordable Care Act wasn’t signed into law until March 2010. Similarly, Trump still faced obstacles in passing the Tax Cuts and Job Act, which was signed into law on December 22, 2017. Thus, even with a sweep, we therefore think it is reasonable to assume that the legislative agenda won’t be realized until early 2022

The Biden-Harris team has proposed a detailed agenda including increasing spending on child care and education, health care, retirement, disability benefits, R&D, infrastructure and climate change among others. This would be partly financed by increasing taxes on high-income households and corporations. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Biden’s spending programs would total $10.65tr over a 10 year period but would be offset by tax revenues of $4.3tr and $750bn in savings from immigration reform (Table 5). The CRFB also come up with a potential path under a Trump second term, although they admit that there is more guesswork. They find that there would be a $5.1tr increase in spending with the bulk focused on infrastructure of $2.7tr. Tax policy would also be deficit negative, costing $1.7tr.

Depending on the political environment, the economy might receive another boost in early 2021 from legislative changes. However, despite potentially a large price tag, it is unlikely to provide the same jolt to the economy as the COVID-related stimulus. The policies focus on the medium term, particularly infrastructure spending and education reform. The most fiscal restraint will likely be under a scenario of Biden and a divided Congress while the easiest path to fiscal expansion should be under a Blue wave.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jOgSH5 Tyler Durden

Watch: Young Minority Trump Voters Respond To Being Called “Traitors”

Watch: Young Minority Trump Voters Respond To Being Called “Traitors”

Tyler Durden

Sun, 11/01/2020 – 16:00

Authored by Jezzamine Wolk via Campus Reform,

Campus Reform spoke with young minority college students who plan to vote for President Donald Trump. 

For part three of the four-part series, students condemn the narrative that they are “traitors” to their community.

Each student interviewed said that they have faced criticism for their political beliefs and that many times it comes from White liberals.

“I’m not trying to put down White people, but it usually is a White liberal who comes up to me and tries to tell me all Black people need to x,” said Wayne State University senior Christopher Gaffrey. 

“That’s the same mentality that kept people of color, and like you and other people, oppressed for countries and all over the world,” he added.

University of Utah student Seodam Kwak said,

“They believe that your identity basically dictates your political view.”

WATCH:

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3oLc8FG Tyler Durden