Mayor Pete To Take On China As Biden’s Likely Ambassador Pick Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/09/2020 – 16:45
Mayor Pete to take on China? President-elect Joe Biden is said to be mulling an appointment to one of America’s most crucial diplomatic posts, US Ambassador to China.
Sources told Axios that the one-time Biden rival for the Democratic nomination Buttigieg “played a key role in Biden’s nomination” after dropping out and campaigning for him (following a surprisingly strong performance that included winning the Iowa caucuses) and this would pave the way for bolstering him as a rising Democratic star and potential future president.
Via Sky News
“Letting him deepen his foreign policy chops could boost Buttigieg’s future, since many inside the Democratic Party believe his return as a presidential candidate is a matter of when, not if,” Axios writes.
The 38-year old former mayor of South Bend, and Afghan war veteran and former US Navy Reserve intelligence officer has reportedly been vying to be Biden’s ambassador to the United Nations, but is said to be happy with any top foreign policy or national security role in the new administration.
Notes Axios further of the significance should Buttigieg be confirmed for the top China job: “The Beijing post has often gone to experienced politicians, toward the middle or end of their careers, as a way to confer respect to the Chinese.”
An “experienced politician” Buttigieg is not, at least not on a global stage – though he has prior military intelligence experience.
He’s faced accusations of at one point in his military deployments being on the CIA’s payroll, something the Buttigieg team has come out and expressly denied…
In light of the reported soon-to-be appointment of Pete Buttigieg to the position of US ambassador to China, here’s my investigative report exposing his ties to the CIA. Thanks Biden https://t.co/Bu3tSlxoVy
But it remains that “A Buttigieg nomination would invert that model and give the Chinese an opportunity to get to know a potential future president,” as Axios comments further. “That happened with George H.W. Bush in 1974, when President Ford appointed him to the U.S. liaison office in Beijing.”
Biden has vowed to get “tough” on China, signaling he could continue some of Trump’s hawkish and max pressure policies; however, Sino-US relations are at an historic low at a moment Trump is looking to “box-in” the Biden administration, limiting its ability to pursue its own independent policy.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3qBLiAK Tyler Durden
The incontestable incompetence of the USSA’s monopolies, institutions and agencies is about to take center stage in 2021.
When I mention that the U.S.A. feels increasingly like the U.S.S.R., a surprising number of people tell me they feel the same way.Welcome to the U.S.S.A.: United Simulacra States of America where everything is an absurdly transparent simulation with little connection to reality and dissent is crushed by an everpresent, ubiquitous narrative police state enforced by the union of Big Tech social media, search and other monopolies and the Savior State: do what we tell you and you’ll get a piece of our endlessly spewed trillions.
It’s an academic book so there are the required servings of jargon and references to suitably opaque academic tropes, but beneath the conceptual clutter lies a profound analysis of how humans adapt to and navigate a system that has lost all authenticity and survives entirely on the ceaseless marketing of artifice: in other words, the USA today.
Of particular interest are the book’s personal accounts of dutiful Party members going through the motions of obedience as a means of enjoying their private friendships and lives. Joining the Party’s machinery was a way to meet friends who you recruited for your committee work. Everyone went through the motions but nobody actually believed any of it: you did homework while “listening” to the endless canned speeches, you went out for coffee while telling the Party functionary that you were on Party business, and you worked on parades and activities that were a bit of fun despite the dreary official purpose which everyone ignored.
Despite the enormous effort put into placing propaganda everywhere, nobody actually saw any of it: it was all background noise. When it changed, nobody noticed.
“Regular” party members avoided the True Believers and the Dissenters as both could get you in trouble–and who wanted trouble? It wasn’t worth it. And so a carefully cloaked language of phrases and signs emerged to separate the safe “regular” members from the dangerous True Believers and Dissenters.
Documentarian Adam Curtis called this artifice as reality hyper-normalization, a concept also referred to as super-normalization: “normal life” is stripped of authenticity in favor of a simulacrum “normal” that supports those at the top of the status quo. This “new normal” reaches extremes of artifice, hence hyper-normalization.
As long as everyone thinks there are no alternatives to this hyper-normalized simulacrum, this artificial construct appears to be immutable–everything is forever.
But once the power structure admits, however minimally, that it no longer has the answers to the decay of the social-economic order, then the entire artificial construct collapses in a heap. This is the sociology of collapse: people accept a facade of artifice and propaganda without actually believing any of it, though they do have a limbic loyalty to the founding ideals of the State.
The ideologues (True Believers) are avoided as dangerous brown-nosers, and the Dissenters are avoided because it’s not worth being sent to digital Siberia (shadow-banned, deleted, marginalized) just to publicly call attention to the abject failure of status quo institutions and organs of propaganda.
What’s real is denial, repression of dissent, group-think, virtue-signaling and a profound loss of competence. What’s hyper-normalized artifice is all the media spew about how great everything is going to be once we print and squander another couple trillion dollars to prop up the zombie corporations, institutions and government agencies until the magical vaccine time machine returns us to the glorious debt-dependent overconsumption of 2019.
The USSA has not yet admitted that the decay of its socio-economic order is unstoppable, and so the internal gulag has yet to be breached. But artifice is not a substitute for reality, and what’s unsustainable (hyper-normalized artifice) unravels very quickly once the first thread is pulled.
The USSR took 20 years to unravel, but 19 years of the decay were hidden by an increasingly disconnected-from-reality simulacra of “success” and competence: the USSR lost the race to the moon in 1969 and 20 years later two decades of decay led to collapse.
The USSA responded to the dot-com crash of 2000 with artifice and propaganda, an absurdly transparent simulacra of “success” and competence. Twenty years of decay has brought us to the precipice of collapse, and the internal gulag of TINA–there is no alternative– is fraying.
The incontestable incompetence of the USSA’s monopolies, institutions and agencies is about to take center stage in 2021. The sociology of collapsewill be followed by a not-be-missed banquet of consequences.
Hunter Biden Under Federal Investigation For Tax Fraud; Joe Insists He’s “Deeply Proud” Of Troubled Son Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/09/2020 – 16:10
In a surprise move, Hunter Biden, the controversial son of former Vice President Joe Biden whose business dealings in China and Ukraine were exposed in a series of stunning exposes in the runup to the Nov. 3 election, has just revealed that he is under federal investigation for potential tax-related malfeasance.
“I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they ere investigating my tax affairs. I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors.
This is the first time the investigation has been disclosed to the public, suggesting that Hunter is trying to “get out in front of the story in an effort to control the narrative.
Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris team have released a statement affirming that Biden is “deeply proud of his son, who has fought through difficult challenges, including the Mous personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger.”
We understand that the election is now in the past – but will we see Twitter and Facebook again firing up the censors to stamp out any and all speculation about the case?
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2K9FTA2 Tyler Durden
Well that all escalated quickly. Some disappointing comments from Washington on the COVID Relief bill appeared to combine with some algo-chaos around the insane IPO release of DoorDash to spark the market’s worst day in over a month…
This didn’t help either:
*FAUCI: NORMALITY MAY RETURN END OF 2021 AS HERD IMMUNITY GROWS
*FAUCI: POLITICAL LEADERS ADDRESSING SOCIAL BEHAVIOR WOULD HELP
*FAUCI: SOME PARTS OF U.S. POPULATION MAY NEVER CHANGE BEHAVIOR
Remember, it’s definitely not a bubble… Over-Supply much?
Source: Bloomberg
VIX was chaotic today with some flashy-crashes pre-open, only to ramp back above 22.50…
Dow dropped back to 30K numerous times but was mysteriously bid each time…
Momo/LowVol stocks were hammered…
FANG stocks were clubbed like a baby seal (worst day in a month), not helped by a massive anti-trust suit against FB…
Source: Bloomberg
TSLA tanked, not helped by JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman calling the shares “dramatically” overvalued and investors thinking of raising their holdings in the company ahead of its impending addition to the S&P 500 Index should not.
This data is “strongly suggestive of the idea that something apart from the fundamentals (speculative fervor?) is driving the shares higher.”
Most-Shorted Stocks suffered their biggest loss since Oct 30th today…
Source: Bloomberg
Yesterday’s surge in stocks was not followed by credit… and today’s stock weakness was payback…
Source: Bloomberg
Interestingly, with stocks hammered, bonds were unable to mount a decent rally with yields higher on the day (up around 1-2bps)…
Source: Bloomberg
The dollar ripped higher today…
Source: Bloomberg
And that sparked selling in Gold…
And Bitcoin ended the day lower, bouncing off $18k…
Source: Bloomberg
Gold rolled over at its 50DMA…
Source: Bloomberg
Silver was slammed back below $24…
Oil prices ended unchanged somehow… after equity markets tanked and inventories exploded higher unexpectedly…
Finally, one wonders if we hit peak greed once again?
And we know what happened the last time that happened…
Source: Bloomberg
Timing is everything…
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3n4iA9t Tyler Durden
In Stunning Rebuke, LA Judge Strikes Down ‘Abusive’ Outdoor Dining Ban As Lacking ‘Science, Evidence Or Logic’ Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/09/2020 – 15:40
A Los Angeles judge has tentatively struck down the county’s ban on outdoor dining after the Public Health Department – led by Director Barbara Ferrer – failed to provide a scientific basis for the order.
According to The Real Deal, LA County Superior Court Judge James Chalfant overturned the county’s outdoor dining ban which went into effect on Nov. 25, calling it an “abuse” of powers that are “unsupported by any findings.”
“The Restaurant Closure Order is an abuse of the Department’s emergency powers, is not grounded in science, evidence, or logic, and should be adjudicated to be unenforceable as a matter of law,” wrote Chalfant in a 73-page assessment which found that the county failed to perform a required risk-benefit analysis about the restriction.
As Politico notes, “The tentative ruling to block the indefinite ban won’t have immediate practical consequences for Los Angeles-area restaurants, as the county is now under a temporary stay-home order tied to the region’s quickly diminishing ICU capacity. But it marks a symbolic and legal victory for those challenging the emergency powers flexed by state and local officials — and a rare setback for public health authorities facing a worsening crisis.”
Chalfant also noted in his assessment that COVID-19 cases traced back to bars and restaurants accounted for just 3.1% of non-residential outbreaks, “the vast majority of which were chain/fast food type restaurants,” and were almost exclusively between employees rather than customers.
The closure “ingores the outdoor nature of the activity, which the CDC says carries only moderate risk,” he added.
L.A. County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer, who was named in the lawsuit, declined to comment about the case when asked during a briefing Monday. A spokesperson for Los Angeles County said in a statement Tuesday that “Los Angeles County is committed to protecting the health and safety of its residents from a deadly virus that has claimed the lives of nearly 8,000 of our friends, family and neighbors and that has sickened more than 450,000 people just in L.A. County.”
The nation’s most populous county, with more than 10 million residents, reported 8,547 new cases on Tuesday alone. Its five-day average shot to nearly 9,000, almost double the five-day average for the day after Thanksgiving that triggered the local order. The county also for the first time reported a daily hospitalization tally exceeding 3,000. –Politico
Chalfant’s comments come days after a viral video highlighting how arbitrary and absurd restrictions are killing businesses, when the owner of the Pineapple Hill Saloon & Grill pointed out that the city had granted NBC permission to set up outdoor dining tents across the parking lot from her shuttered business – due to the outdoor dining ban.
Bar owner in Los Angeles CA is livid to see that mayor Garcetti has approved an outdoor dining area for a movie company directly across from her outdoor dining area (which was shut down) pic.twitter.com/jkUP2CWg35
Gold outflows have been steady as crypto inflows and prices have soared…
However, it’s not all unicorns and fairy dust for cryptos as in the short term, there’s a good chance that Bitcoin prices have overshot and gold is due for a recovery, the bank said.
JPMorgan’s quantitative strategists, including Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, are a little more fearful that recent outlier moves will revert (Bitcoin down and Gold Up):
We continue to believe that the near term outlook for bitcoin is skewed to the downside as momentum signals decay further into January, likely inducing additional risk reduction by momentum traders such as CTAs. As we explained before in our publication, unless the bitcoin price resumes its uptrend quickly rising above $20k, its momentum signal would mechanically decline further over the next couple of months or so, as the comparison with the past becomes less favorable. This is because our short lookback period momentum signal incorporates a moving average period of 5 months, which corresponds to momentum of roughly 2.5 months.
This implies that, at current prices, the momentum signal will keep deteriorating mechanically from here up until the end of January or so in our framework, potentially inducing further position unwinding by momentum traders such as CTAs. The decay of bitcoin’s momentum signals is depicted in Figure 8.
This contrasts with the corresponding picture for gold in Figure 9 which points to an upward rather than downward trajectory for momentum traders’ position in gold.
So over the near term, bitcoin looks rather overbought vs. gold from a momentum traders positioning point of view.
What about the intrinsic value of bitcoin?
JPMorgan currently estimates an intrinsic value of around $11k-$12k based on our intrinsic value model described in F&L on 4th Aug, 2020.
But, over the medium-term, JPMorgan says that Bitcoin’s intrinsic value should rise significantly over the coming months as mining activity improves:
The gap between the intrinsic value and market prices is elevated, and in previous episodes in late 2017 and mid-2019 much of the closing of that gap has taken place via a decline in market value. At face value, this would suggest some headwind for market prices from here, though these gaps can last for some time before closing. However, one key difference between the current conjuncture and the previous two episodes has been a distinct lack of response from miners. In both the late 2017 and mid-2019 episodes, the gap between the cost of production and market prices did incentivize miners to increase mining activity. This increase in hash rates in turn brought about an increase in the difficulty of the algorithm (Figure 13), increasing the energy and hashing power required to mine bitcoins, in turn pushing up the mining cost.
Why has this not occurred this time around? This is at least in part due to disruptions to mining activity from interruptions to power supply due to China related typhoons and heavy rainfall. As conditions normalize, or activity migrates, a pickup in mining activity will likely see an increase in the intrinsic value. We estimate that a 70% increase in difficulty, all else equal, would see the intrinsic value approach current market prices. While this is a large increase, increases of a similar order of magnitude did occur in the late 2017 and mid-2019 episodes. This means we think it is likely that a larger share of the eventual closing of the gap between market prices and cost of production could come from the latter than in the two previous episodes.
Additionally, JPMorgan sees the flow outlook for the medium to longer term supports the opposite of the above near term price backdrop.
The adoption of bitcoin by institutional investors has only began, while for gold its adoption by institutional investors is very advanced. Most institutional investors have zero exposure to bitcoin and for the ones that have some exposure, mostly HNW/family offices, the exposure is anecdotally small around 1-3% of assets. Family offices in particular control around $6tr of assets globally and the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust has AUM of just above $10bn, so an implicit bitcoin share of only 0.18% of family office assets. This compares to a share of 3.3% share for Gold ETFs.
Which as we have noticed before, on a capital allocation parity basis – about an 18x ratio – works out to around $350,000/bitcoin.
Therefore, for the medium to longer term JPMorgan anticipates that the contrasting institutional flow picture with inflows into the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust and Outflows from Gold ETFs seen over the past two months will likely be sustained rather than reverse. This contrasting flow picture is shown in Figure 10.
Since the beginning of October the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust saw an inflow of almost $2bn while Gold ETFs saw outflows of more than $7bn.
If this medium to longer term thesis proves right, the price of gold would suffer from a structural flow headwind over the coming years.
One simple of way of trading this theme would be to Buy 1 unit of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust and Sell 3 units of GLD ETF to position for a long term outperformance of bitcoin vs gold on a vol (3:1) adjusted basis.
All of which is a fascinating double-down flip-flop by JPM in just three years:
JPMorgan, Sept 2017: “bitcoin is a fraud that will eventually blow up”
JPMorgan, Dec 2020: “bitcoin’s intrinsic value should rise significantly over the coming months”
Interestingly, during a “Reddit AMA” last night, billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio softened his stance on Bitcoin, noting that crypoto can offer protection against the “depreciating value of money.”
As CoinTelegraph reports, Dalio, who last month abandoned his skepticism of Bitcoin, said that the cryptocurrency could complement gold as an investment. Dalio: Bitcoin “could be diversifier to gold”
“I think that bitcoin (and some other digital currencies) have over the last ten years established themselves as interesting gold-like asset alternatives, with similarities and differences to gold and other limited-supply, mobile (unlike real estate) storeholds of wealth,” he wrote.
“So it could serve as a diversifier to gold and other such storehold of wealth assets.”
Continuing, he argued that money printing would spur asset inflation, implying that simply holding wealth in cash would lead to losses.
“We are in a flood of money and credit that is lifting most asset prices and distributing wealth in a way that the system that we’ve come to believe is normal is unable to, and that is threatening to the value of our money and credit,” he warned.
“Most likely that flood will not recede, so those assets will not decline when measured in the depreciating value of money. It is important to diversify well in terms of currencies and countries, as well as asset classes.”
His perspective conspicuously mimics that of Bitcoin proponents, notably Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy, who is guiding the company toward BTC reserves of nearly $1 billion.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3m2SB15 Tyler Durden
The ramifications of online shopping during this holiday season while covid-19 rages across the land will be staggering. The fourth quarter is the time of year when retailers normally make the bulk of their annual profits thanks to holiday shopping. The National Retail Federation reported online shopping soared 44% over the five days, including Black Friday and Cyber Monday. This indicates a huge drop in foot traffic in brick-in-mortar-stores at a time when retailers are headed into the holidays loaded to the gills with inventory. This season is seen as a do or die situation for many of these stores which will not make it anyway because the deck is stacked against them.
Expect Many Local Stores To Close
This year due to the pandemic much of the world is in a semi-shutdown. This has caused online shopping to surge to the point where UPS was forced to impose shipping restrictions on major retailers. On Cyber Monday with delivery networks stretched thin, delivery drivers were instructed not to pick up any packages from six major retailers, including L.L. Bean Inc., Hot Topic Inc., New Egg Inc., and Macy’s. A memo confirmed byWSJ sources as authentic. stated: “No exceptions.” The limits imposed by UPS highlights how the influx in packages has put its shipping network under stress and its commitment to putting its regular customer base first.
Abandoned Malls, A Canary In A Coal Mine
Circling back to the retailers. Many small stores and businesses do not have much if any online presence, and if they do search engines intentionally bury them far under Amazon and the other big-boys. Another thing that will be missing this year is profits. They are facing a cut-throat environment where sales and getting out the product has become as important as the price products sell for. The fear is that when all is said and done much of the inventory leftover will have to be discounted or sold at a loss. This is especially true of seasonal items. This means throughout the remainder of the holiday season expect to see promotions based on curbside pickup to gain even more momentum as shoppers seek to avoid crowds and potential shipping delays.
Small business is the backbone of America, it is where people work and corruption is scarce. It is the workhouse that gets things done and a place where the numbers still make sense. Unlike government that can simply cover mistakes and losses by raising taxes or expanding its deficit, small businesses get smacked square in the face by reality. For small businesses, this is crunch time. Sadly, in my area, online shopping coupled with covid-19 are forcing businesses to close that have been around for decades, this is not just destroying newly formed endeavors. The chart below indicates that when all is said and done more will be forced to close their doors.
Feeding into this year’s online and holiday spending is the current bizarre economy. A surging government deficit adds to the impression the economy is not in trouble or in a recession. This is even with over 20 million people still claiming state or federal unemployment benefits. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, while personal income from all sources was down 6.9% from the massive stimulus-and-unemployment-money-induced spike in April, it is still up 5.5% from a year ago.
While many people consider online shopping as efficient it is generally because they focus on just a few aspects of the process. We should not discount the problems surrounding shopping online. The environmental impact of billions of small packages being rushed and delivered as well as the huge number of these that flow into landfills unused is staggering. It is not the efficient system many people think and the difficulty returning items that fail to meet expectations is often ignored for the illusion of convenience.
Some of the numbers we are seeing are shocking, online spending on Black Friday jumped by 21.6% to a record $9 billion, according to data from Adobe Analytics. This makes Black Friday, which was created to kick-start the brick and mortar holiday season the second-largest single day for online shopping in U.S. history. It should be noted that Adobe recently cut its estimate for online spending this holiday season to $184 but the lowered estimate still marks a 30% increase from last year’s total. This all underlines the idea the annual Friday midnight pilgrimage to local malls which we have come to know as Black Friday, is no more.
Again it appears that one online retailer, Amazon is sucking the air out of the room with its monopolistic engulf and devour strategy of weaseling into all parts of our lives. The company is claiming a 60% increase from last year. Amazon then tried to spin this news by saying an astonishing 71,000 small- and medium-sized businesses across the world have already surpassed $100,000 in sales so far this holiday season. The fact is this second part of their announcement when put into context is meaningless.
I can already hear the wheels spinning in the heads of those readers that disagree with my push-back over this explosion in online sales as unhealthy for the economy. The argument that expanding online sales represents progress denies the harmful ramifications of undermining small business in our society and on our culture. Small businesses and the jobs they create as well as how they bind a community and its people together are very important.
The sluggish in-person traffic reported in 2019 is expected to thin out further unless something is done. The trend is in place, we are witnessing mall-wary shoppers trading in their practice of rushing to stores to buy midnight door-buster specials when they can get the same deals from the comfort of their homes. Most small businesses have little or no online presence and the push to buy local this year will offer only a small amount of relief. We can expect these retailers to experience a tough season and at its end fold into history leaving an empty space for lease to mark their absence.
Remember, brick and mortar stores suffer several expenses not fostered upon online companies. Whether it is the cost of maintaining landscaping, ensuring safe ingress and egress, or providing a parking lot for customers these costs rapidly add up. Staffing for longer hours for the convenience of customers often results in being open when foot traffic would indicate a store should be closed and even dealing with security and shoplifters is another expensive burden. To make matters worse, stores have also had to face a slew of dishonest shoppers trying to sneak defectives products purchased online back as exchanges and trading them for a fresh unbroken product. This costly abuse has been recommended by several online shoppers as an “easy fix” for their problems while ignoring the ethical issues it creates.
Negative attack ads are very effective in politics, after watching a “small businesses unite” commercial it may be time for them to put together a few ads telling people to Boycott Amazon. While leaders on both the left and right of the political spectrum have spoken out against this company, it appears the majority of consumers don’t understand just how much harm and damaging this company is doing to the country. It exploits America with its predatory engulf and devour strategy. Another idea with even more merit is instituting an online transaction fee to help level the playing field between online and brick and mortar retailers. Like most Americans I’m not a lover of any kind of tax, it may be just what is needed to halt the damage flowing from this shift in how consumers shop.
An online transaction fee is a very big proposal and even raising it for discussion would help to shed a spotlight on the damage being done to our communities. The fact is, it would help many small businesses across America remain in operation. The revenue from such a fee would be sent to local governments in the area where the sale originated or goods are shipped. Rather than getting stuck on the details of an online transaction fee that will most likely never occur we should instead think about what kind of community and world we wish to live in and how best to preserve the nature and quality of life we seek. The ugly reality is that store closures are set to accelerate. This is a cancer on America. Large retailers as a group are collectively set to lock the doors for the last time at thousands of stores this year and communities will pay a heavy price.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3732Xte Tyler Durden
States, FTC Unveil Anti-Trust Push To Break Up Facebook Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/09/2020 – 14:43
Facebook shares are extending their losses today as US antitrust officials and a coalition of a states sued the social media company for allegedly abusing its dominance to crush competition.
This is the second time in less than two months the government has brought a monopoly case against an American technology giant.
The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general led by New York filed an antitrust complaint against Facebook Wednesday, alleging a litany of actions to thwart rivals and protect its monopoly. The lawsuit also sought a permanent injunction to the unwinding of the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions.
The complaint was filed after a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
The Federal Trade Commission today sued Facebook, alleging that the company is illegally maintaining its personal social networking monopoly through a years-long course of anticompetitive conduct. Following a lengthy investigation in cooperation with a coalition of attorneys general of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam, the complaint alleges that Facebook has engaged in a systematic strategy—including its 2012 acquisition of up-and-coming rival Instagram, its 2014 acquisition of the mobile messaging app WhatsApp, and the imposition of anticompetitive conditions on software developers—to eliminate threats to its monopoly. This course of conduct harms competition, leaves consumers with few choices for personal social networking, and deprives advertisers of the benefits of competition.
The FTC is seeking a permanent injunction in federal courtthat could, among other things: require divestitures of assets, including Instagram and WhatsApp; prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers; and require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
“Personal social networking is central to the lives of millions of Americans,” said Ian Conner, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Facebook’s actions to entrench and maintain its monopoly deny consumers the benefits of competition. Our aim is to roll back Facebook’s anticompetitive conduct and restore competition so that innovation and free competition can thrive.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook is the world’s dominant personal social networking service and has monopoly power in a market for personal social networking services. This unmatched position has provided Facebook with staggering profits. Last year alone, Facebook generated revenues of more than $70 billion and profits of more than $18.5 billion.
Anticompetitive Acquisitions
According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance. Instagram, a rapidly growing startup, emerged at a critical time in personal social networking competition, when users of personal social networking services were migrating from desktop computers to smartphones, and when consumers were increasingly embracing photo-sharing. The complaint alleges that Facebook executives, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, quickly recognized that Instagram was a vibrant and innovative personal social network and an existential threat to Facebook’s monopoly power.
The complaint alleges that Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale.
Around the same time, according to the complaint, Facebook perceived that “over-the-top” mobile messaging apps also presented a serious threat to Facebook’s monopoly power. In particular, the complaint alleges that Facebook’s leadership understood—and feared—that a successful mobile messaging app could enterthe personal social networking market, either by adding new features or by spinning off a standalone personal social networking app.
The complaint alleges that, by 2012, WhatsApp had emerged as the clear global “category leader” in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete, and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp allegedly both neutralizes the prospect that WhatsApp itself might threaten Facebook’s personal social networking monopoly and ensures that any future threat will have a more difficult time gaining scale in mobile messaging.
Anticompetitive Platform Conduct
The complaint also alleges that Facebook, over many years, has imposed anticompetitive conditions on third-party software developers’ access to valuable interconnections to its platform, such as the application programming interfaces (“APIs”) that allow the developers’ apps to interface with Facebook. In particular, Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services.
The complaint alleges that Facebook has enforced these policies by cutting off API access to blunt perceived competitive threats from rival personal social networking services, mobile messaging apps, and other apps with social functionalities. For example, in 2013, Twitter launched the app Vine, which allowed users to shoot and share short video segments. In response, according to the complaint, Facebook shut down the API that would have allowed Vine to access friends via Facebook.
The lawsuit follows an investigation by the FTC’s Technology Enforcement Division, whose staff cooperated closely with a coalition of attorneys general, under the coordination of the New York State Office of the Attorney General. Participating Attorneys General include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was 3-2. Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson voted no.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3qDn9dj Tyler Durden
Christopher Krebs, has filed a lawsuit against Trump attorney Joe diGenova over this controversial joke that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “shot” for his failures as the former head of U.S. cybersecurity.
The lawsuit strikes me as meritless under governing tort doctrines.
While Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest,’” many of us took the comment as an obvious use of exaggerated rhetoric. While I immediately condemned the language, I did not view it as a serious call for violence. Torts cases of defamation often turn common understanding of such expression as jokes or opinion. The lawsuit not only contradicts governing case law but threatens constitutional protections for free speech and the free press in seeking such tort relief.
Joe diGenova gave an interview to Newsmax’s The Howie Carr Show and said that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “taken out at dawn and shot.” It was a typical over-heated statement of “that guy should be shot” variety. diGenova made it even more absurd by combining it with a medieval method of execution. It was both literally and figuratively an example of overkill.
In an interview with the Washington Examiner,diGenova quickly stated that his comment was a joke and not intended as a threat. He stated “For anyone listening to the Howie Carr Show, it was obvious that my remarks were sarcastic and made in jest. I, of course, wish Mr. Krebs no harm. This was hyperbole during political discourse.”
The lawsuit names diGenova as well as the Trump campaign and Newsmax. The lawsuit is filed by Charles Fax and Liesel Schopler of Rifkin Weiner Livingston Inc and Jim Walden, Jefferey Udell, Jacob Gardener, Rachel Brook, and Derek Borchardt of Walden Macht & Haran. It is not clear who the opposing defense counsel will be in the case.
The lawsuit reads at points more like a political screed in defending the “patriot” Krebs against the “angry mob” fueled by Trump and diGenova who is described as a conspiracy theorist.
Count I is a straight defamation claim (against all three defendants).
Count II is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (against diGenova and the campaign).
Count III is an aiding and abetting claim (against Newsmax).
Count IV is a civil conspiracy claim.
From the outset, the complaint collides with controlling case law. Take Count II. The argument of Krebs would gut the first amendment and run counter to the clear precedent laid down in Snyder v.Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). I previously wrote that such lawsuits are a direct threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column. I was therefore gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of the free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church.
Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the message:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. In this case, the Court continues that line of cases — rejecting the highly subjective approach espoused by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent:
Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995).
The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.
Ironically, these lawyers are espousing the position of the lone dissenter: Justice Alito. The dissent gave little credence to concerns over the constitutional rights raised in the case. He insisted that “[i]n order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.”
It is hard to see how any court could accept Count II and not do precisely what the Supreme Court barred in the use of this tort to limit political and religious speech.
Count III and Count IV is equally troubling. It makes sweeping and vague claims of aiding and abetting and conspiracies without support. The comment was clearly part of over-heated rhetoric now common on both ends of the political spectrum. Such claims, if successful, would gut the first amendment.
That leaves us with Count I on defamation. That claim is equally dubious from both constitutional and tort perspectives. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Again, the Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures.
Krebs is a former public official and a current public figure under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” He would have to carry the burden of proving that the defendant knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for its truth. The problem is the the statement is clearly opinion given in the heat of a contested election.
The Supreme Court dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:
It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.
The comment here is clearly “rhetorical hyperbole” that is part of public debate over the 2020 election.
Ironically, I have previously criticized President Trump for his calls (here and here and here and here) to change defamation laws to erode protections for the media and free speech. These lawyers and Krebs are doing precisely what Trump has called for.
Notably, while I consider this lawsuit to be meritless, I do not believe that any of these lawyers should be charged with bar complaints. That has been the call of Democratic members and many liberal lawyers who want to see bar complaints filed against lawyers challenging the election. I also would not support a campaign like the one at the Lincoln Project (funded by many lawyers) to harass these lawyers or put pressure on their clients. The lawsuit in my view will fail and the legal system will protect free speech from such ill-considered and unsupportable legal claims.
Pfizer Admits COVID Vaccine Document Leak, Blames EU Server “Cyberattack” Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/09/2020 – 14:19
U.S. pharmaceutical company Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech applied last week to the European Medicines Agency for the marketing authorization of their coronavirus vaccine – and it now appears that some of their documents relating to the regulatory submission were leaked as Pfizer blames the European computer system for the breach.
Here’s Pfizer’s statement:
Today, we were informed by the European Medicines Agency (ENIA) that the agency has been subject to a cyberattack and that some documents relating to the regulatory submission for Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, which has been stored on an EMA server, had been unlawfully accessed.
It is important to note that no BiONTeCh or Pfizer systems have been breached in connection with this incident and we are unaware that any study participants have been identified through the data being accessed. At this time, we await further information about EMA’s investigation and will respond appropriately and in accordance with EU law. EMA has assured us that the cyberattack will have no impact on the timeline for in review.
Given the critical public health considerations and the importance of transparency, we continue to provide clarity around all aspects of the vaccine development and regulatory processes. Our focus remains steadfast on working in close partnership with Governments and regulators to bring our COVID-19 vaccine to people around the globe as safely and as efficiently as possible to help bring an end to this devastating pandemic.
Pfizer shares are down more than 2% in the afternoon session.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3oE1648 Tyler Durden
