‘The President’s Speech Police’: Trump Pushes Forward With Regulating Bias Online

zumaamericastwentyeight031576

On Monday, the Trump administration formally requested that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) look into whether social media companies are running afoul of Section 230, the federal law that allows these companies to moderate content without facing legal peril and says providers and users of any “interactive computer service” are only responsible for their own speech, not the speech of every single user on a given platform.

Conservatives don’t like Section 230 because it means Twitter, YouTube, and similar entities have the discretion to delete offensive tweets and suspend any accounts they deem to be violating their terms of service. Progressive don’t like Section 230 because it means that only the perpetrators of crimes like harassment, non-consensual sharing of photos (a.k.a. “revenge porn”), or forced prostitution can be charged or sued over theses actions, not whatever digital tool or service they happened to use in service of their bad acts.

Both sides insist that tweaking or abolishing Section 230 will solve their pet problems—that is, doing so would somehow lead to both more and less speech permitted online. In actuality, it would just give the federal and state governments—as well as deep-pocketed entities wielding civil suits—more control over what the average person can say without punishment and what content private companies can allow.

Thankfully, the folks at the FCC seem to realize this. In June, when President Donald Trump first issued an executive order on social media—a day after Twitter affixed a fact-checking note to one of Trump’s tweets—current and former commissioners were already skeptical.

“An Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President’s speech police is not the answer,” said Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that “the Federal Communications Commission will carefully review any petition for rulemaking filed by the Department of Commerce”—a subtle comment that the agency doesn’t take its orders from Trump and Trump can’t grant it new authorities.

Trump’s June order instructed the FCC to determine the conditions under which moderating social media content can be classified as “the result of inadequate notice, the product of unreasoned explanation, or having been undertaken without a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

As I pointed out last month, it’s a strange request, since there’s nothing in Section 230 that conditions its protections on entities giving adequate notice about suspended posts or providing users with a reasonable explanation. Section 230 is about who creates content, not how a company chooses to display or suppress that content or how they communicate these decisions.

The end goal may be for Republicans in Congress to somehow use the FCC’s recommendations in proposing a future amendment to Section 230, but that’s a lot of steps away and would face some serious hurdles. The idea may also simply be to provide courts with new guidance on interpreting Section 230 cases (for instance, if the FCC decides that providing inadequate notice of moderation decisions is a sign of not acting in “good faith,” as the law requires, plaintiffs could bring these things up as evidence when asking judges to rule on Section 230-related claims).

Regardless, the administration is moving ahead with recruiting the FCC into Trump’s beef with Twitter. On Monday, the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration filed a petition with the FCC formally asking it to clarify the things mentioned in Trump’s order.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr put out a statement yesterday saying “I look forward to reviewing and acting expeditiously on the petition.” Rosenworcel was less enthused.

“The FCC shouldn’t take this bait,” she said in a statement. “While social media can be frustrating, turning this agency into the President’s speech police is not the answer. If we honor the Constitution, we will reject this petition immediately.”

Right on cue last night, Trump began posting angrily about Twitter’s trend recommendations, an algorithmically determined selection of popular hashtags and words tailored to each individual Twitter user’s habits. This leads to individuals seeing different trends—that is, if a user sees a lot of a certain type of trending topic, it’s related to both what other users are clicking on and their own previous activity on the network. None of it is determined by the individuals working at Twitter or the preferences of the company’s leaders.

The president either doesn’t understand this or is pretending he doesn’t understand.

“So disgusting to watch Twitter’s so-called ‘Trending,’ where sooo many trends are about me, and never a good one,” Trump tweeted mid-evening on Monday. “They look for anything they can find, make it as bad as possible, and blow it up, trying to make it a trend. Really ridiculous, illegal, and, of course, very unfair!”

Trump’s nonsensical comments dovetail nicely with the narrative about social media that he and other prominent conservatives have trying to spread: that it’s deliberately biased against them. But—again—Twitter trends are simply determined by what content is trendy among users, according to the number of people tweeting about, clicking on, and sharing said content.

Trump’s comments are actually a pretty glorious self-own, since him never seeing “a good” story about himself trending simply means that good content about Trump isn’t popular among Twitter users, bad content about Trump is popular, and Trump himself is frequently checking in on trends about himself without grasping that this affects his trending-topic results.

Whether other prominent conservatives are similarly confused about how the internet and social media work, or just like having another excuse to cry victimhood, many have lobbed on to the president’s current claim or made similarly asinine allegations in the past.

Last week, for instance, Rod Dreher of The American Conservative insisted Google had briefly de-indexed his blog so it wouldn’t show up in search results. But whatever Dreher was doing to convince himself of this, his blog actually remained perfectly visible in search results, as plenty of people who checked up on his story pointed out. Nonetheless, Dreher tweeted at Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) asking the senator to open an investigation into what was going on.

Alas, this is where conservatives’ combination of tech panic and paranoid victim mentality has gotten us: demanding congressional hearings and federal agency investigations into why Rod Dreher can’t find his own blog posts and why Americans like sharing bad stories about Trump.


QUICK HITS

• Decriminalize Sex Work has put out an excellent video explaining the problems with the EARN IT Act and why it’s “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

RIP Garrett Foster.

• Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden released his “Agenda for Women” yesterday.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30517Vh
via IFTTT

What Cancel Culture Has In Common With Medieval Outlawry

the-adventures-of-robin-hood-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000

Cancel culture has often been compared to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s (R–Wisc.) hunt for communists in the 1950s. That’s not a bad parallel, so far as it goes. But I think a more useful analog is found in more distant history: Cancellation is remarkably similar in spirit to the outlawry of medieval England.

If Robin Hood and his men were as merry as is widely reported and secure in their Sherwood haunts, they were the exception among outlaws. To be made an outlaw was, quite literally, to be put outside the law—which is to say, to lose its protection of your life.

That’s not all the outlaw lost. “Outlawry required forfeiture of goods to the king and liability to be killed with impunity,” explains historian Melissa Sartore in Outlawry, Governance, and Law in Medieval England. “An outlaw was stripped of any property and was essentially a ‘friendless’ and ‘lawless’ man. He had no more rights than a hunted animal.” An outlaw could not use his home, perform his work, or see his family without the risk of violent death.

Outlawry was a favored punishment in a justice system with much less information and power than ours. It was frequently assigned by justices in eyre, who were judges traveling a circuit and holding court in various villages as they went. Because these courts weren’t continuously in session and rural communities’ ability to jail people was limited, it wasn’t uncommon for those accused of serious crimes to hide or run when a justice arrived.

“The court’s response to the absconding felon was to proclaim him an outlaw,” writes Susan Stewart in Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England. If he did not appear at one of five subsequent court sessions to which he was summoned, the outlaw’s status was confirmed and publicized along with his alleged guilt. (Kings could also outlaw people for treason, and abuse of the royal outlaw power is addressed in the Magna Carta.)

Outlawry could be undone by royal pardon or demonstration of innocence, but most outlaws didn’t wait around for that slim possibility of restoration to normal life. They typically fled, Stewart says, believing “their safest route was to escape to the depths of the forest, and then possibly to emerge at some later date to a vill or better still a town where their face and history were unknown.”

Outlawry fell out of use as imprisonment became more widely practiced. Though a few belated writs of outlawry (or its close cousin, exile) were issued in the United Kingdom as recently as the 19th century, by the time it was officially abolished in 1938, contemporary commentary described the shift as “sweep[ing] away some legal deadwood.” In cancel culture, however, we find a sort of outlawry revived.

Cancel culture is slippery in the taxonomist’s hands, but I think something like columnist Ross Douthat’s definition is about right: “Cancellation, properly understood, refers to an attack on someone’s employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying.”

This description highlights the differences of function between medieval outlawry and cancel culture today: Outlawry was a formal, legal punishment backed by the threat of violence and usually intended to punish people accused of felony crimes like murder, arson, or conspiracy. Cancel culture has no such legal force. It’s a movement of social censure, and in its quintessential cases—e.g. Justine Sacco or, more recently, David Shor or the woman from The Washington Post Halloween party story—there’s no criminal allegation or, many times, even a lean outside the Overton Window. (The “Central Park Karen,” somewhat unusually among high-profile cancellation stories, is being prosecuted.)

Beyond these distinctions, however, outlawry and cancel culture have much in common: They grow out of the same human impulse of ostracism, the desire to exclude offenders from “respectable” society. They give the broader community permission to attack their targets, whether with physical violence (as in outlawry) or via verbal abuse, doxxing, or threats (as in cancel culture). They oust offenders from their social class (today, typically the professional-managerial class) and deprive them of their normal means of livelihood.

That last similarity is what first led me to make this comparison. “[Racist p]eople who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don’t want people like that to keep getting jobs,” a teenager from Long Island recently told The New York Times in defense of her operation of a call-out account on Instagram. “Many students believe the only consequence their peers will take seriously is having their college admissions letter rescinded,” the Times report says, quoting a second teenager similarly eager to stop future “racist lawyers or doctors” from “advancing.” Ending targets’ professional lives (here, before they begin) is the feature, not a bug.

But there’s one more important difference between cancel culture and the outlawry of yore: As Douthat notes, “under the rule of the internet there’s no leaving the village” or running to the forest deep. 

Cancel culture normally won’t kill you—though stories like that of Geoffrey Corbis or Wilson Gavin should caution us against dismissing that risk too lightly—but it can certainly kill your career. It may be possible to change your name and start a new life, but this is no longer as simple as popping up in some unfamiliar hamlet to ply your trade anew. Our modern writ of outlawry is always just a Google away.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3f0ZZXa
via IFTTT

‘The President’s Speech Police’: Trump Pushes Forward With Regulating Bias Online

zumaamericastwentyeight031576

On Monday, the Trump administration formally requested that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) look into whether social media companies are running afoul of Section 230, the federal law that allows these companies to moderate content without facing legal peril and says providers and users of any “interactive computer service” are only responsible for their own speech, not the speech of every single user on a given platform.

Conservatives don’t like Section 230 because it means Twitter, YouTube, and similar entities have the discretion to delete offensive tweets and suspend any accounts they deem to be violating their terms of service. Progressive don’t like Section 230 because it means that only the perpetrators of crimes like harassment, non-consensual sharing of photos (a.k.a. “revenge porn”), or forced prostitution can be charged or sued over theses actions, not whatever digital tool or service they happened to use in service of their bad acts.

Both sides insist that tweaking or abolishing Section 230 will solve their pet problems—that is, doing so would somehow lead to both more and less speech permitted online. In actuality, it would just give the federal and state governments—as well as deep-pocketed entities wielding civil suits—more control over what the average person can say without punishment and what content private companies can allow.

Thankfully, the folks at the FCC seem to realize this. In June, when President Donald Trump first issued an executive order on social media—a day after Twitter affixed a fact-checking note to one of Trump’s tweets—current and former commissioners were already skeptical.

“An Executive Order that would turn the Federal Communications Commission into the President’s speech police is not the answer,” said Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said that “the Federal Communications Commission will carefully review any petition for rulemaking filed by the Department of Commerce”—a subtle comment that the agency doesn’t take its orders from Trump and Trump can’t grant it new authorities.

Trump’s June order instructed the FCC to determine the conditions under which moderating social media content can be classified as “the result of inadequate notice, the product of unreasoned explanation, or having been undertaken without a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

As I pointed out last month, it’s a strange request, since there’s nothing in Section 230 that conditions its protections on entities giving adequate notice about suspended posts or providing users with a reasonable explanation. Section 230 is about who creates content, not how a company chooses to display or suppress that content or how they communicate these decisions.

The end goal may be for Republicans in Congress to somehow use the FCC’s recommendations in proposing a future amendment to Section 230, but that’s a lot of steps away and would face some serious hurdles. The idea may also simply be to provide courts with new guidance on interpreting Section 230 cases (for instance, if the FCC decides that providing inadequate notice of moderation decisions is a sign of not acting in “good faith,” as the law requires, plaintiffs could bring these things up as evidence when asking judges to rule on Section 230-related claims).

Regardless, the administration is moving ahead with recruiting the FCC into Trump’s beef with Twitter. On Monday, the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration filed a petition with the FCC formally asking it to clarify the things mentioned in Trump’s order.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr put out a statement yesterday saying “I look forward to reviewing and acting expeditiously on the petition.” Rosenworcel was less enthused.

“The FCC shouldn’t take this bait,” she said in a statement. “While social media can be frustrating, turning this agency into the President’s speech police is not the answer. If we honor the Constitution, we will reject this petition immediately.”

Right on cue last night, Trump began posting angrily about Twitter’s trend recommendations, an algorithmically determined selection of popular hashtags and words tailored to each individual Twitter user’s habits. This leads to individuals seeing different trends—that is, if a user sees a lot of a certain type of trending topic, it’s related to both what other users are clicking on and their own previous activity on the network. None of it is determined by the individuals working at Twitter or the preferences of the company’s leaders.

The president either doesn’t understand this or is pretending he doesn’t understand.

“So disgusting to watch Twitter’s so-called ‘Trending,’ where sooo many trends are about me, and never a good one,” Trump tweeted mid-evening on Monday. “They look for anything they can find, make it as bad as possible, and blow it up, trying to make it a trend. Really ridiculous, illegal, and, of course, very unfair!”

Trump’s nonsensical comments dovetail nicely with the narrative about social media that he and other prominent conservatives have trying to spread: that it’s deliberately biased against them. But—again—Twitter trends are simply determined by what content is trendy among users, according to the number of people tweeting about, clicking on, and sharing said content.

Trump’s comments are actually a pretty glorious self-own, since him never seeing “a good” story about himself trending simply means that good content about Trump isn’t popular among Twitter users, bad content about Trump is popular, and Trump himself is frequently checking in on trends about himself without grasping that this affects his trending-topic results.

Whether other prominent conservatives are similarly confused about how the internet and social media work, or just like having another excuse to cry victimhood, many have lobbed on to the president’s current claim or made similarly asinine allegations in the past.

Last week, for instance, Rod Dreher of The American Conservative insisted Google had briefly de-indexed his blog so it wouldn’t show up in search results. But whatever Dreher was doing to convince himself of this, his blog actually remained perfectly visible in search results, as plenty of people who checked up on his story pointed out. Nonetheless, Dreher tweeted at Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) asking the senator to open an investigation into what was going on.

Alas, this is where conservatives’ combination of tech panic and paranoid victim mentality has gotten us: demanding congressional hearings and federal agency investigations into why Rod Dreher can’t find his own blog posts and why Americans like sharing bad stories about Trump.


QUICK HITS

• Decriminalize Sex Work has put out an excellent video explaining the problems with the EARN IT Act and why it’s “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

RIP Garrett Foster.

• Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden released his “Agenda for Women” yesterday.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30517Vh
via IFTTT

What Cancel Culture Has In Common With Medieval Outlawry

the-adventures-of-robin-hood-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000

Cancel culture has often been compared to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s (R–Wisc.) hunt for communists in the 1950s. That’s not a bad parallel, so far as it goes. But I think a more useful analog is found in more distant history: Cancellation is remarkably similar in spirit to the outlawry of medieval England.

If Robin Hood and his men were as merry as is widely reported and secure in their Sherwood haunts, they were the exception among outlaws. To be made an outlaw was, quite literally, to be put outside the law—which is to say, to lose its protection of your life.

That’s not all the outlaw lost. “Outlawry required forfeiture of goods to the king and liability to be killed with impunity,” explains historian Melissa Sartore in Outlawry, Governance, and Law in Medieval England. “An outlaw was stripped of any property and was essentially a ‘friendless’ and ‘lawless’ man. He had no more rights than a hunted animal.” An outlaw could not use his home, perform his work, or see his family without the risk of violent death.

Outlawry was a favored punishment in a justice system with much less information and power than ours. It was frequently assigned by justices in eyre, who were judges traveling a circuit and holding court in various villages as they went. Because these courts weren’t continuously in session and rural communities’ ability to jail people was limited, it wasn’t uncommon for those accused of serious crimes to hide or run when a justice arrived.

“The court’s response to the absconding felon was to proclaim him an outlaw,” writes Susan Stewart in Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England. If he did not appear at one of five subsequent court sessions to which he was summoned, the outlaw’s status was confirmed and publicized along with his alleged guilt. (Kings could also outlaw people for treason, and abuse of the royal outlaw power is addressed in the Magna Carta.)

Outlawry could be undone by royal pardon or demonstration of innocence, but most outlaws didn’t wait around for that slim possibility of restoration to normal life. They typically fled, Stewart says, believing “their safest route was to escape to the depths of the forest, and then possibly to emerge at some later date to a vill or better still a town where their face and history were unknown.”

Outlawry fell out of use as imprisonment became more widely practiced. Though a few belated writs of outlawry (or its close cousin, exile) were issued in the United Kingdom as recently as the 19th century, by the time it was officially abolished in 1938, contemporary commentary described the shift as “sweep[ing] away some legal deadwood.” In cancel culture, however, we find a sort of outlawry revived.

Cancel culture is slippery in the taxonomist’s hands, but I think something like columnist Ross Douthat’s definition is about right: “Cancellation, properly understood, refers to an attack on someone’s employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying.”

This description highlights the differences of function between medieval outlawry and cancel culture today: Outlawry was a formal, legal punishment backed by the threat of violence and usually intended to punish people accused of felony crimes like murder, arson, or conspiracy. Cancel culture has no such legal force. It’s a movement of social censure, and in its quintessential cases—e.g. Justine Sacco or, more recently, David Shor or the woman from The Washington Post Halloween party story—there’s no criminal allegation or, many times, even a lean outside the Overton Window. (The “Central Park Karen,” somewhat unusually among high-profile cancellation stories, is being prosecuted.)

Beyond these distinctions, however, outlawry and cancel culture have much in common: They grow out of the same human impulse of ostracism, the desire to exclude offenders from “respectable” society. They give the broader community permission to attack their targets, whether with physical violence (as in outlawry) or via verbal abuse, doxxing, or threats (as in cancel culture). They oust offenders from their social class (today, typically the professional-managerial class) and deprive them of their normal means of livelihood.

That last similarity is what first led me to make this comparison. “[Racist p]eople who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don’t want people like that to keep getting jobs,” a teenager from Long Island recently told The New York Times in defense of her operation of a call-out account on Instagram. “Many students believe the only consequence their peers will take seriously is having their college admissions letter rescinded,” the Times report says, quoting a second teenager similarly eager to stop future “racist lawyers or doctors” from “advancing.” Ending targets’ professional lives (here, before they begin) is the feature, not a bug.

But there’s one more important difference between cancel culture and the outlawry of yore: As Douthat notes, “under the rule of the internet there’s no leaving the village” or running to the forest deep. 

Cancel culture normally won’t kill you—though stories like that of Geoffrey Corbis or Wilson Gavin should caution us against dismissing that risk too lightly—but it can certainly kill your career. It may be possible to change your name and start a new life, but this is no longer as simple as popping up in some unfamiliar hamlet to ply your trade anew. Our modern writ of outlawry is always just a Google away.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3f0ZZXa
via IFTTT

Rabobank: Yes, Gold Is Soaring, But Here Is What The Goldbugs Are Missing

Rabobank: Yes, Gold Is Soaring, But Here Is What The Goldbugs Are Missing

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/28/2020 – 09:30

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Golden Balls

‘Golden Balls’. That was the name of a not-very-successful UK game show from 2007. It was also what the British used to call David Beckham, arguably the most talented footballer of his generation locally. He bestrode the world football stage like a colossus from Manchester United to Real Madrid to LA Galaxy. Everyone around the world knew him and loved him. And yet, Becks never won anything when playing where it really mattered most – internationally, for England. There were several times when his England team almost nearly kinda could shoulda woulda won something…but never did. All they ever had were flashes of brilliance from Golden Balls and a memory of when they were winners in the distant past

All of which seems appropriate, to me at least, given there is so much obsession with gold at the moment. We are now close to USD2,000 and there seems no stopping it. Will we get to USD3,000, as one major bank with a Beckham-esque name is claiming, or will we go to USD5,000, as a razor-sharp friend suggested to me yesterday? Either is possible given the current trend. And, if you buy gold, technically that is going to make you money.

And yet that money is still going to be priced in US DOLLARS – and that gives the whole game away. Like fans of the England football team, gold fans can dream of the distant past when gold was the centre of the global monetary system; but they can keep dreaming if they think those days are ever going to return. Gold may be an appreciating asset, but all the evidence suggests that it won’t be one that is of any direct relevance to day-to-day life, finance, and business. Your currency won’t be tied to it. You won’t get paid in it. You won’t spend in it or save in it (other than to the switch back to US Dollars). You won’t be doing deals in it or importing in it.

Yes, as the gold bugs rightly point out, there are spooky parallels between today’s trends and those of the 1930s. Uncertainty abounds. We have political polarisation and the collapse of the centre almost everywhere, albeit tapered by the welfare state for now (on which front, the Republicans have apparently agreed on the details of a new US1 trillion stimulus package).

We also have the international environment to match. Yesterday I shared the summary of global defense strategists that within three years US-China conflict is seen as “almost unavoidable”, while it is also “likely” within 12 months. Here’s an even better summary of the reality of the world as it stands today – Philippines’ President Duterte stating of the South China Sea that falls within their own national economic zone, according to international maritime law: “China is claiming it. We are claiming it. China has the arms. We do not have them. So, it’s as simple as that.” Other areas, even including the territory of EU members, are seeing a similar dynamic play out.

That is exactly the kind of zero-sum, might-is-right, mercantilist world that prevailed the last time we had a gold standard, and which is part of its architecture. As David Graeber’s “Debt: The First 5,000 Years” shows, during historical periods of global exogenous money (e.g., gold) we see an increase in inter-state violence to get that gold compared to periods of endogenous money. That said, once the war starts, the fiat money certainly kicks in too, as we all know.

The missing link, for all of the constant muttering about the US going back on gold, or China linking CNY to gold, or Russia doing something mysterious and Russian with gold, is that during the 1930s almost everyone went OFF gold to deal with the ruinous socio-economic problems they faced as a legacy of WW1 debts and then going back ON the gold standard with a consequent need for austerity. (Which, like violence, is part and parcel of a gold standard’s architecture.)

Look around you: does anyone look like they are ready to embrace austerity right now? Quite the opposite. That Beckham-seque US investment bank is now saying that the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet could soar to USD20 trillion ahead, or nearly 100% of GDP: we had said the same thing in our recent report on MMT, as that’s the only way to finance 8-9% fiscal deficits for years ahead; and indeed, we made that prediction years ago when describing the big picture trends now emerging – apart from a virus as the proximate trigger.

Indeed, some central banks are backing vast state spending as their government tries to prevent a depression; some are doing the same with their government talking about national security, rearmament, and bringing home supply chains; the ECB are doing it to save the planet; and the New York Fed, representing the rapacious Wall Street that drove globalisation, caused the global financial crisis, and necessarily cheers asset- and not wage-price inflation, now says on its website it is dedicated to eradicating structural inequality and to working towards a “more equitable economy and society for all”. None of the above are going to work with the strait-jacket of a gold standard; and nobody is about to give up monetary sovereignty to a shiny metal at a time when it is needed more than ever to retain physical sovereignty.

So you can buy gold because others are buying gold. Yet you can’t buy gold with the expectation that it is ever going to be anything other than something heavy you need to schlep.

Moreover, whether gold goes up or down **IN US DOLLARS** is ultimately a product of the real US interest rate. The Fed, who start a two-day meeting today, are obviously going to be at zero and expanding their balance sheet for years to either keep people in work, bring back jobs, build a better army, or a better society, or world. Yet that does not necessarily mean the Fed are going to succeed in hitting the one target they were supposed to be focused on in the market’s mind – inflation. Japan shows even a 100%+ central-bank balance sheet is no guarantee of any inflation at all. If the US were to slip into deflation, meaning positive real rates again unless the Fed goes negative, how will yield-free, no-end-use gold look?

In short, it’s pretty clear where the momentum is right now on gold, and on the USD (although as noted yesterday, not vs. many emerging markets, with Turkey’s TRY the latest to have a sudden wobble). Summer volatility is likely to amplify both. However, once one realises what the underlying global architecture –rotten as it is– looks like and requires, then one sees that talk of a ‘golden future’, for all the fancy footwork, also has the intellectual gravity of David Beckham

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39y8mbq Tyler Durden

Kodak Soars After Government Loan To End China Medical Supply Chain Reliance

Kodak Soars After Government Loan To End China Medical Supply Chain Reliance

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/28/2020 – 09:14

In an apparent retaliation over rising rhetoric over the “China Virus” in April, American firms producing medical goods in China were slapped with new export restrictions, stranding much of the supplies in warehouses across the country.

This move highlighted to many just how precarious the US medical supply chain was, and more critically, how dependent on new ‘Enemy #1’ China the American healthcare system was.

As we detailed previously, according to research and US Congressional hearings, something like 80% of present medicines consumed in the United States are produced in China. This includes Chinese companies and foreign drug companies that have outsourced their drug manufacture in joint ventures with Chinese partners. According to Rosemary Gibson of the Hastings Center bioethics research institute, who authored a book in 2018 on the theme, the dependency is more than alarming.

Gibson cites medical newsletters giving the estimate that today some 80% of all pharmaceutical active ingredients in the USA are made in China.

It’s not just the ingredients. It’s also the chemical precursors, the chemical building blocks used to make the active ingredients. We are dependent on China for the chemical building blocks to make a whole category of antibiotics… known as cephalosporins. They are used in the United States thousands of times every day for people with very serious infections.”

The made in China drugs today include most antibiotics, birth control pills, blood pressure medicines such as valsartan, blood thinners such as heparin, and various cancer drugs. It includes such common medicines as penicillin, ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), and aspirin. The list also includes medications to treat HIV, Alzheimer’s disease, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, cancer, depression, epilepsy, among others. A recent Department of Commerce study found that 97 percent of all antibiotics in the United States came from China.

And so, the Trump administration has begun to do something about this over-reliance with today’s first of its kind loan “to help expedite domestic production of drugs that can treat a variety of medical conditions and loosen the U.S. reliance on foreign sources.”

Somewhat forgotten film-maker Eastman Kodak received a $765 million U.S. government loan under the Defense Production Act to help produce ingredients for drugs.

“We have a long, long history in chemical and advanced materials — well over 100 years,” Continenza told Dow Jones, adding that they have the infrastructure to begin production quickly.

For the US, the benefit of providing the loan to Kodak is to reduce reliance on other countries, particularly China, for drugs, DFC head Adam Boehler said.

“We don’t ever want to be in a position, because of a pandemic, because of any reason,” that a foreign entity could upend U.S. access to medicines or pharmaceutical products.

And Eastman Kodak shares are a double in the pre-market…

As The WSJ reports, the onetime leader in photography sales is gearing up to produce ingredients for generic drugs, including the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine.

He said Kodak will produce “starter materials” and “active pharmaceutical ingredients” used to produce generic medicines, and expects the loan to create around 300 jobs in Rochester, and 30 to 50 jobs in Minnesota.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/333MUKq Tyler Durden

US Home Price Acceleration Ends In May As Urban Exodus Strikes

US Home Price Acceleration Ends In May As Urban Exodus Strikes

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/28/2020 – 09:06

US home prices had accelerated for nine straight months ahead of today’s Case-Shiller data, and was expected to accelerate further in May (the latest data available).

However, in a notable downside surprise for this slow-moving index, home price growth slowed from a revised lower 3.91% YoY in April to +3.69% YoY in May (well below the +4.00% expected)…

Source: Bloomberg

This was the biggest monthly growth disappointment in years.

Phoenix, Seattle, Tampa reported highest year-over-year gains among 19 cities surveyed (Detroit was excluded from the report due to virus-related reporting delays).

New York and San Francisco saw MoM declines in home prices.

Is the urban exodus accelerating?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3333km4 Tyler Durden

EU Slams ‘Complicit’ Volkswagen Over China Treatment Of Uighurs After US Expands Blacklist

EU Slams ‘Complicit’ Volkswagen Over China Treatment Of Uighurs After US Expands Blacklist

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/28/2020 – 08:44

The chair of the European Parliament’s delegation for China relations, Reinhard Bütikofer, has slammed Volkswagen for its refusal to confront China over its treatment of Uighur Muslims, according to Politico.

This week, a group of unions and nongovernmental organizations called on major brands like Nike, Adidas and Amazon to stop sourcing goods from Xinjiang.

While the U.S. has already introduced some sanctions over Xinjiang, Bütikofer complained that the European Commission is still resisting pressure to take action. He reserved his strongest criticism, however, for Volkswagen, which has a factory in Xinjiang’s capital of Urumqi. –Politico

“Volkswagen … is a company without a conscience, Bütikofer told Politico, adding that “companies like that are complicit in upholding a totalitarian hell in Xinjiang.”

He also criticized the German carmaker for “denying any knowledge of the oppression of the Uighur people in Xinjiang.”

In a BBC interview, the EU official slammed former VW chief executive, Herbert Deiss, who said he wasn’t aware of China’s infamous detention camps, saying “That’s anything but credible, it just didn’t want to get on the record with taking a stance.

Bütikofer argued the company had been reluctant to react to a 2020 report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute revealing mass transfer of Uighurs to work under forced labor conditions in factories across China.

The report listed Volkswagen among “companies directly or indirectly benefiting from the use of Uighur workers outside Xinjiang through potentially abusive labor transfer programs.”

Volkswagen rejected the accusations about the Urumqi plant and its supply chains. –Politico

In an emailed response, Volkswagen told Politico “There are and have been no indications of human rights violations at the Urumqi plant,” adding that there were “no further indications that the forced labour of Uighurs [was] part of the supply chain of the Volkswagen Group China or its units.” In addition, VW says it has instituted a system to somehow ensure that its direct suppliers respect human rights.

Bütikofer is one of the signatories of an open letter sent on Friday by over 70 MEPs from different political groups, urging EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell to demand the intervention of the United Nations to stop “serious and systematic human rights violations by the Chinese government against Muslim minorities in the Xinjiang region.” On Thursday, MEPs from the Renew Europe also asked Borrell to accelerate the adoption of a sanction system for human rights offenders.

“The Parliament is very active but so far the Commission has not picked that up,” said Bütikofer, who added that the Commission should not “hide behind the excuse” for failing to have a legal mechanism to take action.

“There is always an opportunity of naming and shaming. Infraction on basic human rights is so gross that we should not accept this business as usual approach,” he said.

The EU’s actions come one week after the US Commerce Department has added 11 Chinese companies to an economic blacklist over their involvement in China’s mistreatment of Uighur Muslims in the western region of Xinjiang.

According to Reuters, numerous textile companies and two firms conducting genetic analysis ‘used to further the repression of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities’ have been added to the list – prompting China to accuse the West of slander.

Why the US suddenly cares about China’s treatment of more than 1 million minority slaves living in giant forced-labor cities is anyone’s guess, but the United States, and now the EU, are now keen on holding Xi’s feet to the fire. Prior to the Trump administration, the US government apparently couldn’t care less. Now, there are 37 entities on the blacklist.

“Beijing actively promotes the reprehensible practice of forced labor and abusive DNA collection and analysis schemes to repress its citizens,” said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in a statement.

China, meanwhile, has accused the Trump administration of slander – with foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin warning at a Tuesday press conference that China would take all measures to protect its companies’ rights.

The companies added to the blacklist include Nanchang O-Film Tech, a supplier for Apple’s iPhone that hosted Apple chief executive Tim Cook in December 2017, according to O-Film’s website. It is also a supplier to Amazon.com Inc and Microsoft, according to an April congressional letter.

The list includes two subsidiaries of Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI), a genomics company with ties to the Chinese government, Senator Marco Rubio said. –Reuters

Senator Rubio says the additions to the blacklist will “ensure that U.S. technology does not aid the Chinese Communist Party’s crimes against humanity and egregious human rights abuses against Uighurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, including the forced collection of DNA.”

Another company on the revised list is KTK Group Co, which manufactures over 2,000 items for high-speed trains “ranging from electronics to seats; and Tanyuan Technology Co, which assembles high thermal, conductive graphite reinforced aluminum composites,” according to the report.

The company said in a statement that it has no investments in the US, does not rely on US technology, and that US exports account for less than 0.5% of its 2019 revenue.

Changji Esquel Textile Company, which manufactures clothing for Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger and Hugo Boss, was also added to the list. The company asked Ross to remove them from the blacklist, with CEO John Cheh stating in a letter “Esquel does not use forced labor, and we never will use forced labor,” adding “We absolutely and categorically oppose forced labor.”

As we noted last week, Uighurs are allegedly being used as unwilling human subjects in genetic research, as Reuters reports:

Among them are numerous textile companies and two firms the government said were conducting genetic analyses used to further the repression of Uighurs and other Muslim minorities.

It was the third group of companies and institutions in China added to the U.S. blacklist, after two rounds in which the Trump administration cited 37 entities it said were involved in China’s repression in Xinjiang.

“Beijing actively promotes the reprehensible practice of forced labor and abusive DNA collection and analysis schemes to repress its citizens,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in a statement.

In another ghastly example, one company is said to be mass collecting human hair from Uighur prisoners to use in wig products:

Also on the banned roster is Hetian Haolin Hair Accessories Co. On May 1, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said it was halting imports of the company’s hair products, citing evidence of forced labor.

On July 1, CBP seized in Newark a shipment of almost 13 tons of hair products worth over $800,000 with human hair that it said originated in Xinjiang.

The NYT story was released just as newly resurfaced footage allegedly showing bound and blindfolded Chinese Muslims being loaded onto train cars went viral.

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

Madrid Revives Mandatory Mask Order As ‘Second Wave’ Worsens; Beijing Confirms 1st New COVID-19 Case In Weeks: Live Updates

Madrid Revives Mandatory Mask Order As ‘Second Wave’ Worsens; Beijing Confirms 1st New COVID-19 Case In Weeks: Live Updates

Tyler Durden

Tue, 07/28/2020 – 08:41

Summary:

  • Bill Gates sits for interview on CNBC
  • Sun Belt states see promising pull back
  • China reports 1st case in Beijing in 3 weeks
  • Head of China’s CDC takes experimental vaccine
  • WHO warns COVID-19 isn’t going to be “seasonal” like the flu
  • Germany joins list of European countries warning on travel to Spain
  • Tokyo suffers another 270 cases
  • Vietnam makes mask-wearing mandatory again
  • Madrid tightens virus restrictions amid resurgence fears

* * *

Bill Gates on Tuesday morning sat for an interview with the Squawk Box team where he assured all viewers that skepticism about the safety of the coronavirus vaccine candidates had been greatly exaggerated. Once the FDA has slapped its imprimatur on a candidate, Americans and others shouldn’t hesitate to accept the final product.

Gates’s interview follows a slew of vaccine-related news. Taken together, the intended message is clear: With the bilateral relationship unraveling and US economic fundamentals continuing to deteriorate, vaccine-related headlines are the market’s last hope for survival. It follows news from yesterday about Moderna’s vaccine candidate, which is entering its Phase 3 trial.

During his interview on Tuesday, Gates praised the “low-cost” vaccines from AstraZeneca and Moderna…and seemingly dismissed concerns about safety and side-effects out of hand.

Yesterday, the worst-hit Sun Belt states showed promising signs that infections are slowing. Meanwhile, in China, the number of new cases confirmed daily has continued to creep higher as more cases were confirmed on Tuesday.

Beijing on Tuesday reported one new coronavirus case, its first in 21 days. The new case was confirmed just days after Beijing started reopening more public transit and lifting other restrictions inspired by the outbreak. The case was just 1 of 68 reported Tuesday across the mainland.

With anxieties on the rise, the head of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention surprised his audience by revealing that he had been injected with an experimental coronavirus vaccine. The talk, according to the AP, was intended to show the Chinese people that there’s nothing wrong with taking such a vaccine.

“I’m going to reveal something undercover: I am injected with one of the vaccines,” Gao Fu said in a webinar Sunday hosted by Alibaba Health, an arm of the Chinese e-commerce giant, and Cell Press, an American publisher of scientific journals. “I hope it will work.”

Suffering its own “third wave” outbreak, Hong Kong is considering postponing its upcoming legislative elections, according to local press reports, as a resurgence of new cases over the last 2 weeks has rattled Hong Kong society. Authorities reported 98 local infections on Tuesday, a slight ebb after the city found more than 100 local cases for six consecutive days. The city’s contact tracers have had trouble tracing the origins of new infections.

As the outbreak worsens, HK is imposing its most restrictive social distancing measures yet.

Elsewhere in Asia, Vietnam and its provinces are imposing mandatory mask-wearing orders after an unexpected surge in community infections stemming from an outbreak in Danang (reported 11 new cases yesterday). The province has put about 7,000 people in quarantine for 14 days. Over the past three days, the region has reported 15 new cases. Vietnam had all but claimed victory over the virus, having gone almost 100 days without even a single new local patient.

In Tokyo, officials confirmed about 270 new cases of the virus on Tuesday, Nikkei reported, citing an unidentified person. That’s more than twice the 131 cases the Japanese capital found Monday. The city has reported more than 100 new daily cases for weeks as it faces a renewed resurgence.

Finally, moving over to the Asia-Pacific region, Victoria reported another 384 cases and six deaths over the past 24 hours, and said that it will suspend all but the most urgent elective surgeries. As the outbreak in its second-most populous state intensifies, Australia is sending a medical team to help Papua New Guinea confront an alarming surge in cases, according to Canberra’s Acting Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Birmingham. The small Pacific island state had 62 cases as of Tuesday, up from just eight 11 days ago.

All the while, worries about a second wave have intensified across Europe.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez responded angrily to the UK after Britain ratcheted up its travel restrictions to include a popular set of Spanish islands, and mandated quarantines for all travelers visiting the UK from Spain.

“The decision is unbalanced,” Sanchez said about these new restrictions. The Balearic and Canary Islands “have a lower incidence of the virus than is being registered right now” in Britain, Sanchez said.

Speaking to the BBC, Local Government Minister Simon Clarke said “we respectfully disagree with the Spanish government…You do have to make decisions on a country-wide basis. There is going to be internal transfer within Spain.”

Globally, cases have reached 16,409,902, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

Source: Worldometer

This comes just after the worldwide death toll topped 650k to 652,531.

Source: Worldometer

The WHO has warned against complacency over coronavirus transmissions in the northern hemisphere, saying that the virus does not behave like influenza, which typically follows a set “flu season”.

Adding to the growing number of European countries that have advised their citizens to avoid travel to Spain, Germany on Tuesday urged travelers to avoid Catalonia and Barcelona over fears they might contract the virus.

As was widely expected, the biggest COVID-19 vaccine trial in the world got under way on Monday with the first of 30,000 volunteers for Moderna’s major ‘Stage 3’ trial which is being run in cooperation with the US government.

While Spain denounced the new travel restrictions that will put the final nail in the coffin of the 2020 peak tourism season, the regional government in Madrid has just made the wearing of face masks mandatory in all public areas, while limiting the number of people allowed to gather in a given space to ten.

Finally, Iran has reported 235 new deaths from the novel coronavirus, a record single-day toll for the Islamic Republic, which has the highest death toll in the Middle East.

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

How Have Judges Responded To The Press?

I recently criticized a Ninth Circuit judge who corrected a press report in a judicial decision. In effect, her opinion was a letter to the editor. She would have been better suited to simply write a letter to the newspaper, in her private capacity, seeking a correction. Instead, she chose to do so in the federal reporter.

I was reminded of the Case of the Speluncean Explorers. One of the judges, Justice Keen, includes in his opinion a personal plea to the Chief Executive seeking clemency for the explorers. Another judge responds, “I may remark, incidentally, that the advice of Private Citizen Keen will appear in the reports of this court printed at taxpayers’ expense.”

There is some precedent for federal judges to defend their decisions in the press. In 1819, Chief Justice Marshall wrote pseudonymous editorials after McCulloch v. Maryland. And in 1968, Justice Stewart wrote a letter to the editor of the WSJ after Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company.

McCulloch v. Maryland

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) proved to be very unpopular. Critics charged that Marshall had read the Necessary and Proper Clause as to give Congress boundless authority. In response, Chief Justice Marshall published two essays in the Philadelphia Union and nine essays in the Alexandria Gazette.  The latter essays responded to a particularly vituperative criticism authored by Virginia Supreme Court Justice Spencer Roane, who used the pseudonym “Hampden.” Specifically, Marshall rejected the notion that McCulloch gave Congress an unlimited power. Here is an excerpt, which Randy and I include in our casebook:

I say, without fear of contradiction, that the general principles maintained by the supreme court are, that the constitution may be construed as if the clause which has been so much discussed, had been entirely omitted. That the powers of congress are expressed in terms which, without its aid, enable and require the legislature to execute them, and of course, to take means for their execution. That the choice of these means devolve on the legislature, whose right, and whose duty it is, to adopt those which are most advantageous to the people, provided they be within the limits of the constitution. Their constitutionality depends on their being the natural, direct, and appropriate means, or the known and usual means, for the execution of a given power.

In no single instance does the court admit the unlimited power of congress to adopt any means whatever, and thus to pass the limits prescribed by the Constitution. Not only is the discretion claimed for the legislature in the selection of its means, always limited in terms, to such as are appropriate, but the court expressly says, “should congress under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects, not entrusted to the government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal . . . to say that such an act was not the law of the land.”

Modern defenders of federal power have ignored some of the important, limiting langauge from McCulloch. For example, the quoted sentence emphasized above. Randy and I think that Marshall’s defense of McCulloch is useful to understand the scope of that decision.

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company

In the second case, a Justice defended his decision in a signed letter to the editor.

On June 17, 1968, the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Company. This case held that 42 U.S.C. 1982 prohibits racial discrimination in the sale of real estate. (Then-Judge Harry Blackmun wrote the panel decision for the Eighth Circuit.) The Court split 7-2. Justice Stewart wrote the majority opinion. Justice Harlan dissented, joined by Justice White. Harlan was especially critical of the majority in light of the recently-enacted Fair Housing Act of 1968. Harlan thought the case should have been DIG’d:

Moreover, the political processes of our own era have, since the date of oral argument in this case, given birth to a civil rights statute embodying “fair housing” provisions  which would, at the end of this year, make available to others, though apparently not to the petitioners themselves, the type of relief which the petitioners now seek. It seems to me that this latter factor so diminishes the public importance of this case that by far the wisest course would be for this Court to refrain from decision and to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

The case was argued on April 1, and the FHA was signed into law on April 11Alfred H. Mayer was decided on June 17.

On June 20, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled, The Alternate Legislature. The editorial charged that the Court engaged in “judicial legislation,” and for going far beyond the recently-enacted Fair Housing Act. Here is an excerpt from “The Alternate Legislature,” Wall Street Journal, June 20, 1968:

The question to ask about the Supreme Court’s sweeping proscription of housing discrimination is not whether the effects of the decision are just and wise, but whether the Court sees any limit to its role as an alternate legislature.

For the Court decision goes far beyond the fair-housing law Congress recently passed. Congress outlawed racial discrimination in housing, but provided some exceptions such as a homeowner selling has house without use of a real estate broker. The Court in effect wiped out such exceptions and also made fair housing effective immediately rather than in the stages Congress had provided. ….

The activist majority on the Court needs to start thinking about the limits of its legislative role. Before the Justices set out to write law on their own, they at least ought to hesitate long enough to give the real legislature first chance.

I found a copy of the editorial in the June 24, 1968 edition of the Congressional Record (p. 13 of this PDF). Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia entered it into the record; he said “the activist majority of the court needs to start thinking about the limits of its legislative role.”

On July 3, 1968, Potter Stewart–who authored the majority opinion in Jones–wrote a letter to the editor. Here is the response. “Letters to the Editor: Justice Stewart Dissents,” Wall Street Journal, July 3, 1968.

I have read with interest the editorial of June 20, “The Alternate Legislature.” In the case to which you refer, a man was refused the purchase of a house solely because he was a Negro. He eventually brought his case to the Supreme Court, relying upon a law, 42 U.S.C. 1982, written and passed by Congress that says:

“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”

The Supreme Court held (1) that this law means what it says, and (2) that Congress had constitutional power to pass it. You say this made the Court a “legislature.”

What would the Court have been if it had held (1) that the law does not mean what it says, or (2) that Congress did not have the power to pass it?

I add only that Congress, having enacted 42 U.S.C. 1982, remains free to amend it at any time.

Potter Stewart

Associate Justices, U.S. Supreme Court

Stewart’s response is very weak. He insists the majority’s reading of the statute is the only possible meaning of the statute. He repeats the standard line that he was merely interpreting Section 1982, and Congress can change it if it doesn’t like the decision. (His certainty has a Gorsuch vibe to it, doesn’t it?).

Judges should not try to defend their work; let the decision speak for itself.

I am grateful to Professor Steve Wasby who flagged this exchange. He wrote about Stewart’s letter in Stephen L. Wasby, Anthony D’Amato, and Rosemary Metrailer, Desegregation from Brown to Alexander: An Exploration of Supreme Court Strategies (Southern Illinois University Press, 1977).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hDQGhm
via IFTTT