another site
President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies
in Congress are pressing to increase the federal minimum wage to
$10.10 an hour. Ira Stoll offers nine reasons why raising the
minimum wage is a terrible idea.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/NoCT00
via IFTTT
Follow us on Facebook
and Twitter,
and don’t forget to sign
up for Reason’s daily updates for more
content.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1kPq0Hv
via IFTTT
It looks increasingly likely that
Washington’s legislature will approve
new restrictions on medical marijuana by the end of its current
session a week from Thursday. The two leading bills both involve
mandatory registration of patients, sharp reductions in the limits
on possession and home cultivation, and elimination of “collective
gardens,” including hundreds of dispensaries operating under that
label. The general thrust of the bills is to ban the untaxed,
unregulated outlets that otherwise would compete with
state-licensed pot shops, which are supposed to become the main
source of medical marijuana. Patients have
several concerns about that plan:
Will the stores be ready in time? The
Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB), which is expected to
issue its first marijuana cultivation licenses this week, says
marijuana retailers should be open by June. But the Washington
State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, an independent agency
charged with projecting tax revenue, notes that local bans and
moratoriums, which Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson
says are not pre-empted by state law, make hitting the
LCB’s target pretty iffy. “Although LCB has indicated that it
expects retail sales to start in June 2014,” says a February 19
report
from the council, “local moratoria on cannabis businesses and
other production uncertainties have the potential to
impact the timing and amount of cannabis produced and sold. As
a result, we have assumed retail sales will start in June
2015.”
That’s a month after dispensaries would be
abolished by
H.B. 2149, the bill
approved by the state House of Representatives in February.
S.B.
5887, introduced by state Sen. Ann Rivers (R-La Center), would
repeal the provision allowing collective gardens as of July 15. But
assuming that Washington’s pot stores experience
shortages like those seen in Colorado, it is not clear that an
adequate supply will be available to patients even by the middle of
next year, or that they will be able to find a retailer within a
reasonable distance. If a patient happens to live in, say, Yakima,
which has
banned marijuana retailers, where will he go to buy his
medicine? Kari Boiter, a lobbyist who works with Americans for Safe
Access, warns that “the proposed repeal dates are likely to leave
patients without access.”
Will the stores cater to patients? The cannabis
strains that best meet patients’ needs may not appeal to
recreational consumers. They may be low in psychoactive THC, for
example, but high in cannabidiol (CBD), which shows promise as
a treatment for a wide range of disorders, including epilepsy and
multiple sclerosis. “It’s not the same marijuana,” says Douglas
Hiatt, a Seattle criminal defense attorney and longtime marijuana
activist who opposed I-502, Washington’s legalization initiative,
largely because he worried that it would hurt patients.
H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both would offer “medical marijuana
endorsements” to pot stores that choose to serve patients, either
exclusively or in addition to recreational users. The endorsements
would allow registered patients to benefit from a higher purchase
limit (three ounces rather than one) and an exemption from the
standard sales tax. But patients worry that they will still be
treated as an afterthought and may have trouble obtaining the
specific varieties that are tailored to their symptoms. Boiter
says legislators should put “health before happy hour.”
Are the ceilings on home cultivation high
enough? Currently patients are allowed to grow up to 15
plants. H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both would reduce the limit to six
plants, although the latter bill would allow as many as 15 plants
if a health professional certified the larger number was medically
appropriate. The possession limit would be cut from 24 ounces to
three under H.B. 2149 and to eight (with a health professional’s
recommendation to that effect) under S.B. 5887. Even the lower
limits may sound generous for a single person, but patients tend to
consume a lot more cannabis than recreational users do, especially
if they make concentrates to be taken orally. Depending on where
the nearest state-licensed store is located, the prices it charges,
and the selection it offers, some patients may end up growing most
or all of their own medicine, in which case the six-plant limit may
prove too low.
What about collective gardens? Legislators
want to repeal the provision allowing collective gardens mainly
because dispensaries have seized on it as a legal rationale,
counting each customer as a temporary “member.” But the provision
originally was intended as an alternative for patients who were not
up to growing cannabis on their own and could not find “designated
providers” to do it for them. Given the uncertainties surrounding
the newly legal pot stores, some patients think they should still
have the option of pooling their resources to produce medical
marijuana for their own use. “For [cultivation rights] to be
meaningful,” Hiatt says, “you’ve got to allow people to grow
together.”
What will registration mean? H.B. 2149 and
S.B. 5887 both require that patients register with the state if
they want to grow their own marijuana, enjoy higher purchase and
possession limits, and escape part of the taxes imposed on cannabis
sales. Currently there is no registry, but patients with medical
recommendations have an affirmative defense against marijuana
charges, a right that both bills would eliminate. Some patients are
not keen to be officially identified in a central database as
marijuana consumers, a fact that can have social, professional, and
legal implications. Even if the Justice Department refrains from
prosecuting patients for possession or home cultivation, for
example, the Gun Control Act of
1968 strips all marijuana consumers of their Second Amendment
rights. Under H.B. 2149, information from the patient registry can
be disclosed to various people, including “law enforcement and
prosecutorial officials engaged in a specific investigation
involving a designated person.”
Supporters of the new restrictions argue that it makes little
sense to have a parallel distribution system for patients once
state-licensed marijuana stores are up and running. They also note
that Jenny Durkan, the U.S. attorney for Western Washington, has
called the current system “not tenable” given the Justice
Department’s
demand for a strictly regulated market in which diversion to
minors and other states is minimized. But Hiatt complains that
legislators are so eager to maximize tax revenue and discourage
federal intervention that they are willing to compromise the
interests of patients. “They’re saying, ‘We’ll throw medical
marijuana under the bus if you’ll let us get away with 502,'” he
says. “People in the community here are furious. They feel like
they’ve been betrayed.”
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1kPpZ6n
via IFTTT
Gold and crude oil prices rose steadily all day even as US equities oscillated around VWAP unable to break above Friday's lows (and trading in a narrow range) on heavier than normal volume. USDJPY and US equities remained roughly coupled but stocks auctioned up and down in search of stops with algos desperate to cling to VWAP on a big down day as a rally mid-afternoon reached the S&P into the green for 2014 and marked the top of the day. Gold ended at 4-month highs, the USD rose 0.4% (led by GBP and EUR weakness), WTI crude back over $104.50 (near 6-month highs), and Treasury yields dropped 5bps or so with 10Y back under 1.60% (2nd lowest yield close in 4 months). VIX jumped above 16% – 1-month highs but still the asset-gatherers demand we BTFWWIII…
S&P 500 Futures traded in a narrow range around VWAP unable to break Friday's lows (or hold YTD green levels)…
When Russia denied its ultimatum, USDJPY was ramped but stocks were not in the mood to play along…
The S&P 500 tagged its year-to-date unchanged levels and sold off…
VIX was well bid as managers reached for protection en masse
Treasury yields closed their lows of the day (with modest 30Y underperformance) as 10Y ended at the crucial 2.60% – its 2nd lowest yield close in 4 months…
Gold rallied all day – ending at 4-month highs
WTI Crude surged back over $104.50 – near 6-month highs…
The USD rose on the day led by weakness in EUR and GBP…
Charts: Bloomberg
Bonus Chart: It seems "investors" also sought the safety of Bitcoin…
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fCRGA5 Tyler Durden
The headlines are getting hot and heavy now. Just out from Bloomberg:
And Reuters with the punchline from Reuters:
What will Putin do if he still believes, as he has said, Yanukl to be the proper president of the Ukraine?
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fCRGjO Tyler Durden
As the big questions surrounding the future of the Ukraine crisis persist, the countries neighboring the former communist nation, and especially the Baltic states which are members of NATO, are asking for safeguards should Russian ambitions end up just a little too big to be contained solely by the Ukraine. As a result, the WSJ reports they are considering calling for a greater North Atlantic Treaty Organization presence in their countries “if the situation gets worse” in the Ukraine, Ojars Kalnins, the chairman of the foreign-affairs committee of the Latvian parliament, said Monday. Mr. Kalnins said that a worsening of the Ukraine crisis “such as an outright invasion” of areas outside Crimea would present a threat to all of Russia’s neighbors, including the Baltic states–which are members of NATO. Such an expanded conflict should be reason for NATO to “bring extra military support to the Baltic region as a safeguard.”
Atis Lejins, a member of the Latvian parliament’s foreign-affairs committee, said increasing the number of NATO aircraft patrolling Baltic airspace could be one way to beef up NATO’s presence.
Currently a small, rotating contingent of fighter aircraft from NATO countries operates from a base in Lithuania. Mr. Lejins, a former U.S. Marine, said one example of a heightened presence was the U.S. Air Force Aviation Detachment (AV Det) program in Poland, which rotates fighter and transport units to bases in Poland.
Critics of an increased NATO presence say that costs to both Latvia and NATO could be a hurdle to expanding air patrols. Increased air patrols would upgrade the NATO presence in all three countries because aircraft cover the airspace of all three Baltic countries.
Mr. Kalnins spoke after a joint meeting of the Saeima’ s Foreign Affairs and European Affairs committees that condemned Russia’s incursion into Crimea and called for European Union and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) observers to be sent to the Ukraine.
He spoke on Monday at the same time as the Lithuanian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and National Security and Defence Committee passed a resolution condemning Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine and the occupation of the territory of Ukraine. The Lithuanian resolution also called on the North Atlantic Council to temporarily redeploy NATO military forces to its “eastern part, including the Baltic states.”
One country which may have already acted in this regard is Poland. According to Dziennik Wschodni, earlier today F-16 fighter jets could be seen above the Polish town of Lublin and other towns of the province. “Military jets appeared over our region between the hours of 2 and 3 pm. Our Internet users say that they heard the roar of the engines also in the morning.”
“One of the aircraft from our base flew the route from Lublin to Krakow” confirms Cpt. Marek Kwiatek, Press Officer of the 32nd Tactical Air Base at Lask.
The second aircraft came probably from a base in Krzesiny. There were also questions whether the flights are connected with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. – This is the stadard of training, which are held throughout the country. Pilots among others support this so-called. habits flights – explains Cpt. Flower. He adds that the aircraft is on standby.
So more drills or something more? Recall that Russia commenced a massive “drill” last week in the West and Central regions before it quite demonstratively invaded the Crimea. It is only logical that the countries that stand to lose the most from an expansion of the Russian invasion match that drill with “drills” of their own.
Finally, recall that as we reported in December, Russia then had positioned tactical, nuclear-capable missiles along the Polish border. Based on this, and Poland’s recent history with friendly and not so friendly neighbors, one can see why the Baltic nation would be very nervous.
From December 2013:
Russia Stations Tactical, Nuclear-Capable Missiles Along Polish Border
2013 was a year when Europe tried to reallign its primary source of natgas energy, from Gazpromia to Qatar, and failed. More importantly, it was a year in which Russia’s Vladimir Putin undisputedly won every foreign relations conflict that involved Russian national interests, to the sheer humiliation of both John Kerry and Francois Hollande. However, it seems the former KGB spy had a Plan B in case things escalated out of control, one that fits with what we wrote a few days ago when we reported that “Russia casually announces it will use nukes if attacked.” Namely, as Bloomberg reports citing Bild, Russia quietly stationed a double-digit number of SS-26 Stone, aka Iskander, tactical, nuclear-capable short-range missiles near the Polish border in a dramatic escalation to merely verbal threats issued as recently as a year ago.
The range of the Iskander rockets:
From Bloomberg:
In other words, Russia quietly has come through on its threat issued in April 2012, when it warned it would deploy Iskander missiles that could target US missile defense systems in Poland. From RIA at the time:
Moscow reiterated on Tuesday it may deploy Iskander theater ballistic missiles in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad that will be capable of effectively engaging elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Poland.
NATO members agreed to create a missile shield over Europe to protect it against ballistic missiles launched by so-called rogue states, for example Iran and North Korea, at a summit in Lisbon, Portugal, in 2010.
The missile defense system in Poland does not jeopardize Russia’s nuclear forces, Army General Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said.
“However, if it is modernized…it could affect our nuclear capability and in that case a political decision may be made to deploy Iskander systems in the Kaliningrad region,” he said in an interview with RT television.
“But that will be a political decision,” he stressed. “So far there is no such need.”
Looks like a little over a year later, the “political decision” was taken as the need is there. But why does Russia need to send a very clear message of escalation at a time when the Cold War is long over, when globalization and free trade, promote game theoretic world peace (or “piece” as the Obama administration wouldsay), oh, and when Russia quietly has decided to reestablish the former USSR starting with the Ukraine.
We’ll leave the rhetorical question logically unanswered.
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fCRGjE Tyler Durden
Presenting the US car market this cold, stormy, sunny, dry, and rainless winter according to “The Haves… and The Have-Nots…”
The Haves…
And The Have-Nots…
It appears the 1% don’t feel the cold (or wet) weather?
What is supremely clear from this data is – if you want to sell cars, raise prices…
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1eXu0Rd Tyler Durden
Submitted by James H. Kunstler of Kunstler.com,
So, now we are threatening to start World War Three because Russia is trying to control the chaos in a failed state on its border — a state that our own government spooks provoked into failure? The last time I checked, there was a list of countries that the USA had sent troops, armed ships, and aircraft into recently, and for reasons similar to Russia’s in Crimea: the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, none of them even anywhere close to American soil. I don’t remember Russia threatening confrontations with the USA over these adventures.
The phones at the White House and the congressional offices ought to be ringing off the hook with angry US citizens objecting to the posturing of our elected officials. There ought to be crowds with bobbing placards in Farragut Square reminding the occupant of 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue how ridiculous this makes us look.
The saber-rattlers at The New York Times were sounding like the promoters of a World Wrestling Federation stunt Monday morning when they said in a Page One story:
“The Russian occupation of Crimea has challenged Mr. Obama as has no other international crisis, and at its heart, the advice seemed to pose the same question: Is Mr. Obama tough enough to take on the former K.G.B. colonel in the Kremlin?”
Are they out of their chicken-hawk minds over there? It sounds like a ploy out of the old Eric Berne playbook: Let’s You and Him Fight. What the USA and its European factotums ought to do is mind their own business and stop issuing idle threats. They set the scene for the Ukrainian melt-down by trying to tilt the government their way, financing a pro-Euroland revolt, only to see their sponsored proxy dissidents give way to a claque of armed neo-Nazis, whose first official act was to outlaw the use of the Russian language in a country with millions of long-established Russian-speakers. This is apart, of course, from the fact Ukraine had been until very recently a province of Russia’s former Soviet empire.
Secretary of State John Kerry — a haircut in search of a brain — is winging to Kiev tomorrow to pretend that the USA has a direct interest in what happens there. Since US behavior is so patently hypocritical, it raises the pretty basic question: what are our motives? I don’t think they amount to anything more than international grandstanding — based on the delusion that we have the power and the right to control everything on the planet, which is based, in turn, on our current mood of extreme insecurity as our own ongoing spate of bad choices sets the table for a banquet of consequences.
America can’t even manage its own affairs. We ignore our own gathering energy crisis, telling ourselves the fairy tale that shale oil will allow us to keep driving to WalMart forever. We paper over all of our financial degeneracy and wink at financial criminals. Our infrastructure is falling apart. We’re constructing an edifice of surveillance and social control that would make the late Dr. Joseph Goebbels turn green in his grave with envy while we squander our dwindling political capital on stupid gender confusion battles.
The Russians, on the other hand, have every right to protect their interests along their own border, to protect the persons and property of Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, not long ago, were citizens of a greater Russia, to discourage neo-Nazi activity in their back-yard, and most of all to try to stabilize a region that has little history and experience with independence. They also have to contend with the bankruptcy of Ukraine, which may be the principal cause of its current crack-up. Ukraine is deep in hock to Russia, but also to a network of Western banks, and it remains to be seen whether the failure of these linked obligations will lead to contagion throughout the global financial system. It only takes one additional falling snowflake to push a snow-field into criticality.
Welcome to the era of failed states. We’ve already seen plenty of action around the world and we’re going to see more as resource and capital scarcities drive down standards of living and lower the trust horizon. The world is not going in the direction that Tom Friedman and the globalists thought. Anything organized at the giant scale is now in trouble, nation-states in particular. The USA is not immune to this trend, whatever we imagine about ourselves for now.
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1fCOQex Tyler Durden
Thursday Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen
demonstrated a stronger grasp of Bitcoin than the senator who
proposed banning it. In comments
to the Senate Banking Committee, Yellen stated, “The Federal
Reserve simply does not have the authority to supervise or regulate
Bitcoin in any way.” She also expressed doubts about any
regulator’s ability to manage the decentralized currency.
Wednesday Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
addressed a letter to the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve,
Security and Exchange Commission, and a few other regulatory
agencies, requesting a wholesale ban on digital currencies. Manchin
cited the criminal behavior facilitated by Bitcoin. On the other
hand, Manchin didn’t propose banning, you know, cash. And he left
out the revolutionary benefits of a peer-to-peer
platform.
Reasoning that the U.S. should follow China’s lead, he wrote, “I
urge the regulators to work together, act quickly, and prohibit
this dangerous currency from harming hard-working Americans.”
On Thursday, Yellen responded to the request. She said that the
currency does’t fall under the central bank’s jurisdiction, but
other financial regulatory agencies could work in conjunction with
the legislature to implement rules. However, she
told the Senate Committee:
I think it’s not so easy to regulate Bitcoin because there’s no
central issuer or network operator to regulate.
Yellen’s successor, Ben Bernanke, espoused
a similar approach in a letter to U.S. Senators last November.
After acknowledging that the central bank doesn’t have the
authority, he wrote that cryptocurrencies “may hold long-term
promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more
secure and more efficient payment system.”
The most recent demands for regulation come amidst a
particularly turbulent era for Bitcoin. Bitcoin’s former king
exchange, Mt. Gox filed bankruptcy with Japan Friday morning.
Mid-Feburary a few of the major exchanges – Bitstamp, BTC-e, Mt.
Gox – suffered through a DDoS attack and Russia “banned”
Bitcoin. The digital currency has countenanced bad news layered
upon bad news. Despite these struggles, the price hovers around the
$500-700 range.
While Yellen said the Federal Reserve doesn’t have the
authority, she
assured senators that the central bank was still looking into
the matter.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1dUBepw
via IFTTT
Reason Foundation polling director Emily Ekins recently spoke
with the Cato Institute’s Caleb Brown to discuss polling on the
Affordable Care Act and health care policy. Do Americans like
what’s in the ACA once they find out what’s in
it? What costs will they find acceptable to obtain the law’s
benefits? Do they think the ACA is a step forward or a step back
for America? To find out how Americans answer these questions and
more, check out the complete conversation below:
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1okXptZ
via IFTTT