First the Good News: Most Voters Want ‘Radical Change.’ Now the Bad News…

Watch the parking meters.Just how dissatisfied are Americans right now? A new poll from Quinnipiac asked voters if they believed “The old way of doing things no longer works and we need radical change.” Sixty-seven percent of the respondents agreed, including a majority of almost every candidate’s supporters: 83 percent of Trump’s, 76 percent of Sanders’, 60 percent of Cruz’s, 54 percent of Kasich’s. (With Trump, a majority—55 percent—”strongly” agreed.) Only Clinton’s supporters tended to reject radicalism.

Of course, the nature of that radical change varied from one movement to another. As you might expect, for example, Republican voters were more likely to agree that “The government has gone too far in assisting minority groups.” And the Trumpites were the only group where a majority strongly agreed that we need “a leader who is willing to say or do anything to solve America’s problems” (though if you combine the “strongly” and “somewhat” agreers, Cruz also exceeded 50 percent).

Everyone seems to be putting their faith in leaders, though—witness the responses to this question:

The Trumpsters may be the furthest over the top on that question, but a majority of all five candidates’ backers agreed. A depressing result, at least for those of us who want the sort of radical change that dispenses with powerful leaders rather than puffing them up more.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1MbaVlZ
via IFTTT

Ban Pro-Palestinian Group from CUNY Campuses, 35 NY Lawmakers Say

New York State Assemblymen Dov Hikind and Hate speech or free speech?David Weprin, both Democrats, penned a letter last week (co-signed by a bipartisan group of 33 state lawmakers) to the chancellor of the City University of New York (CUNY) demanding the suspension of the pro-Palestinian activist group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from all CUNY campuses.

Accusing SJP of orchestrating a campaign of “intimidation and fear” against Jewish students, the letter demanded the “toxic” organization which denies “Jewish history and legitimacy” be immediately shut down. CUNY responded by launching an investigation into alleged incidents of anti-Semitic harassment, including what the right-wing Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) described in a letter to CUNY as incidents of students “being pushed, spat upon and having objects thrown at them.”

But, the Forward reports, ZOA’s letter is “vague as to when and where several of the most clearly anti-Semitic episodes took place, and as to what witnesses are making the charges.”

In an extensive investigation published last week, the Forward found that there is indeed some evidence of anti-Semitism on CUNY campuses, but no clear connection that SJP is behind any of it. Further, regarding some of the cases of alleged harassment, “the question is one of semantics — whether public expressions against ‘Zionism’ or ‘Zionists’ constitute anti-Semitism.”

Of one protest led by SJP: 

The ZOA letter claims that protesters were also shouting “Jews out of CUNY!” It’s a call heard nowhere on the video. But this discrepancy and arguments over it may miss a bigger issue.

What are the protesters actually demanding when they chant “Zionists out of CUNY?”

First, there is the worst possible implication — which is the one that at least some Jewish students heard. Asked if by ‘Zionists out of CUNY,’ her group actually meant that Jews, or non-Jews, who identify as Zionists should not be allowed to get, or give, an education at CUNY, Nerdeen Kiswani, vice president of SJP’s chapter at Hunter, who said she was leading those chants, noted that they were “protesting the ideology of Zionism — not people.”

The College Fix quotes Assemblyman Weprin as saying, “Hate Speech is not Free Speech and I call on CUNY to keep their campuses hate-free by taking concrete action on SJP.” Equating anti-Zionism with hate speech is not confined to New York, as we’ve noted at Reason, the University of California’s (UC) board of regents has recently voted to ban “anti-Zionism” on campus.

Even if “anti-Zionism” is motivated by religious hatred or racial animus (which is arguable and difficult to prove in many cases), hate speech is indeed protected free speech, and incendiary political speech (the kind favored by activists on both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict) is the most protected speech.

If any group engages in organized physical harassment on campus, that organization deserves to lose its right to officially engage in campus life. But short of that, even what Assemblyman Hikind describes as the “malicious rhetoric” of a group that disagrees with his worldview deserves the First Amendment protections afforded to groups like Hillel, the Jewish student group whose CEO, Fmr. Congressman Eric Fingerhut (D-Ohio), demanded that debates over Israel within his own organization take place “within the context of a love of Israel, an unequivocal support of Israel.”

“Unequivocal support of Israel” offends plenty of people, and a case could be made that such a position “de-legitimizes” the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. But it’s unimaginable that a group of US lawmakers would demand the removal of a group like Hillel from campus primarily because of their political beliefs, just as the notion that SJP be removed from campus for their beliefs should be considered an untenable proposal. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/204bSP9
via IFTTT

How Europe Can Fix its Jihadi Problem While Saving Money

Critics of “mass” immigration have seized on the Paris and Brussels attacks to counsel Europe to shut its doors to Syrian Refugee CampSyrian refugees so as to not exacerbate its “Muslim problem.” Their latest argument is not that these refugees will serve as cover for ISIS agents to sneak in. It is that integrating populations culturally at odds with the host county is costly requiring all kinds of social programs. However, the failure to offer these programs risks creating a disaffected population that is susceptible to radicalization.

But I note in my column at The Week, immigrants today, Muslim or otherwise, don’t need jobs programs — they need jobs. And:

Europe provides much more of the first and America much more of the second. Europe has an army of social workers in various NGOs whose job is to prepare immigrants for jobs. Not so much in America, which may be partially why America has a far better assimilation track record than Europe.

What’s keeping immigrants from jobs is not the lack of programs but Europe’s ridiculous labor laws. Europe’s stupid minimum wage mandates (that Bernie and Hillary are hell-bent on replicating here) and its silly union contracts (that make it hard to get rid of non-performing workers) end up protecting incumbents and adults at the expense of newcomers and the young. Reforming these laws is a costless way of curing the pathologies of the underclass that immigrants in Europe have come to inhabit. What’s more, it’s not like shutting out refugees, whose plight the West may indeed have a hand in creating, is a costless and clean option.

Go here to read the whole thing.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/204bQHa
via IFTTT

S&P Erases All “Great” Jobs Data Bounce As Bonds Surge

What goes up (for no good reason) must come down (for fundamental and earnings-driven reality)…

The ISM bounce died too this morning…

 

Gold is also lower as bonds surge…

 

So after all that, the market finally sees through March payrolls.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1PRNMj0 Tyler Durden

California Gov. Signs Minimum Wage Hike: Admits It “Doesn’t Make Economic Sense” As Locals Flee For Texas

As we discussed previously states such as California are saying to hell with economics in their efforts to appease their voting base. Yesterday, both New York and California signed legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. New York will phase in the $6 an hour increase over three years, and California will phase in their $5 an hour increase over the next six years.

The irony of the situation, which will most certainly go under reported, is that even California’s Governor Brown knows that it’s not the right decision to make economically. Regarding the actual economic impact, California’s Governor Brown was quoted as saying that “economically, minimum wages may not make sense.”

This is clear.

As we noted before, it is even clear to the locals businesses owners like the Marmalade Café which has seven locations. “First, you have to raise prices, otherwise you’ll be out of business,” owner Selwyn Yosslowitz told the Times. So higher prices for diners. That’s “first.” We imagine you can guess what’s “second.” “We will try to re-engineer the labor force,” Yosslowitz said. “Maybe try to reduce the number of bus boys and ask servers to bus tables.” In other words: “Maybe” we’ll fire some folks and the people who keep their jobs will have to be more efficient. 

Yosslowitz also worries about the dynamic we’ve discussed over the course of documenting Wal-Mart’s experience with wage hikes: namely that you have to preserve the wage hierarchy. You can’t hike wages for the lowest paid workers and then expect those further up the pay ladder to be satisfied with what they made before. “The other big worry [is] that employees already making $15 an hour will demand a raise as well”, Yosslowitz said. “It’s a chain reaction.”

Indeed, the problems with haphazard wage hikes are now readily apparent even to those who stand to benefit the most from the new legislation. Take Miguel Sanchez of Highland Park who works two jobs making tortillas. “It’s good for workers, but I imagine this is not going to be good news for employers and small businesses,” he says. “Will the cost of things go up?” he asks. “Are employers going to cut back hours because they can’t afford it? I worry.”

So even tortilla makers get it, but like Wal-Mart, “some folks” will need to actually see the layoffs before they’ll concede that you can’t cheat economic truisms and that’s really a shame for the people who will lose their jobs in the meantime.

* * *

But back to CA Governor Brown who after that brief epipharny he quickly forgot about reality, and told the truth about why he was signing the legislation.

“Morally and socially and politically, they (minimum wages) make every sense because it binds the community together and makes sure that parents can take care of their kids in a much more satisfactory way.”

Ah yes, as long as you and your political party get votes in the upcoming elections, the actual impact on the people you claim to represent and care about is irrelevant – noted.

After all, this is what seems to get votes, and as we said previously: “Of course how much you earn and even whether or not you have a job at all only matters to the extent that “shit” costs money, which is why it might be a good idea to just go ahead and vote for “A Future To Believe In”

 

However, in perhaps the most poetic cause and effect scenario, once the people realize that items such as minimum wage actually do nothing but hurt their chances for gaining employment or starting a small business, they leave the state in droves.

Based on a study of IRS tax returns, over 250,000 California residents moved out of the state between 2013-2014.

It’s no better in the other “minimum wage hiking state”, New York, where United Van Lines data shows that out of all of their relocation contracts, New York comes in second for “high outbound.”

Now that higher minimum wages are a reality, we’re certain these numbers won’t get any better in future years.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1qnM3xz Tyler Durden

Here Are Some Of The Americans In The “Panama Papers”

With media attention squarely falling on the foreigners exposed by the Panama Papers offshore tax haven scandal, everyone has been asking for more information on who are the Americans involved in this biggest data leak in history. After all, as we showed, Mossack Fonseca had over 400 American clients. But who are they?

Today, courtesy of McClatchy, we get some answers: while there are no politicians of note are in files but plenty of others. Among them: Retirees, scammers, and tax evaders, all of whom found a use for secrecy of offshore companies.

As the news paper reports, “the passports of at least 200 Americans show up in this week’s massive leak of secret data on secretive offshore shell companies.”

 

And yet, the following release may prompt merely more questions: given the high-profile nature of some of the foreign names in the leaks “many of the Americans may seem like small fish.”

Perhaps few Americans used Panama to hide their shady dealings; perhaps that was as intended.

In any event, here are some of the findings courtesy of McClatchy:

Determining a precise number of Americans in the data is difficult. There are at least 200 scanned individual U.S. passports. Some appear to be American retirees purchasing real estate in places like Costa Rica and Panama. Also in the database, about 3,500 shareholders of offshore companies who list U.S. addresses. And almost 3,100 companies are tied to offshore professionals based in Miami, New York, and other parts of the United States.

Further complicating matters, some U.S. citizens enjoy dual citizenship and open accounts under foreign passports. Others appeared to be American retirees purchasing real estate in places like Costa Rica and Panama.

Among the cases McClatchy and its partners found: 

Robert Miracle of Bellevue, Wash., is in the files. He was indicted for a $65-million Seattle-area Ponzi scheme involving investment in Indonesian oilfields, with new investors’ money allegedly used to pay off past investors. Miracle was sentenced on May 13, 2011, to 13 years in prison after pleading guilty to wire fraud and tax evasion.

Miracle’s company was called Mcube Petroleum, and it remained an active shareholder in several offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands up until he pleaded guilty. The offshores were created by Mossack Fonseca.

Benjamin Wey is a U.S. citizen and president of New York Global Group. He was indicted last year, along with his Swiss banker, Seref Dogan Erbek, on securities fraud charges. Wey’s alleged scheme to conceal a true ownership interest in publicly traded companies was at the heart of the charges. Wey is accused of using offshores set up with Mossack Fonseca to disguise complicated transactions between Chinese operating companies and publicly traded U.S. shell companies.

The two “are believed to have profited in the tens of millions, while victim shareholders were left holding the bill,” Diego Rodriguez, an FBI official involved in the case, said in a statement at the time of indictment.

Florida billionaire Igor Olenicoff, a commercial real estate mogul, appears in the data as a shareholder of Olen Oil Management Limited. He raised a national stir in 2007 after being sentenced to just two years of probation for tax evasion. He paid a $52 million fine after not declaring more than $200 million in offshore shell companies. More recently, he was found guilty in 2014 for making replicas of a pricey sculpture and was ordered to make restitution to the sculptors whose work he had copied.

There’s Anthony J. Gumbiner, the Dallas-area chairman of Hallwood Group Inc. He’s a British national with deep Texas ties who settled an insider trading case in 1996 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, paying $1.7 million in penalties at the time.

A jetsetter in the 1980s, Gumbiner was known for his lavish lifestyle in Monte Carlo. More recently, he’s been tied up in litigation over oilfield investments. His Hallwood Energy filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2009.

It wasn’t until 2015 that the law firm seemed to catch on to Gumbiner’s legal problems and started to conduct enhanced background checks. By then his offshore companies had been inactive since 2011.

And there’s John Michael “Red” Crim, author of the self-published books “From Here to Malta,” and “I’ve Been Arrested, Now What?”

Federal jurors in Philadelphia in January 2008 convicted Crim and two associates in a plot to have investors use phony trusts to cheat the IRS out of roughly $10 million in tax revenue.

In an interview with McClatchy’s project partner Fusion, at a halfway house in Los Angeles last February, Crim described how he brought business to Mossack Fonseca and other registered corporate agents.

“My responsibility is to set-up the documentation, hand it over to the client, and now they’re in business,” Crim said. “I don’t even know sometimes what that business is about, and I didn’t want to spend all my time investigating what they’re doing. I mean, some of (them) just flat out would tell you it was none of your business.”

In a separate case, federal authorities were unaware that a defendant in a fraud case had an offshore account with Mossack Fonseca. Internet phone company executive Jonathan Kaplan pleaded guilty in Bridgeport, Conn., in 2007 to accepting more than $400,000 in a commercial bribery scheme.

Kaplan received probation. A law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity because of pending legal matters, confirmed that prosecutors did not know that Kaplan had established an offshore company in the British Virgin Islands in 2004 called SGA Wireless. It remained active until May 2010.

Reached by phone in New Jersey, Kaplan was asked whether he told authorities about SGA Wireless. He stammered, “I’m going to have to decline. I’ll talk to you.” He then abruptly hung up.

* * *

As we said, the surprising lack of any high profile names could merely stoke speculation of list scrubbing, or alternatively, we hope it will force the broader population to shift its attention to the true real locus of “offshore tax evasion”, perhaps the biggest in the world: the United States of America itself.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1RWhfNn Tyler Durden

The original ‘too big to fail’ from 2,500 years ago

[Editor’s note: Tim Price, London-based wealth manager and frequent Sovereign Man contributor is filling in while Simon is en route to Colombia.]

Successful investing requires having an edge. If you do not know what your edge is, you do not have one.

One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist, or even a die-hard contrarian to have an edge. But given the competition from vast numbers of rival investors, it pays to go down the road less travelled.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his book David and Goliath, examines precisely this approach.

Goliath, a Philistine, challenges the Israelites to “single combat”, a stylized way of engaging with the enemy that avoids the heavy bloodshed that comes from open battle:

“Choose you a man and let him come down to me! If he prevail in battle against me and strike me down, we shall be slaves to you. But if I prevail and strike him down, you will be slaves to us and serve us.”

Goliath expects to be met by an equal. He is a giant, at least six foot nine tall, wearing a tunic made up of hundreds of overlapping bronze scales, probably weighing more than a hundred pounds.

Bronze shin guards protect his legs. Bronze plates protect his feet. He wears a dense metal helmet.

He has three separate weapons, each perfect for close combat. His javelin is also made of bronze, and capable of penetrating either shield or armor. He has a sword at his hip.

And his primary weapon is a type of short-range spear with a metal shaft “as thick as a weaver’s beam”.

Given his sheer size, not to mention the fate of his nation riding on his shoulders, you could say that Goliath was ‘too big to fail’.

So it’s no surprise that the Israelites don’t exactly hurry to respond to Goliath’s challenge.

Finally, David appears. But he refuses sword and armor, on the basis that he’s not used to them.

Instead he reaches down and picks up five smooth stones and puts them in a shoulder bag. He then walks down into the valley to confront Goliath, carrying his shepherd’s staff.

The way Gladwell tells it, we have all been misled about the David and Goliath story.

Goliath is expecting to fight David in single combat, hand to hand.

But David has no interest in honouring the rituals of single combat. He strides off to Goliath intending to fight as light infantry instead. Then he reaches into his shepherd’s bag for a stone.

A skilled slinger in the ancient world was as deadly as an expert sniper.

Medieval paintings show slingers bringing down birds in mid-flight. Irish slingers were said to be able to hit a coin from as far away as they could see it.

The Romans even invented a special set of tongs so that they could extract slingshot embedded in their enemies.

The historian Robert Dohrenwend writes that

“Goliath had as much chance against David as any Bronze Age warrior with a sword would have had against an opponent armed with a .45 automatic pistol.”

The soldiers alongside David thought of power as physical might. But power can come in other forms: in breaking rules, or in substituting speed and surprise for strength.

Not being burdened down by heavy armor, David doesn’t walk to meet Goliath, he runs.

Gladwell also suggests that Goliath, for all his size, had abnormal vulnerabilities, too.

He asks David to come to him. He is led down into the valley by an attendant. He doesn’t even see David until he’s up close to him.

Gladwell suggests that Goliath might be suffering from acromegaly – a disease caused by a benign tumour in the pituitary gland.

The tumour causes the body to overproduce human growth hormone – which would explain Goliath’s extraordinary size. (Robert Wadlow, the tallest person in history, who died eight foot eleven inches tall, suffered from the condition.)

And a common side-effect of acromegaly is poor vision.

Seen in these terms, Goliath never stood a chance.

This is our financial system today.

Banks. Pension funds. Institutional investors. They are all Goliaths in one way or another.

As an example, Bank of America – Merrill Lynch has just published its latest fund manager survey.

This is a regular survey of large investment funds in the finance industry; the respondents are 209 fund managers participated who control $591 billion in aggregate.

They include pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds and hedge funds.

Each is heavily constrained by a ‘mandate’. Pension funds, for instance, are typically obligated to own long-dated bonds, including European government bonds that have negative yields.

Other funds may be forced to follow a particular market index, even if that index is a sure loser.

Like Goliath, they have tremendous size, but very little ability to see or to maneuver.

But you and I are not managers in the BAML survey, and we certainly don’t have to play by their rules.

We don’t have to own assets if we don’t see value in them. We don’t have to slavishly follow the composition of any given index or benchmark that forces us to hold yesterday’s winners irrespective of how expensive their shares are.

We’re under no obligation whatsoever to be part of the herd. And that’s what gives the individual investor so much power. Freedom. This is our edge.

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/1V6Oukq
via IFTTT

American University Dean, Law Profs Claim ‘All Lives Matter’ Flyer Violates Safe Space

American UniversityThe campus speech wars appear to be entering a new phase—in which straightforward and wholly appropriate political statements that impugn liberalism are derided as harassment and violence. This has been the case with the “Trump 2016” chalkings at Emory University and the University of Michigan, and it is now the case with an “All Lives Matter” flyer left on a faculty member’s door at American University. 

This trend will be a disaster for political expression at university campuses unless strongly confronted and denounced by administrators and professors. Unfortunately, AU’s Washington College of Law has taken the side of the perpetually offended. 

Recently, an AU law professor who is active on racial justice issues returned to their office to discover that someone had posted a handwritten note “All Lives Matter” on their door, according to The Washington Post. “All Lives Matter,” of course, is a phrase often deployed by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat racism in society. 

The proper response was probably to tear down the flyer and move on with life. Instead, both the dean, and the faculty at large, felt the need to weigh in on the matter. They alleged that the “All Lives Matter” flyer was a very serious and disturbing incident—tantamount to racial harassment and intimidation—that negated AU’s safe space. 

According to Claudio Grossman, dean of the law school: 

The circumstances and manner of placing this flier on a community member’s door do not involve the kind of civil and thoughtful discourse that we encourage and aspire to in our community, and indeed may serve to intimidate others and discourage their full participation in the marketplace of ideas. 

No member of this community is permitted to engage in harassing, intimidating or threatening behavior towards any other community member. The person who posted this flier did so anonymously and surreptitiously, at a time and in a manner that, regardless of his or her actual intent, had the effect of harassing and intimidating that faculty member as well as others – students, faculty, and staff alike – who seek and deserve to study and work in a safe and non-threatening environment. 

I strongly encourage continued discussion and debate about race and our justice system and about any and all issues of concern to our diverse community. But this discussion and debate must happen in settings and forms that serve to promote discussion, not stifle it, and that make all members of our community feel empowered, safe and free to express their views. 

The law faculty’s statement was even more over-the-top: 

The “All Lives Matter” sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of white supremacy and overt racism, as well as those who do not believe the laws should equally protect those who have a different skin color or religion. Importantly, the phrase “All Lives Matter” has been used in direct response to “Black Lives Matter,” a human rights movement that has become synonymous with protests over police killings of unarmed black men and boys.  The phrase seeks to convey the fact that black people are not expendable, even though the use of lethal force by some in law enforcement suggest that black lives do not matter as much as the lives of other people they encounter.  In a perfect world, no one would have to be reminded that black lives matter because all lives would be treated with the same respect and dignity. 

Leaving an anonymous sign on a professor’s door is not an acceptable way to have a discussion about controversial issues.  Talking about controversial and divisive issues can be very difficult, but we must have these conversations in a respectful way.  Also, we must be open to being educated about diverse perspectives. Conversations on race, gender, sexual identity, and nationality will occur in a wide range of classes.  Our faculty must continue to facilitate discussions on these topics, and we remain committed to healthy dialogue and debate. We recognize that there is room for respectfully disagreeing with others’ perspectives.  Approaching someone and definitively stating your view as if there is only one possible perspective on the issue is not conducive to a constructive dialogue.  There is value in simply asking someone, “If you feel comfortable, I would like to talk to you sometime about X.  I have been reading a lot about the topic, and I am interested in hearing your perspective.”  Few would take offense at your non-confrontational invitation to have the conversation.  The diverse law school environment is a place to perfect the level of civility that should permeate our personal and professional lives.  We hope that everyone at WCL will communicate with each other in a way that embodies our core values of diversity, inclusion and tolerance. 

I agree with the dean and the faculty that leaving a note on a professor’s door is not the best and most persuasive way to convince anyone to change their views. And professors certainly have every right to challenge their students and urge them to direct their advocacy into more productive channels. 

 But one can disagree with the flyer’s message, and the tactical thinking behind it, without getting too paranoid about whether it constitutes a safety threat. Political speech with which one disagrees is not, by itself, harassment—particularly when said speech constitutes as mild a statement as “All Lives Matter.” (As U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow and Gail Heriot noted in a letter to the dean, the phrase “All Lives Matter” has even been uttered by President Barack Obama.) 

When the dean of a law school, and many of its faculty, come out so strongly against political expression, they make it seem like such instances of expression are prohibited on campus. I would expect law experts to better understand the difference between actual harassment and protected speech. If they really believe “discussion about controversial issues” is an important facet of campus life, they should not suggest that anonymous flyering transforms AU into an unsafe space. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1RZBnBp
via IFTTT

On The Minimum Wage and Populism

Authored by Steve H. Hanke of the Johns Hopkins University. Follow him on Twitter @Steve_Hanke.

Last week, a slew of politicians in California, New York, and the United Kingdom embraced higher minimum wages.

That might look attractive to youths and minorities. But, analysis of the data shows that higher minimum wages will not fulfill most of the advertised promises. Among other things, it throws those who lack skills out of work. In the first comprehensive study of the effects of higher minimum wages, David Neumark and William Wascher examined 17 OECD countries over the 1975-2000 period, and they found that the minimum wage elasticity of teenage employment is significantly negative — in the -0.2 to -0.4 range. This means that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage would cause teenage employment to fall by 2 to 4 percent. Since the Neumark-Wascher pioneering work, there have been numerous other international studies based on OECD data. The results are all similar: higher minimum wages have a significant negative impact on employment in the affected groups (teenagers, women, minorities, and so forth).

As it turns out, the European Union (E.U.) provides a natural experiment on the effects of minimum wages. Most E.U. countries impose minimum wages, but some do not.

The accompanying charts tell the tale for both overall and youth unemployment in the E.U.. Unemployment rates are dramatically elevated in the E.U. countries that impose minimum wage laws, relative to those that do not. Milton Friedman clearly had it right when he concluded that “A minimum wage law is, in reality, a law that makes it illegal for an employer to hire a person with limited skills.”

Sources: Eurostat (Unemployment rates – Annual Average, Monthly Minimum Wages-Biannual data, Monthly Minimum Wage (1999-2009)), and calculations by Prof. Steve H. Hanke, The Johns Hopkins University
Note: The averages displayed in the chart are arithmetic means

Sources: Eurostat (Unemployment rates – Annual Average; Age: Less than 25, Monthly 
Minimum Wages- Biannual data, Monthly Minimum Wage (1999-2009)), and calculations by Prof. Steve H. Hanke, The Johns Hopkins University
Note: The averages displayed in the chart are arithmetic means


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1S7NyG3 Steve H. Hanke

Markit, ISM Paint Conflicting Pictures Of US Service Economy; Market Focuses On The More Bullish One

One again it was a “good cop, bad cop” combination of the Markit and ISM service surveys.

First, it was Markit, which printed at the just barely expansionary Final March print 51.3, up from the preliminary 51.0, but the internals continued to deteriorate. As the chart below shows, and as the commentary confirms, the US service sector is barely hanging on by a thread.

Some of the highlights:

  • Service sector output rises in March, following slight decline in previous month
  • New work expands at slowest rate seen in six-and-a-half year survey history
  • Optimism about the business outlook also dips to a post-crisis low

The details:

U.S. service providers signalled a modest rebound in business activity and robust employment growth during March. However, incoming new business expanded at the slowest pace since the survey began in October 2009, which also contributed to a fall in business confidence to a survey-record low. Meanwhile, input cost inflation remained subdued in March and prices changed by service sector companies increased at only a marginal pace.

 

The seasonally adjusted final Markit U.S. Services Business Activity Index registered 51.3 in March, up from 49.7 in February and back above the crucial 50.0 no-change value. Nonetheless, the latest reading was still the second-lowest since October 2013 and pointed to only a marginal upturn in service sector output. Moreover, the average for the first quarter of 2016 (51.4) signalled the weakest expansion of business activity since Q3 2012.

 

The average index reading in Q1 2016 (51.5) was the weakest seen for any quarter since Q3 2012 (51.3).

Respondents were not happy:

Survey respondents noted that subdued growth of incoming new work persisted in March. The latest expansion of new business volumes was only marginal and the weakest in six-and-a-half years of data collection. Anecdotal evidence suggested that uncertainty about the economic outlook and cautious spending patterns among clients continued to hold back new business growth across the service sector.

 

Softer growth of incoming new business resulted in another reduction in backlogs of work during March. Work-in-hand (but not yet completed) has now fallen for eight months running, which firms mainly linked to a lack of pressure on operating capacity at their business units. However, service providers boosted their payroll numbers, which continued the upward trend seen in each month since March 2010. Companies that reported a rise in their staffing levels mainly commented on the launch of new products and long-term business expansion plans.

 

Service providers indicated sustained optimism (on balance) about the year-ahead business outlook in March. However, the degree of positive sentiment moderated for the second month running and was the lowest since the survey began in late-2009, reflecting heightened economic uncertainty and softer new business growth in recent months.

* * *

And then, as is customary, the traditionally more bullish ISM reported that in March, the non-mfg ISM rebounded from 53.4 to 54.5, modestly beating expectations of 54.2.

The all important New Orders series rose from 55.5 to 56.7, which makes it the highest print since December of 2015.

Other components likewise rose, with Business Activity rising +2 to 59.8; the Employment Index refuted the trend spotted by Markit, and also rose from a contractionary 49.7 to 50.3, while Prices Paid jumped from 45.5 to 49.1

The full breakdown:

 

And, as always, the responses which at key inflection points tend to be oddly cherrypicked to the upside, were just that:

  • “Nationally, business seems stronger than a year ago in Q1. Internal volume is better than expected and vendors report stronger Q1 than expected.” (Management of Companies & Support Services)
  • “[Business] conditions are moving at a slow, but positive pace in this market. Expansion efforts are back on the horizon for late 2016.” (Finance & Insurance)
  • “Macroeconomics, the world oil glut, Fed interest rates, foreign currencies in trouble, the slowing Chinese economy and a strong dollar will continue to place pressure on U.S. exports, especially food commodities. These situations have created lower domestic wholesale prices and lower hotel COGS [Cost of Goods Sold]; a win for us.” (Accommodation & Food Services)
  • “Stability/dependability of revenue sources and cost of healthcare continue to be drivers in government revenues and expenditures.” (Public Administration)
  • “Similar to last month, our company continues to look for ways to invest in lowering prices to attract cost-conscious consumers in a highly competitive grocery retail environment.” (Retail Trade)
  • “No new business, but existing business is up 5 percent month-over-month and 40 percent year-over-year, especially in our e-commerce fulfillment services. Subsequent purchasing is relatively flat as productivity improvements are creating more capacity with less incremental cost.” (Transportation & Warehousing)
  • “Lower volumes than expected at the start of the year.” (Arts, Entertainment & Recreation)
  • “Business remains the same with an increase in hiring.” (Information)

The market reaction, as expected, ignored the gloomy Markit release, and spiked on the far more bullish ISM print, with the Dow nearly wiping out all the day’s gains.


via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1MQ5fOc Tyler Durden