Why The Carpet Is About To Be Pulled From Under The Junk Bond Market

Last week we noted that ever since the start of 2018, an odd divergence has emerged in credit markets, where Investment Grade bonds have seen their spreads leak progressively wider, hitting levels not seen in 2 years, while the bid for higher yielding, and much more risky, junk bond debt has been seemingly relentless, with high yield spreads near all time lows.

There have been various reasons offered to explain this divergence, with Bank of America suggesting that IG weakness is “due to supply pressures in an environment of reduced demand that began in March and extended through last week, plus the Italian situation, which is about systemic risks running through the global IG financial system.”

Meanwhile, it believes the strength in HY is mostly due to the lack of supply of higher yielding paper.

Blackrock agrees, and today, in a blog post by BlackRock’s Richard Turnill, the Chief Investment Strategist picks up on this theme and writes that Investment grade (IG) bonds typically outperform their high yield counterparts when uncertainty rises – like now – given their higher quality and lower default risks.

The chart below echoes the one shown above, and confirms that recently this hasn’t been the case. The bars on the left depict the recent under-performance of IG. Yield spreads have widened versus Treasuries, putting downward pressure on prices. The move in the high yield market has been much more muted. The bars on the right show why. Actual, and anticipated, IG issuance has rapidly escalated amid a surge in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity, particularly in the media sector (overall IG issuance is still down just over 1% due to large repatriated cash balances providing less incentive to issue debt).  Yet high yield issuance has slumped. The shrinking high yield market is not part of the M&A boom, and many high yield firms are issuing via loans rather than bonds.

Others have also jumped on the “issuance” bottleneck, with Goldman today noting that trends in the HY primary market have been closely watched this year, as a significant decline in issuance has provided a strong tailwind to spread performance.

Specifically, as the chart below shows, year-to-date HY supply of $104 billion is down 26% versus this time last year, and this favorable technical has allowed HY spreads to remain much more resilient versus IG peers. For context – and as shown in the chart on top – prior to last week, HY spreads were unchanged versus the start of the year (at 339bp) while IG spreads widened from 94bp to 123bp over the same period. HY spreads even touched multi-year lows earlier this year despite facing sizable cumulative net outflows.

The tide may be shifting, however.

According to Goldman calculations, the junk bond dam may be cracking and last week’s HY new issue volumes of $7.2 billion were the highest since mid-March (Exhibit 1), and this increase in supply appeared to pressure HY market performance.

  • First, the higher supply was accompanied by weakness in HY spreads. Last week saw significant decompression between IG and HY: the OAS of the Bloomberg Barclays HY index widened from 339bp to 363bp while the IG index finished unchanged on the week (Exhibit 2). While negative idiosyncratic developments for some HY issuers and escalating trade tensions likely also played a role, the spike in HY supply is one of the key drivers according to Goldman. The HY spread weakness is even more striking considering oil – an important driver of HY investor sentiment given the Energy sector’s large market weight (14.4%) – rallied over 8% to close the week at $74.15 (a level not seen since 2014).
  • Second, the acceleration in HY bond issuance may be related to some early signs of new issue indigestion in the leveraged loan market. According to data from LCD Research, last month, upward price-flex activity outnumbered downward price-flexes (ratio of 1.26x) for the first time since February 2016. This price-flex imbalance was even more pronounced for M&A deals (1.46x), which we believe was likely related to Q2 2018’s record-setting level of institutional M&A volumes ($84.2 billion). Looking ahead, we continue to view HY M&A activity (particularly for larger deals) as the key catalyst to fuel a sustained acceleration in HY bond supply.

Looking at the recent supply burst, Goldman concludes that while it is premature to expect the large year-to-date HY supply deficit to narrow rapidly from here, especially given the seasonally slow summer months, last week’s price action is indicative of the growing fragility of the HY market’s (technically-supported) relative outperformance.

Today Blackrock reached a similar conclusion – get out of HY and into IG despite the recent pain – however due to more fundamental reasons: “investment grade valuations have become more attractive relative to those of high yield. Yields for short-maturity investment grade corporates are now well above the level of U.S. inflation. We see these assets again playing their traditional portfolio role—principal preservation, especially in an increasingly uncertain macro environment.”

uncertainty around the growth outlook has widened, with the U.S. stimulus’ boost to activity on one side–and trade war risks on the other. This greater uncertainty−along with rising interest rates−has contributed to tightening financial conditions and argues for higher-quality ballast in portfolios.

Combining the sudden shift in the supply picture, with the ongoing weakness on a relative value between IG and HY, the message is clear: it is only a matter of time before the carpet is pulled from underneath what, until now, has been one of the most bizarrely resilient asset classes.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KxzNsZ Tyler Durden

Will the Future Have No Work or Just Less Work?: Podcast

Imagine it’s sometime in the future, but not so far in the future that you’re not still putting together flat-packed furniture.

You realize you need to drive some screws into the bookcase or whatever it is you’re assembling. Instead of rummaging through your garage or basement for your goddamned electric screwdriver, you tap out “rent a drill” on your a smart phone app. A few minutes later, a package arrives at your door. It contains a drill, you drive the screws, you send the drill back. Total time: 10 minutes. Total cost $2.50.

That’s a scenario from Tomorrow 3.0, a new book by Duke University economist and political scientist Michael C. Munger. Subtitled Transaction Costs and the Sharing Economy, it takes a long look at what he says is, after the Neolithic and Industrial Revolutions, the third great economic revolution in world history—a revolution that is already well under way.

I talked with Munger about the future of work in a gig economy, the possible need for a guaranteed basic income, and why laws and policies designed to preserve the labor status quo inevitably increase the pace and magnitude of disruption. Co-editor of The Independent Review, Munger also explains how he came to his libertarian beliefs and how he designed the arresting cover of his latest book.

Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:

Audio production by Ian Keyser.

Don’t miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)

Subscribe at iTunes.

Follow us at SoundCloud.

Subscribe at YouTube.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2tYUy5z
via IFTTT

US Political Center Is Being Devoured From Both Right And Left

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

President Trump will soon nominate his second Supreme Court justice. The first, Neil Gorsuch, has so perfectly replaced the late Antonin Scalia that it’s safe to assume retiring justice Anthony Kennedy’s successor will be in the same mold – which is to say formidable and unapologetically conservative. The result will be a solid conservative majority that’s more definite and less flexible on the issues where Kennedy was a swing vote.

And that’s if Notorious RBG manages to hang on through the Trump era. If she goes (and at 85 she’s likely to go soon one way or another) Trump will be one of those extremely rare presidents who gets to name THREE justices, thus extending his influence from four years to an entire generation.

Among the possible results of such a conservative judicial super-majority are the reversal of rulings that made abortion and gay marriage the laws of the land, making both state-level issues once again, where they’ll further polarize already-divided electorates.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are lurching waaayyy left.

The implosion of the moderate Clinton wing of the party began during the past presidential election, when huge parts of the left openly supported socialist Bernie Sanders. This group now sees Elizabeth Warren – Bernie Sanders with a penchant for verbal street fighting – as the ideal candidate next time around. And despite a fairly consequential set of primary elections last Tuesday, pretty much all anyone is talking about is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a latina “democratic socialist” who unseated a previously entrenched moderate incumbent and is now a lock to win a Bronx congressional seat in November – on a Sanders-esque platform of free everything for everyone and wide-open borders.

Each side is, as a result, finding it really easy to dehumanize the other. After Trump’s press secretary and family are evicted from a restaurant because the owner opposes Trump’s immigration policy, Democrat Senator Maxine Waters encourages liberals to make this a pattern by confronting White House officials in public whenever possible. Waters then gets death threats and responds “If you shoot at me, you better shoot straight.”

But wait, there’s more. This past Saturday:

 

More than 500 arrested as women rally in D.C. to protest Trump’s immigration policy

 

They came from all over, took planes and buses from 47 states, slept at friends’ homes or in churches and prepared to be arrested Thursday in Washington, D.C. Most of the participants were white women, stumbling over the syllables of Spanish-language chants. Many had never faced arrest before. But here they were.

Capitol Police said 575 protesters were arrested and escorted out of the Hart Senate Office Building in a mass demonstration that called for the abolishment of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and an end to migrant family detentions and the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy.

They were charged with unlawfully demonstrating, a misdemeanor.

“I have two kids, and as a white mother, there is almost no circumstance that they would be taken away from me – ever,” said Victoria Farris, who slept Wednesday night in All Souls Church after participating in civil disobedience training. “I was awake one night because I couldn’t sleep thinking about all those [immigrant] mothers and terrified children. I realized I had to do something more than protest, more than make a sign and march.”

Just after 3 p.m., protesters were rounded up in groups of a dozen or more and led out of the building.

“Abolish ICE,” they shouted as more were moved out. “Shut it down.”

And Sunday:

Riot in Portland as far-right marchers clash with anti-fascists

A riot was declared in downtown Portland, Oregon on Saturday evening as the city exploded into its worst protest violence of the Trump era.

More than 150 supporters of the far-right Patriot Prayer group fought pitched street battles with scores of anti-fascist protesters. In total, nine people were arrested.

The far-right march had started near Schrunk Plaza in the city centre, where the rightwing group had held a rally, led by the Patriot Prayer founder and Republican US Senate candidate Joey Gibson.

As soon as the group left the plaza, they clashed with anti-fascists who had been waiting across a heavily barricaded street nearby.

As the two groups came to blows, Department of Homeland Security officers fired non-lethal ammunition towards the counter-protest.

What does all this late-1960s-esque turbulence mean and how does it tie into the populist wave that’s sweeping the rest of the world?

The simple answer is that when a society borrows too much money it loses the ability to keep its people happy.

The big systems stop working as pension plans and local governments run out of money, inequality becomes a chasm as the people with assets get richer while the people with debts sink into poverty, and disaffected voters lose faith in the establishment to address their needs. And they come to hate the people on the other side of major issues — even though those people are frequently also victims of the elites’ predation.

Each election becomes an adventure in which formerly fringe candidates do progressively better until they end up taking power. At which point the discredited center evaporates and everyone chooses one extreme or the other, losing any remaining shred of empathy for their political opponents.

And media accounts like this become the conventional wisdom:

Is America headed toward a civil war? Or is the civil war already starting?

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was even kicked out of the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, because the owner and employees disliked her politics. This seems like a small thing, but it would have been largely unthinkable a generation ago.

And, in a somewhat less “soft” manifestation, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was bullied out of a restaurant by an angry anti-Trump mob, and a similar mob also showed up outside of her home.

Will it get worse? Probably. To have a civil war, soft or otherwise, takes two sides. But as pseudonymous tweeter Thomas H. Crown notes, it’s childishly easy in these days to identify people in mobs, and then to dispatch similar mobs to their homes and workplaces. Eventually, he notes, it becomes “protesters all the way down, and if we haven’t yet figured out that can lead to political violence, we’re dumb.”

Political contempt is the problem
Marriage counselors say that when a couple view one another with contempt, it’s a top indicator that the relationship is likely to fail. Americans, who used to know how to disagree with one another without being mutually contemptuous, seem to be forgetting this. And the news media, which promote shrieking outrage in pursuit of ratings and page views, are making the problem worse.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MFvHLC Tyler Durden

Stocks Pump’n’Dump As “What China Giveth, China Taketh Away”

‘Murica, F**k Yeah…

Despite the holiday-shortened trading day, there was plenty of vol for everyone today…

Equity futures show the chaos best as PBOC Governor Yi rescued the world overnight but US investors used his overnight pump to dump their gains (not helped by China’s court ruling against Micron)….

 

In cash equity land, Small Caps remain green on the week…

 

The Dow closed below its 200DMA for the 7th day in a row…

 

Micron was a mess after the headlines…dropping to 2-month lows…

 

But Tesla is worse – down over 14% from its post-production goal highs…

 

Treasury yields tumbled today as stocks reversed around the cash equity open…

 

We are starting to see a pattern intraday in Treasuries – buying overnight, selling during US day…

 

The Dollar erased yesterday’s gains as China’s intervention rippled through markets but as stocks sold off in the last hour of the short-day, the dollar bounced a little…

 

The biggest news overnight (and into the open) was China’s intervention to rescue the Yuan from freefall…

 

But some context is important for this bounce…

China’s stocks managed to surge on the intervention but only CHINEXT is back to breakeven on the week…

 

Cryptos pumped and dumped today but ended the day unchanged, still up notably on the week…

 

PMs rallied on the dollar weakness but copper and crude faded…

 

Notably WTI tumbled after reports that the Saudis would increase production as Trump asked…

 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KOj5Sc Tyler Durden

SCOTUS Short-Lister Amy Coney Barrett on Overturning Precedent and Judicial Deference to Lawmakers

Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is reportedly among a handful of finalists under consideration by President Donald Trump to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Barrett, 46, was confirmed to the 7th Circuit last October after undergoing a highly contentious confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A committed Catholic who has written frequently about the intersection of faith and law, Barrett was questioned by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) about whether her religion would prevent her from serving as an impartial jurist. “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country,” Feinstein said to the nominee.

Feinstein was undoubtedly referring to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that recognized a constitutional right to abortion. The senator’s implication was that Barrett’s religious views might lead her to limit or even overturn that decision.

Before her judicial appointment last year, Barrett was a distinguished law professor at Notre Dame University, where she produced a highly respected body of scholarly work. Because of her short tenure on the federal bench, that scholarship offers perhaps the best indication of what sort of Supreme Court justice she might turn out to be.

Consider her writings on the crucial issue of precedent. When is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own prior rulings? And is it ever appropriate for the Court to overturn a precedent simply because a new majority disagrees with the methodological approach of its predecessor? In other words, would it be appropriate for a living constitutionalist Court to overturn a case like District of Columbia v. Heller because the later Court disagreed with the Heller majority’s originalist methodology?

Barrett grappled with such questions in a 2013 Texas Law Review article. In it, she sketched out and defended an approach that she called “weak” or “soft stare decisis.” Given the competing interpretive methodologies on the Court, she argued, “a more relaxed form of constitutional stare decisis is both inevitable and probably desirable, at least in those cases in which methodologies clash.”

“Were there greater agreement about the nature of the Constitution—for example, whether it is originalist or evolving—we might expect to see greater (although of course still imperfect) stability,” Barrett wrote. “In the world we live in, however, that level of stability is more than we have experienced or should expect in particularly divisive areas of constitutional law.” Reversing precedent “because of honest jurisprudential disagreement,” she concluded, “is illegitimate only if it is done without adequate consideration of, and due deference to, the arguments in favor of letting the precedent stand.”

As for her own approach, she wrote: “I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.”

Barrett’s writings also reveal her to be a sharp critic of the libertarian legal movement. In a 2017 article for Constitutional Commentary, Barrett acknowledged that libertarian legal scholars such as Georgetown’s Randy Barnett have a point when they fault conservatives for placing too much emphasis on the notion of judicial restraint. “Deference to a democratic majority should not supersede a judge’s duty to apply clear text,” she wrote.

But Barrett then suggested that the libertarian legal movement has gone too far in the opposite direction by embracing a sweeping theory of economic liberty that is itself unmoored from constitutional text. What is more, Barrett defended the Supreme Court’s current approach in cases dealing with economic regulation, in which the scales are tipped in favor of lawmakers via the highly permissive standard of judicial review known as the rational-basis test. “Deferential judicial review of run-of-the-mill legislation,” Barrett wrote, is defensible on the grounds that such judicial deference “is consistent with the reality that the harm inflicted by the Supreme Court’s erroneous interference in the democratic process is harder to remedy than the harm inflicted by an ill-advised statute.”

Notably, that view not only places Barrett in conflict with the libertarian legal movement, but it also places her in conflict with another possible SCOTUS finalist: Judge Don Willett, who appeared on Trump’s original SCOTUS shortlist and was rumored to be among the finalists under consideration to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Willett is considered to be in the running yet again for Kennedy’s seat.

In 2015, while serving as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, Willett (who is now a federal appellate court judge) concurred in the case of Patel v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Willett’s opinion laid out an explicitly constitutional case for the judicial recognition and protection of economic liberty. (Willett favorably cited my book, Overruled, in this opinion.)

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s legislative record,” Willett pointed out, “is replete with indications that ‘privileges or immunities’ encompassed the right to earn a living free from unreasonable government intrusion.” To say the least, Willett displayed little patience for what Barrett has defended as “deferential judicial review of run-of-the-mill legislation.”

If Amy Coney Barrett gets the nomination to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, I look forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning her about these fundamental matters of legal theory and constitutional interpretation.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2NnP8tM
via IFTTT

DNC Chair Tom Perez Declares Socialist Ocasio-Cortez “The Future Of Our Party”

The already-fractured DNC is having an identity crisis. While establishment Democrats Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) battle it out with Maxine Waters (CA) over anti-Trump activism, the party is now mounting support for their new rising star – Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, after the 28-year-old political neophyte unseated the 4th most powerful Democrat in Congress last month in an upset primary win.

Ocasio-Cortez, a dues-paying member of Democratic Socialists of America (whose leadership has been openly calling for communism) – says that the US should abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), while also claiming that illegal aliens deserve a “right of passage” into the United States.

And despite being called out recently for projecting a blue collar “girl from the Bronx” image while growing up in a wealthy enclave, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez told progressive radio host Bill Press Tuesday that Ocasio-Cortez represents “the future of our party.” 

Press: There was a primary in several states. Your home state of Maryland and also up in New York where the 4th most powerful Democrat in the United States, Congressman Joe Crowley was knocked out by a young woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez­­­ – 28 years old – never ran for office before – big progressive – calls herself a Democratic socialist, actually like Bernie Sanders did – she was a Bernie Sanders supporter, and in Maryland, Ben Jealous another strong progressive wins the Democratic nomination for governor. What’s this tell you about where the Democratic Party is going today?

Perez: Well, my daughters – I have 3 kids, two of whom are daughters, one just graduated college, one is in college, and they were both texting me about their excitement over Alexandria because, you know, she really represents the future of our party. She ran a spirited campaign. 

And while “Democratic insurgents” (as the Washington Post calls them) want to abolish ICE, the rest of the Democratic party is not behind her. Not even Bernie Sanders would commit to the notion. 

On Sunday morning, CNN’s Jake Tapper put the question to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): Did the senator, a democratic socialist and 2016 presidential candidate, the most prominent left-wing politician in the country, want to abolish ICE?

“I think what we need is to create policies which deal with immigration in a rational way,” Sanders said, evading the topic of ICE itself. –Washington Post

And until Ocasio-Cortez clarifies her positions vs. the Democratic Socialists of America, this is the future of the Democratic party.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2tOGzjC Tyler Durden

Heat Wave Is Slowing Stock Trades Between New Jersey Data Centers

The record high-humidity heat wave that’s hammering the Tri-state Area is making life difficult for man and machine alike. According to Bloomberg, the heat is so oppressive it is delaying radio transmissions between the three New Jersey data centers where most of the equity trading attributed to “New York” financial markets actually takes place.

High humidity is impeding radio transmissions Tuesday among three New Jersey data centers where U.S. stocks trade, according to a note Nasdaq Inc. sent customers.

According to the Nasdaq disclosure, it is now taking about 8 microseconds longer to send information from Nasdaq’s facility in Carteret to the New York Stock Exchange data center in Mahwah, and an extra 2 microseconds to send data to Cboe Global Markets Inc.’s exchange in Secaucus.

For HFTs, most of whom use microwaves to transmit orders, and some of which are using lasers, this is an eternity when it comes to frontrunning traditional orderflow or creating mini momentum ignition events at just the right time.

In other words, this is one of the few times when the HFT industry, looking at millions in foregone profits, can legitimately blame the weather on their woes. 

Tower
The New York Stock Exchange tower in Mahwah, New Jersey

Naturally, those carbon-based traders with enough foresight prepared for just this eventuality and paid the NYSE even more millions to upgrade to the laser network that was installed a few years back to shave a few nanoseconds off the transmission time between the NASDAQ and New York Stock Exchange towers, as we profiled at the time.

Luckily markets are closing at 1 pm today in observance of tomorrow’s Independence Day holiday. Hopefully by the time markets reopen on Thursday, the heat will have broken.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MMAwDh Tyler Durden

American-Backed Saudi Coalition Responsible for a Majority of Child Casualties in Yemen Conflict

A new United Nations report shows that the American-backed Saudi coalition in Yemen is responsible for a majority of child casualties in the region. Maybe it’s time Congress paid attention to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the few Republicans who has consistently opposed American intervention in this conflict.

According to the Children and Armed Conflict report, obtained by Al Jazeera, the Saudi-led coalition killed 370 out of the 552 child casualties recorded and also injured 300 more in 2017 in the brutal Yemeni civil war. The report also said that both sides of the conflict utilized child soldiers in battle, documenting 842 cases. Despite being such a destructive war, the strife in Yemen has not garnered much congressional attention outside of a few determined senators committed to restoring the authority to declare war back to the Senate, as ordained by the Constitution.

At a recent talk sponsored by the Fund for American Studies, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) described the American involvement as “an unconstitutional war.” They faulted the U.S. government for “providing significant military assistance to Saudi Arabia.”

Just last year, Paul distinguished himself from his colleagues by his marked opposition to President Donald Trump’s intention to sell $110 billion of weapons to the Saudi government. While he was unsuccessful in his crusade, it sparked much-needed debate on the future of American policy on supplying arms to violent regimes.

Even more recently, Sen. Lee teamed up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in February to push President Trump to end American involvement in the Yemeni conflict. The senators tried to take advantage of the War Powers Act to force a vote on S.J. Res 54, which would have withdrawn American forces from the country, despite stringent opposition from the Pentagon and the Department of Defense. The Senate, however, tabled the resolution with a 55-44 vote.

Notwithstanding these efforts, in the midst of the ethical quagmire that is the Yemeni civil war, the United States continues to help Saudi Arabia furnish its military to fuel the conflict.

In spite of its checkered human rights record, Saudi Arabia has shared a powerful alliance with the United States for over seven decades, held strong by the bonds of oil and bombs, which steadily flow between the governments. This alliance sometimes manifests itself in the form of arms deals and acts of military assistance in Middle Eastern battlefields that are the source of tragically little discourse on the floor of Congress.

In addition to making us at least somewhat complicit in Saudi Arabia’s actions, supplying arms to the Arabian monarchy will make Americans less safe. The blowback effects from crippling an already destitute country with festering Islamic radicalism will haunt America well after the Houthis have been defeated with American weaponry.

“The Saudis have dropped 64,000 bombs. Sometimes they bomb people with uniforms and guns, sometimes they bomb civilians,” Sen. Paul elaborated. “And then we ask ourselves, how are terrorists created?” Combine this with the presence of American troops in Yemen to fight terrorism, and our image in the region suffers greatly.

It’s important to note that America’s Saudi Arabia policy is not unique. It’s part of a broader (and ineffective) policy of attempting to use arms sales to coerce other countries into falling in line with our government’s foreign policy agenda. In a recent paper for the Cato Institute, A. Trevor Thrall, professor at George Mason University, and Caroline Dorminey, policy analyst at the Cato Institute, argue, “arms sales lack a compelling strategic justification, amplify risks, and generate a host of unintended negative consequences.” A new approach to foreign policy is certainly more than warranted.

There is no excuse for congressional complacency while our tax dollars are being used to fund authoritarian regimes that kill and recruit children, especially when it compromises our own national security.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2tSBbvJ
via IFTTT

Blowback – Nasdaq Plunges After China Blocks Micron Chip Sales

Potentially in response to Trump’s actions on China Mobile, a Chinese court temporarily banned Micron Technology chip sales, cutting the U.S. company off from the world’s largest semiconductor market.

Yesterday we specifically warned that following yet another targeted attack at a prominent Chinese company, it is only a matter of time before China responds in kind, and considering the size and prominence of China Mobile, one wonders how long until China takes aim at none other than the world’s largest company, Apple.

Well it’s not yet Apple but it’s getting there and Micron shares are tumbling on the headlines.

Bloomberg reports that in a patent ruling in favor of Taiwanese rival United Microelectronics (UMC), the Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issued a preliminary injunction stopping Micron from selling 26 products, including dynamic random access memory and Nand flash memory-related products, UMC said in a statement Tuesday. Micron said it’s preparing a response.

The case is part of a broader dispute between the two companies centering on accusations that UMC acted as a conduit for the theft of the Micron’s designs in an attempt to help China grow its domestic chip industry and replace imports that rival oil in total value. A Chinese antitrust regulator is already investigating Micron and its Korean rivals, the companies have said. Local media has reported that authorities are looking into increases in chip prices.

And that has sent Nasdaq reeling…

Morgan Stanley warned this would happen…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2KFgSeS Tyler Durden

Judge to Detroit Students: We Can’t Force Schools to Actually Teach You Anything

LiteracyA federal judge has made it very clear in a new ruling that the government can force you to send your kids to school, but you can’t force the government to actually provide an education there.

Judge Stephen Murphy III of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, just dismissed a case originating from Detroit accusing Gov. Rick Snyder and other state officials of doing such a terrible job when the then-bankrupt city was under the control of emergency managers that they deprived students of a right to an education or even basic literacy.

The plaintiffs argued that this extremely crappy non-education violated their Due Process and Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. The State of Michigan argued that this complaint—a demand for “access to literacy”—is not constitutionally recognized. The judge agreed, though he very much sympathized with the students, and dismissed the case.

While the dismissal is prompting some outrage (and the plaintiffs promise to appeal) it should not come as a surprise. The courts have been extremely reluctant to wade into any space where they define what sort of an education anybody has a “right” to, though they’ve certainly been fine with the government forcing kids to attend regardless. A Supreme Court case from 1973, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, held that the U.S. Constitution did not establish a “fundamental right to education.”

But that ruling was about equal access to educational tools and funding mechanisms. The San Antonio case was about whether it was constitutional to use property taxes as a school funding mechanism if it meant that students in poorer communities got worse educations than those in wealthier communities (answer: yes). In this case, Murphy noted, the plaintiffs are simply arguing that they aren’t getting any sort of education at all. Was that a distinctly different enough argument for Murphy to contradict pervious precedents? Is basic “access to literacy” a fundamental right?

In the end, the judge ruled it was not:

Plainly, literacy—and the opportunity to obtain it—is of incalculable importance. As Plaintiffs point out, voting, participating meaningfully in civic life, and accessing justice require some measure of literacy. Applying for a job, securing a place to live, and applying for government benefits routinely require the completion of written forms. Simply finding one’s way through many aspects of ordinary life stands as an obstacle to one who cannot read.

But those points do not necessarily make access to literacy a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, in Rodriguez and elsewhere, that the importance of a good or service “does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental[.]”

He noted previous examples where courts have ruled that there’s no fundamental right to water or sewer service and that the Due Process Clause does not compel the state to protect a child from an abusive father or from a bully in school.

So even when the government has the authority to mandate behaviors of the citizens under the law, it’s a one-way street. The judge ruled that the state cannot be affirmatively ordered to provide students even the basic level of education to achieve literacy.

This is not to say the judge’s ruling is wrong. If the courts did rule that schools were constitutionally mandated to provide a certain level of education, imagine the lawsuits that would follow as everybody attempted to make the case for how that level of education should be determined. We already have a constant culture war within the education system itself about what schools are supposed to be teaching. The last thing we need is for the courts to get dragged into figuring out those boundaries.

But what people should take away from this ruling is the importance of competition and choice in forcing schools to improve. If the courts can’t make a school provide a certain level of education, parents and students must be free to pick other schools. Education must be a marketplace. A court can’t order a grocery store to sell certain products, but they know that if they don’t provide what customers need somebody else will and they’ll lose business. Schools should be the same way. And there’s evidence to show that when there’s charter schools and other school choice options around, public schools start to improve.

If the courts lack the authority to force schools to provide a certain level of education, we should make sure that parents have access to school choice to decide what’s best for their own kids.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2z9gHUs
via IFTTT