Month: September 2019

Americans Reject Universal Basic Income While Canada & UK Embrace It

Americans Reject Universal Basic Income While Canada & UK Embrace It

Authored by RJ Reinhart via Gallup

A recent survey by Gallup and Northeastern University finds a slight majority of Americans opposed to a universal basic income (UBI) program as a way to support workers displaced by AI adoption. Conversely, about three-fourths of residents in the U.K. and Canada favor the idea.

These findings come from a Gallup/Northeastern survey of over 10,000 adults in Canada, the U.K. and the U.S. conducted from April to June 2019. By some estimates, up to 50% of jobs are expected to be automated within the next decade. An OECD study across 21 countries suggests that while only 9% of jobs are currently at high risk of automation, low-skilled workers are most vulnerable to job displacement.

The way that colleges, universities, governments and businesses can respond to this disruption is the topic of a recent report by Gallup and Northeastern University detailing the results of the three-country survey. The probability-based survey was conducted online with 4,394 Americans, 3,049 Canadians and 3,208 U.K. adults.

In the survey, UBI was defined for respondents as a government-instituted program that would provide every adult with a specific amount of money each year. These funds would serve as income support for people who lose their jobs or occupations because of advances in artificial intelligence. UBI programs have been endorsed by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, as well as high-profile business leaders such as Richard Branson and Mark Zuckerberg.

Gaps in support for UBI among the three countries surveyed may be due to the tradition of more robust social safety nets in the U.K. and Canada than in the U.S. However, despite the differences in overall support, there are some similarities in age group patterns. In general, younger residents in each country are more supportive of UBI than older residents are, with at least eight in 10 young adults (aged 18 to 29) in the U.K. and Canada – and nearly six in 10 in the U.S. – supporting the idea. By contrast, support is about 15 to 30 percentage points lower in each country among those aged 65 and older.

At the same time, the patterns of support by education level differ across the three countries. In the U.S., support for UBI is higher among those with increased levels of education, ranging from 38% of those with a high school diploma or less to 54% of those with a bachelor’s degree and 51% of those with a postgraduate degree. In the U.K. and Canada, support for UBI is highest among those at the lower end of the education spectrum – 80% of U.K. adults with no more than an upper secondary school education support the program, as do 78% of Canadians with similar levels of education. Support falls to an average of 73% in the U.K. and 72% in Canada among those with a college or postgraduate degree.

Are Supporters Willing to Pay Higher Taxes for UBI?

In a follow-up question, UBI supporters were asked if they were willing to pay higher taxes to fund such a program. Support for this varies, from 75% in the U.S. to 53% in the U.K. and 49% in Canada.

Among all subgroups of UBI program supporters, those in the U.S. are more willing than those in the U.K. or Canada to pay higher taxes to fund such programs.

In each country, willingness to pay higher taxes to fund UBI programs is greater among college graduates than among those with less education. In the U.S. and Canada, there is more willingness among young adults (aged 18 to 29) than among those aged 65 and older.

Common Views That Companies Should Pay

UBI supporters in all three countries were also asked if the companies that benefit most from advancements in AI should pay more taxes to fund UBI programs. Large majorities of adults in all three countries “strongly agree” or “agree” that these companies should pay, including three-fourths in the U.S. and two-thirds in the U.K. and Canada.

Bottom Line

UBI programs have garnered substantial attention in recent months, in part because of Yang’s endorsement of them. The Democratic presidential candidate has backed such programs to help Americans who experience job loss due to the introduction of new technology. The concept has been piloted on a limited basis in several locations worldwide, with mixed results. However, this hasn’t dissuaded UBI supporters from promoting these programs as necessary tools to offset the potential disruption caused by AI adoption and other technological advancements.

These supporters may find fertile ground for the implementation of UBI programs in the U.K. and Canada. However, in the U.S., attitudes are mixed – and UBI programs are likely to be a harder sell. Even in the U.K. and Canada, opinions vary among supporters about paying higher taxes to fund such programs. UBI programs would likely be more palatable in these countries if their governments were to endorse taxing tech companies to cover the bill.

In all three countries, views on UBI programs could change as the effects of AI adoption become increasingly disruptive to workers.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 09/30/2019 – 17:45

Tags
Social Issues
Education

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

Challenging Edward Snowden  

In this episode I cross swords with John Samples of the Cato Institute; we debate whether Silicon Valley’ is trying to disadvantage conservative speech and what to do about it. I accuse him of Panglossian libertarianism; he challenges me to identify any way in which bringing government into the dispute will make things better. I say government is already in it, citing TikTok’s PRC-friendly “community standards” and Silicon Valley’s obeisance to European norms on hate speech and terror incitement.

Disagreeing on how deep the Valley’s bias runs, we agree to put our money where our mouths are: For $50, I take the under and he takes the over on whether Donald J. Trump will last a year after leaving office without being suspended or banned from Twitter.

There’s a lot of news in the roundup, too.

David Kris explains the background of the first CLOUD Act agreement that may be signed this year with the UK.

Nate Jones and I ask, “What is the president’s beef with CrowdStrike, anyway?” We find a certain amount of common ground on the answer.

This Week in Counterattacks in the War on Terror: David and I recount the origins and ironies of Congress’s willingness to end the NSA 215 phone surveillance program. We also take time to critique the New York Times’s wide-eyed hook-line-and-sinker ingestion of an EFF attack on the FBI’s use of National Security Letters.

Edward Snowden’s got a new book out, and the Justice Department wants to make sure he never collects his royalties. Nate explains. I’m just relieved that I will be able to read it without having to shoplift it. And as this seems to be the episode for challenges, I offer Snowden a chance to be interviewed on the podcast:  Anytime, anywhere, Ed!

Matthew Heiman explains the latest NotPetya travail for FedEx: A shareholder suit alleging that the company failed to disclose how much damage the malware caused to its ongoing business.

Evan Abrams gives a hint about the contents of Treasury’s 300-page opus incorporating Congress’s overhaul of CFIUS into the CFR.

I credit David for inspiring my piece questioning how long end-to-end commercial encryption is going to last, and we note that even the New York Times seems to be raising questions about whether Silicon Valley’s latest enthusiasm is actually good for the world.

Matthew tells us that China may have a new tool to use in the trade war – or at least to keep companies toeing the party line: The government is assigning social credit scores to businesses.

Finally, Matthew outlines France’s OG take on international law and cyber conflict. France has opened up some distance between its views and those of the United States, and everyone will soon get a chance to talk at even greater length on the topic, as the UN gears up two different bodies to engage in yet another round of cyber-norm-building.

Download the 280th Episode (mp3).

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!

As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2ngESeD
via IFTTT

Credit Suisse ‘Spy’ Found Dead As ‘Espionage Scandal’ Stuns Swiss Banking Establishment

Credit Suisse ‘Spy’ Found Dead As ‘Espionage Scandal’ Stuns Swiss Banking Establishment

Update (1715ET): The increasingly conspiratorial “spy scandal” underway in Swiss banking has taken an even darker tone as the Credit Suisse contractor – who hired private detectives to follow a former top executive – has died of suicide.

Swiss financial blog Inside Paradeplatz first reported the man’s death, identifying him only as “T” and noting that he shot himself last Tuesday as the spy scandal started to break.

The deceased had hired Investigo on behalf of Credit Suisse to follow its former top wealth management executive, Iqbal Khan. The bank hired detectives because of fears Khan would poach employees after moving to UBS.

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, it looks like Credit Suisse CEO Tidjane Thiam is going to survive a scandal that’s erupted over the bank’s spying on a rainmaker who had recently left CS and joined cross-town rival UBS.

The scandal unfolded on the streets of Zurich, where both Swiss banks have their headquarters (UBS is co-headquartered in Basel). It exploded into public view when wealth-management rainmaker Iqbal Khan, who had left CS after purportedly being passed over for promotion, realized that he and his wife were being followed while driving in downtown Zurich.

Tidjane Thiam

Khan confronted his pursuers, an incident that eventually resulted in the arrest of several employees from the security firm retained by CS to track Khan’s movements (the fear was that he might be trying to poach more CS employees). Thiam and several other senior officials were swiftly implicated in the scandal, despite revelations that this type of behavior is hardly unique in the worlds of finance and corporate intelligence. The bank launched an internal probe into the matter, while Swiss prosecutors launched a criminal probe, BBG reports.

The incident became front-page news in Switzerland, though has mostly been confined to the business pages of the English-language press.

But despite CS’s lagging share price, several of the bank’s biggest shareholders have expressed support for Thiam and his leadership team, and have set about persuading the board to do the same.

The most vocal and public expression of support came late last week from David Herro, deputy chairman of influential Chicago-based Harris Associates, Credit Suisse’s biggest shareholder with an 8.1% stake. He said that the bank was justified in taking action to protect itself from possible poaching — as long as it was legal — and that it “would be damaging to CS and its stakeholders to lose any member of senior management over this issue.”

His comments were echoed by Ricky Sandler, Chief Executive Officer of Eminence Capital, which owns Credit Suisse shares. He pointed to Thiam’s restructuring efforts during recent years. “Losing the CEO or any other members of senior management because of this would be a very unfortunate outcome for shareholders and other stakeholders,” he said. “We hope that media reports are not overly influencing the Board of Directors.”

But at the end of the day, the fact that CS doesn’t have an obvious successor for Thiam picked out yet, was probably the deciding factor in saving Thiam’s job. Though some shareholders insisted that his ‘successful’ oversight of the bank’s restructuring also deserved credit.

CS’s internal probe has so far focused on the role of COO Pierre-Olivier Bouee, but it’s still unclear whether any executive at the board level will be punished.

The CS board is expected to meet Monday to ‘discuss the findings of the investigation’, which is being carried out by law firm Homburger. After they’re reviewed by the board, the firm is expected to make its findings public on Tuesday.

At this point, it appears Thiam will survive the worst scandal since he took over in March 2015.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 09/30/2019 – 17:25

Tags
Business Finance

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2nVmhF0 Tyler Durden

Trump, Not the Whistleblower, Has Acted Illegally

Partisans of this president are looking for every way to undermine and smear the Ukraine whistleblower. They have accused the person of being a Democratic hack. They have questioned the whistleblower’s motives and integrity. And they have speculated that he or she is part of a deep state conspiracy to take down President Donald Trump.

But Trump himself took the cake when he demanded to know the identity of the person while saying that whoever did so was “close to a spy.”

“You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now,” he said, hinting that the person deserved severe punishment—perhaps even execution.

But there is a vast difference between a domestic spy who sells out his country to another for personal gain and a whistleblower who tries to protect his country from corrupt officials abusing the powers granted to them.

If anything, Trump’s actions are more in line with a spy’s given that he is using his public office for private gain. As Frank Bowman, University of Missouri law professor and author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump, notes, in authoritarian states like Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it may be seen as normal for a leader to use state power to ensure his continuation in office. In this country, a president’s interest in getting re-elected is considered to be a private, rather than a public, interest. (Dislosure: Bowman is my tenant.)

That’s why, argues The Volokh Conspiracy’s Ilya Somin, to the extent that Trump threatened to withhold congressionally authorized aid to Ukraine until President Volodymyr Zelenskiy promised to dig up dirt on Trump’s political opponent, he basically demanded an in-kind political contribution, a kind of private benefit that 18 USC Section 601 explicitly outlaws. Soliciting foreign contributions for a political campaign is not illegal, per se. But what is potentially criminally illegal—along with being unconstitutional—is that Trump tried to use congressional aid as leverage to do so.

The whistleblower, by contrast, has scrupulously adhered to the law.

University of Texas’ Stephen Vladeck points out that the amended 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) laid out the channels and procedures that whistleblowers must follow in order to expose wrongdoings by higher-ups in intelligence agencies—both to protect classified information and themselves from retaliation. This means that the whistleblowers dealing with sensitive intelligence cannot leak the information to the press or the public. Rather, they must share their concerns with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) who, in turn, is required to transmit credible concerns to the director of national intelligence (DNI). The director then has seven days to transmit this information to congressional intelligence committees along with his (or her) own comments.

In this case, the whistleblower did exactly what he was supposed to do. Unlike Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame and Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor who exposed government surveillance of ordinary Americans, both of whom illegally (and heroically for anti-war, anti-surveillance libertarians!) copied classified information and released it publicly, the whistleblower, in this case, did none of those things. He stayed within official channels.

But the folks whom he reported his concerns to didn’t. Vladeck notes that for the first time in the 21-year history of the revised FISA statute, DNI Joseph Maguire did not forward the whistleblower’s complaints to Congress. Why? Because the Department of Justice told him not to, even though the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, a quasi-independent watchdog, deemed it worthy of congressional scrutiny.

Still, the president has the temerity to accuse the whistleblower (and those around him) of being spies who have committed treason while advocating that we deal with them like we used to do in the “old days” when we were apparently smarter. These are the kinds of threats that, if not unambiguously rejected, could prevent future whistleblowers from coming forward to expose executive abuse. They are more worthy of banana republics led by authoritarian rulers who have contempt for any law that holds them accountable.

Trump has gotten himself into big trouble. And he will seemingly stop at nothing to get himself out of it—even if that means personal attacks, threats, and trashing of the institutions and norms painstakingly erected over the course of the last 250 years.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2nWqFDA
via IFTTT

Trump Asked Australian PM To Investigate Origins Of Mueller Probe: New Whistleblower

Trump Asked Australian PM To Investigate Origins Of Mueller Probe: New Whistleblower

As we enter a new era of anonymous whistleblowers heading into the 2020 election, a new anti-Trump strategy telegraphed by former CIA Director, John Brennan, the New York Times is out with a report that President Trump asked the Australian Prime Minister to help Attorney General William Barr uncover the origins of “Russiagate,” according to yet another ‘whistleblower.’

A transcript of the call has been restricted to a small group of the president’s aides, according to the Times, which compared it to the “unusual decision” similar to how the Trump administration restricted access to the transcript of a July call with the President of Ukraine (which the last administration routinely did according to former national security adviser Susan Rice). 

According to the Times, Trump was “using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests.” 

President Trump initiated the discussion in recent weeks with Mr. Morrison explicitly for the purpose of requesting Australia’s help in the Justice Department review of the Russia investigation, according to the two people with knowledge of the discussion. Mr. Barr requested that Mr. Trump speak to Mr. Morrison, one of the people said. –NYT

Trump’s request effectively meant that Australia would be investigating itself over the participation of Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in an alleged spying – and potential setup – on the Trump campaign. 

Shortly after Trump aide George Papadopoulos announced his intention to work for the 2016 campaign, he was lured to London in March of 2016, where Maltese professor and self-described Clinton foundation member Joseph Mifsud fed him the rumor that Russia had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos would later relay this information to Downer, who passed it to the FBI, which in turn launched Operation Crossfire Hurricane – the FBI’s official investigation into the Trump campaign. 

The F.B.I.’s counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election began after Australian officials told the bureau that the Russian government had made overtures to the Trump campaign about releasing political damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Australian officials shared that information after its top official in Britain met in London in May 2016 with George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser who told the Australian about the Russian dirt on Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Papadopoulos also said that he had heard that the Russians had “thousands” of Mrs. Clinton’s emails from Joseph Mifsud, an academic. Mr. Mifsud, who was last seen working as a visiting professor in Rome, has disappeared. –NYT

Barr began a review of the Russia investigation earlier this year with the stated goal of determining whether the US intelligence community under Obama acted inappropriately – for example, when they sent Stefan Halper – a spy who had been paid over $1 million during Obama’s presidency – to infiltrate Trump campaign aides Papadopoulos and Carter Page. 

Last week the DOJ announced that it was exploring how other countries, including Ukraine, “played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign.” 

Whatever the findings, we’re sure the new ‘whistleblower strategy’ is sure to deflect from any actual wrongdoing which may have been committed by government officials. 


Tyler Durden

Mon, 09/30/2019 – 17:05

Tags
Politics

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2msE1ak Tyler Durden

Indianapolis’ Top Prosecutor Says He’ll Stop Charging Simple Marijuana Possession

Indianapolis’ top prosecutor announced Monday that his office will no longer file charges for possession of under an ounce of marijuana.

The policy change by Ryan Mears, Marion County’s temporary prosecutor, is the latest move by a big-city district attorney to rein in marijuana prosecutions. Mears also joins a growing list of prosecutors who are beginning to acknowledge the drug war’s costly drain on police and court resources.

The Indianapolis Star reports:

Mears announced Monday that his office will no longer prosecute certain marijuana possession offenses in Marion County. If a person possesses less than one ounce of marijuana, that person will not face formal charges from the prosecutor’s office, effective immediately. The policy is aimed at diverting resources to violent crimes, such as murder and sexual assault.

It’s a surprising, sweeping change. But Mears wouldn’t call it bold.

“I don’t think doing the right thing is a bold thing to do,” he told IndyStar. “I’ve been a prosecutor for 12 years, I have the experience of seeing what causes violent crime. And over the course of 12 years, I can tell you, small amounts of marijuana is not our problem.”

Top prosecutors in other major cities have issued similar policies. In Baltimore, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced in January that the city would no longer prosecute any cases of marijuana possession.

In Texas, recently elected Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, whose jurisdiction includes San Antonio, announced in May that his office will no longer prosecute possession of trace amounts of narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and that it would start a “cite and release” policy for marijuana possession of under an ounce. John Creuzot, Dallas County’s district attorney, announced in April that his office would not prosecute first-time marijuana offenses or trace amounts of drugs under .01 grams.

Last year, shortly after taking office, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner dropped all marijuana prosecutions and ordered his attorneys to decline drug paraphernalia prosecutions.

Of course, not all of these prosecutors’ colleagues in law enforcement are happy about these developments.

“It seems to me a curious strategy to put out a welcome mat for lawbreakers in a community already facing challenges related to crime, homelessness and other social problems stemming from drug abuse,” Curtis Hill, Indiana’s attorney general, said about Mears’ new policy in a statement to the Star.

Last year, Indianapolis police had a 43 percent clearance rate for murders.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2nTStbH
via IFTTT

Indianapolis’ Top Prosecutor Says He’ll Stop Charging Simple Marijuana Possession

Indianapolis’ top prosecutor announced Monday that his office will no longer file charges for possession of under an ounce of marijuana.

The policy change by Ryan Mears, Marion County’s temporary prosecutor, is the latest move by a big-city district attorney to rein in marijuana prosecutions. Mears also joins a growing list of prosecutors who are beginning to acknowledge the drug war’s costly drain on police and court resources.

The Indianapolis Star reports:

Mears announced Monday that his office will no longer prosecute certain marijuana possession offenses in Marion County. If a person possesses less than one ounce of marijuana, that person will not face formal charges from the prosecutor’s office, effective immediately. The policy is aimed at diverting resources to violent crimes, such as murder and sexual assault.

It’s a surprising, sweeping change. But Mears wouldn’t call it bold.

“I don’t think doing the right thing is a bold thing to do,” he told IndyStar. “I’ve been a prosecutor for 12 years, I have the experience of seeing what causes violent crime. And over the course of 12 years, I can tell you, small amounts of marijuana is not our problem.”

Top prosecutors in other major cities have issued similar policies. In Baltimore, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced in January that the city would no longer prosecute any cases of marijuana possession.

In Texas, recently elected Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, whose jurisdiction includes San Antonio, announced in May that his office will no longer prosecute possession of trace amounts of narcotics such as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and that it would start a “cite and release” policy for marijuana possession of under an ounce. John Creuzot, Dallas County’s district attorney, announced in April that his office would not prosecute first-time marijuana offenses or trace amounts of drugs under .01 grams.

Last year, shortly after taking office, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner dropped all marijuana prosecutions and ordered his attorneys to decline drug paraphernalia prosecutions.

Of course, not all of these prosecutors’ colleagues in law enforcement are happy about these developments.

“It seems to me a curious strategy to put out a welcome mat for lawbreakers in a community already facing challenges related to crime, homelessness and other social problems stemming from drug abuse,” Curtis Hill, Indiana’s attorney general, said about Mears’ new policy in a statement to the Star.

Last year, Indianapolis police had a 43 percent clearance rate for murders.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2nTStbH
via IFTTT

New Yorkers Prepare For Roller Coaster Ride Of Temperatures This Week 

New Yorkers Prepare For Roller Coaster Ride Of Temperatures This Week 

October is coming in red hot. New York City could reach record-setting temperatures on Wednesday before much cooler temperatures arrive later in the week, Refinitiv data showed.

From Tuesday through early Wednesday, weather models show that the average daily two month temperatures (Fahrenheit) in NYC could be anywhere from 6 to 12 degrees above normal.

The mercury is expected to reach 90 degrees by Wednesday, could tie a record last set in 1927. If 91 to 92 degrees is recorded in Central Park on Wednesday, it would be the 5th time in 150-years.

The heat is being driven by a high-pressure ridge across the eastern U.S., part of a see-saw effect that’s also seeing a winter storm and frigid cold race across the west, Bloomberg noted.

New York Metro Weather LLC details how “cold Canadian air” will rush into NYC on Thursday.

Cold air is expected to swoop in on Thursday, could keep high temperatures in the 63-70 degree range through mid-month.

Tim Morrin, a meterologist with US National Weather Service in Upton, New York, told Bloomberg that New Yorkers could feel temperatures drop as much as 20 degrees on Thursday.

“It will be a real roller coaster as we go through the week,” Morrin said.

Here’s a closer look at NYC temperatures for the week:

Monday
Mostly cloudy, with a high near 67. East wind 8 to 14 mph.

Monday Night
Mostly cloudy, with a low around 61. Southeast wind 6 to 9 mph.

Tuesday
Mostly cloudy, with a high near 75. Southwest wind 5 to 11 mph.

Tuesday Night
A chance of showers between 9 pm and 3 am. Partly cloudy, with a low around 67. Southwest wind 11 to 13 mph. Chance of precipitation is 30%

.Wednesday
A slight chance of showers between 1 pm and 3 pm, then a chance of showers and thunderstorms after 3 pm. Mostly sunny, with a high near 89. Southwest wind around 11 mph becoming northwest in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation is 30%.

Wednesday Night
A 40 percent chance of showers. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 61.

Thursday
Rain likely, mainly before 1 pm. Mostly cloudy, with a high near 67. Chance of precipitation is 60%.

Thursday Night
A 50 percent chance of rain before 5 am. Mostly cloudy, with a low around 56.

Friday
Mostly sunny, with a high near 67. Breezy.

Friday Night
Mostly clear, with a low around 48. Breezy.

New Yorkers might have to switch their thermostats onto heat later this week and through the weekend. This is shown in the heating degree day (HDD) chart for the Northeast below:

As for the rest of the contiguous US, HDD will be above the trend line later this week, indicating that millions more will be heating their homes across the country.

A 45-day HDD Northeast chart shows that millions of people in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, will likely switch their thermostats onto heat through month-end.

HDD that is above trend, or at least just a spike, could indicate that natgas demand is about to surge.

While the storage outlook for the natural gas market is still very bearish, the possibility of a natgas demand surge, due to colder weather, could prop up future contracts of Henry Hub Natural Gas in the 2.30 range, or 61.8%-Fib. If 2.30 fails as support, a re-test of 2.067, or August low would likely be imminent.

* * * 

Maybe a fitting weather song for New Yorkers this week…


Tyler Durden

Mon, 09/30/2019 – 16:46

Tags
Weather

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2nfZ2FB Tyler Durden

Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Wealth Tax’ Is Punishment, Not Taxation

With four well-chosen words, Vice President Biden summed up the most important ideological dividing line in the Democratic presidential primary.

The comment came at the third of three fundraisers Biden held on Thursday, September 26, in Los Angeles County. Usually Biden sticks pretty tightly to his stump speech, and usually he keeps his schedule a bit lighter than three public events in a day. So perhaps it was the candor that comes with fatigue. Perhaps it was the intimacy that came with the unusually small event— a crowd of about 50. Or maybe Biden was hoping, even subconsciously, that someone would notice and get the message.

Biden joked with the well-dressed and apparently affluent crowd that they shouldn’t expect a tax cut from him. Then, according to the pool report from Matt Pearce of the Los Angeles Times says, came the four words that tell a long story: “But! No punishment, either.”

The clear, if implicit, contrast was with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.). Warren and Sanders each have proposed a “wealth tax” that is accompanied by a punitive exit tax on anyone leaving the country to escape the wealth tax.

Democrats have been toying with these exit tax proposals for some time. The rates they float keep climbing. An expatriation tax already applies on those renouncing U.S. citizenship—they have to pay capital gains tax on the accumulated gains on their assets, reflecting a “deemed sale” at a mark-to-market price even on assets that have not been sold.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D–N.Y.) proposed an exit tax at a 30 percent rate in 2012. Hillary Clinton, as a presidential candidate in 2015, proposed an exit tax that would have hit corporations at the 35 percent corporate income tax rate that then applied. And, here in 2019, Warren and Sanders have both proposed exit taxes at the confiscatory rate of 40 percent, with the Sanders plan climbing to 60 percent on assets above $1 billion for individuals seeking to avoid his annual wealth taxes of up to 8 percent.

Biden is correct that threatening to seize 60 percent or 40 percent of the property of a member of an unpopular minority group who wants to leave a country is functionally not taxation, but punishment. The number of people subject to such a tax is small enough that it could be subject to the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition, in Article I, against a bill of attainder.

Whether the exit or wealth tax is, by definition, a tax or a punishment turns out to be one of the fundamental issues in whether it is constitutional. An opinion by Chief Justice Warren, discussing the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder clause in the 1965 Supreme Court case United States v. Brown, cited Alexander Hamilton: “If the legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partisans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense.”

The clause, Justice Warren wrote, “was not to be given a narrow historical reading (which would exclude bills of pains and penalties), but was instead to be read in light of the evil the Framers had sought to bar: legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or group.”

Justice Warren quoted an earlier decision, United States v. Lovett: “Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution.”

Justice Warren noted “It was not uncommon for English acts of attainder to inflict their deprivations upon relatively large groups of people, sometimes by description, rather than name.” In this case the description would be “billionaires.”

What an ironical historical twist it would be if a policy of President Elizabeth Warren ended up struck down on the basis of a precedent by Chief Justice Earl Warren—and on the basis of an accurate description by Vice President Biden that the proposed tax amounts to a “punishment.”

Beyond the legal questions, interesting though they are, are moral and prudential ones. Does economic success—which usually, if not always, involves hard work, risk-taking, and creating a product or service that many people find valuable enough to voluntarily pay for—deserve to be punished? The Democratic Party will have to answer in the coming primaries. Biden is on the correct side of it. His challenge will be to articulate a case that goes beyond his four words in Los Angeles, which were a fine start.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2mnYUDr
via IFTTT

Who’s Right on Impeachment: Rand Paul, Justin Amash, or Jeff Flake?

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) says it’s a “fake witch hunt” (“BASTA!“). Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) is in the same “impeachable conduct” camp he’s been in since May; adding such recent commentary as “Nearly every Trump ally’s defense has been an effort to gaslight America.” And now-retired Rep. Jeff Flake (R–Ariz.), from the much-hated temperamental center, has in this morning’s Washington Post charted out a third way between those two poles, arguing that “the president’s actions warrant impeachment,” but that Flake still has “grave reservations” about launching those proceedings, so instead wants elected Republicans to not endorse the president’s re-election because Trump is “manifestly undeserving of the highest office that we have.”

So which of these libertarian-leaning legislators, current and former, has the better argument? That’s the subject of this week’s editors’ roundtable edition of Reason Podcast, featuring Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman and Matt Welch. Is it possible or meaningful to separate out impeachment proceedings from articles of impeachment from a Senate conviction thereof? Are there important differences between Trump’s conduct and that of previous administrations? What is the role/position/rooting interest for those outside of the two corners? We talk through all of this and more, while fighting a losing battle against profanity, invoking Inception, and explaining how all art is basically a primer on management.

Audio production by Ian Keyser and Regan Taylor.

‘Rocking Forward’ by XTaKeRuX is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Relevant links from the show:

“Trump’s Civil War Tweet Is Bad. This Other Tweet May Be Unconstitutional.” By Elizabeth Nolan Brown

“Whether Trump Stays or Goes, We Need To Rein in Presidents and Congress,” by Nick Gillespie

“Did Trump Commit a Crime by Seeking a Ukrainian Investigation of Joe Biden? And Does It Matter for Impeachment Purposes?” By Jacob Sullum

“Evidence Increasingly Indicates Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Tactics Usurped Congress’ Power of the Purse—and that he may have Committed a Federal Crime in the Process,” by Ilya Somin

“Did the President Commit Witness Tampering?” By David Post

“Is Impeachment a ‘Constitutional Duty’?” By Keith Whittington

“Trump’s Ukraine Call Was an Abuse of Power—and This Time, He Can’t Claim Ignorance or Inexperience,” by Peter Suderman

“John Yoo Warns That Impeachment Would Undermine Presidential Power. That’s the Point.” By Jacob Sullum

“Whistleblower Report Alleges Trump Used Presidential Power for Personal Gain,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

“Congress Should Not Be Satisfied With Ukraine Call Transcript, Given the Trump White House’s History of Fiddling With Records,” by Eric Boehm

“Nancy Pelosi Announces Trump Impeachment Inquiry Over Ukraine Scandal,” by Billy Binion

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2mkd8VQ
via IFTTT