In Retaliatory Move, US To Limit Staff At China’s State-Owned Media “Propaganda” Companies

In Retaliatory Move, US To Limit Staff At China’s State-Owned Media “Propaganda” Companies

The US plans to cap the number of personnel who can work at Chinese government-backed “propaganda” news outlets in the US, reported The Wall Street Journal, citing a senior Trump administration official on Monday afternoon.

The move comes after China expelled nine foreign reporters since 2013, and three last month over their reporting of the virus outbreak.

The senior official said caps on Chinese media outlets operating in the US could be reduced to 100, from 160. The four news outlets the US government will limit are Xinhua News Agency, China Radio International, China Global Television Network and China Daily — they must comply with the new limits by March 13. 

Chinese state media outlets have freely operated in the US for years, and it now appears the Trump administration wants to restrict their reporting. 

Trump officials are declaring the media outlets are not practitioners of journalism, but rather operatives of the Chinese communist government. 

A State Department official said foreign journalists in China are working in harsh conditions where “freedom of the press is under a severe siege.” He described the Chinese news organizations that the Trump administration is expected to target with new limits as the “propaganda apparatus” of the Chinese government.  

“China has long masked intelligence operations with journalistic credentials,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said. “The danger is China could reciprocate against our journalists.”

The decoupling between China and the US continues… 

 

 


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/02/2020 – 13:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PVAQ6H Tyler Durden

The Fruitless Narco Wars

Bogota, Colombia—Colombia is about to dust off a controversial weapon from the bloodiest period of the nation’s decades-long battle against cocaine production. The aerial fumigation program was halted in 2014 after the World Health Organization said the main herbicide used in fumigation, glyphosate, probably causes cancer in humans. Experts also pointed to the program’s decreasing effectiveness.

Colombia is currently confronting a massive spike in cocaine production. In 2019, police and army units destroyed a record amount of coca fields—the raw ingredient used to make cocaine—using dangerous manual search and eradicate methods.

Yet during this same period, Colombia produced more cocaine than at any other time in its troubled history, according to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC). The United States has attributed this recent rise to the halting of Colombia’s aerial fumigation program in 2014.

Local counter-narcotics experts, human rights groups, environmental experts, and the UNODC, by contrast, have criticized aerial fumigation as ineffective, as a health and environmental hazard, and as a waste of money.

WOLA, an advocacy group for human rights in Latin America, has presented evidence suggesting that aerial fumigation actually worsens the social damage caused by coca cultivation.

The Colombian Ministry of Justice announced the decision to resume aerial fumigation in December as part of an approach to “utilize every tool at the disposal of the National government to combat narco-trafficking.”

The decision comes on the heels of threats last year by President Donald Trump to revoke aid to the South American nation over U.S. frustration with spiraling cocaine production. Colombia has “done nothing for us,” as Trump put it. He even threatened to de-certify Colombia as a partner in the drug war, a decision that would leave America’s closest ally in South America in the same category as Venezuela.

A U.S. Embassy Bogota spokesperson told Reason, “An integrated coca eradication program that uses all tools, including manual eradication, crop substitution, alternative development, and aerial eradication, offers the best chance to reduce the high cocaine production that threatens the people of both countries.

In 1998, Colombia produced 90 percent of the world’s cocaine, or just over 600 metric tons. In 2017, Colombia produced more than double that amount: 1,379 metric tons, according to UNODC, and the figure continues to rise.

Global cocaine sales have grown since the late 1990s (after tapering off in the early 2000s) and currently account for more than $150 billion annually, according to the Organization of American States (OAS). Those gains, which dwarf the profits of any legal corporation in the world, fund armed groups, destabilize governments, and empower criminals across all of Latin America. During that same period, domestic consumption of cocaine in Colombia has quadrupled.

Civil War, Narco-Wars, and Plan Colombia

Colombia first began fumigation in 1994 at the insistence of the United States. Colombian drug cartels had recently begun domestically cultivating coca, which they had previously imported from Peru and Bolivia, and Colombian production was skyrocketing. The U.S. decision would prove to be a fateful one. It inspired a period of heavy U.S investment and military involvement as part of an anti-drug initiative called “Plan Colombia.”

Plan Colombia would balloon over the next decade to involve direct military support and training for a Colombian government that found itself besieged not only by the after-effects of the narco-wars of the late 1980s and early 1990s, but by an ongoing civil war as well. As the issues became increasingly intertwined, the United States would find itself increasingly mired in the bloody conflict.

The U.S. transferred $10 billion in bilateral foreign assistance to the Colombian government between 2000 and 2016 to fund Plan Colombia, according to Jorge Mantilla, criminology researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The U.S. also provided helicopters, planes, training, and intelligence.

After the death of Pablo Escobar, the fall of the Medellin cartel, and the subsequent collapse of the Cali cartel in the late 1990s, the cocaine industry became increasingly fractured, and the main armed actors in Colombia’s ongoing civil war, right-wing paramilitary “self-defense forces” and left-wing rebel group the FARC, became major players..

According to Luis Moreno, a former U.S. narcotics affairs section director and coordinator for Plan Colombia, “The FARC were strangling [Colombia]. Our goals were threefold; deprive the rebels of their funding, drive up the price of cocaine in the U.S. while reducing its purity, and make it less available in the United States.”

Data from the early 2000s seems to suggest that the coordinated efforts were initially successful, and led to a temporary plateau in Colombian cocaine production. Today, the U.S. government calls the program a success and claims that Plan Colombia set the stage for Colombia’s historic 2016 Peace Accord as a weakened FARC agreed to lay down arms and join the government. Critics offer a less rosy view.

‘A Horrible Human Price’

“Fumigation dispersed coca crops across all of Colombia,” says Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Andes director for human rights group WOLA. “As fields were destroyed, armed groups simply pushed into new territories and planted smaller farms among food crops, displacing vulnerable communities or forcing them into their employ.”

Critics call this phenomenon, which displaced millions of Colombians and led to the spread of armed groups across the country, the “Balloon Effect.”

“The rate of re-plantation from forced eradication is [around] 60 percent, meaning that regarding coca production the impact of Plan Colombia couldn’t be called a full success,” says University of Illinois at Chicago criminology researcher Jorge Mantilla.

“The Colombian government cites the hectares of coca fields that have been destroyed, but the narcos simply pushed into new areas, and the price of cocaine has not been impacted,” observes Sanchez.

She believes that while it is arguable that Plan Colombia helped foster an environment for the peace accord, “the efforts came at a horrible human price.” Farmers often planted coca alongside sustenance crops, she points out, and fumigation destroyed indiscriminately, directly harming the food security of vulnerable communities who often had no choice for survival but growing coca. A critical lack of infrastructure made transporting legal crops to market next to impossible, and farmers viewed the aerial attack on coca as an attack on their communities.

Thousands of civilians were also killed during the anti-narcotics program, often at the hands of government forces. Over 3,000 farmers were slaughtered by Colombian soldiers during the conflict and later dressed up as rebels, a ploy to inflate casualty numbers.

Moreno, who headed up U.S. efforts in Colombia between 1997 and 2001, says that “we made extreme efforts to be responsible, we never followed when rebel groups fled to areas [such as] National Parkland and the protected areas of the Amazon jungle. Critics don’t realize how dangerous this work was and how careful we were.”

“Aerial fumigation by itself is neither efficient nor cost-effective,” counters Sanchez. She believes a resumption of the program will endanger an already precarious peace.

“The people took a great risk and made heroic efforts to implement this peace,” Sanchez points out, “and now they risk having their crops burned down by a government that hasn’t lived up to its promises to invest in their communities.”

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

What Happened To Gold’s Safe-Haven Bid?

What Happened To Gold’s Safe-Haven Bid?

Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

The US stock market continued its freefall last Friday. The Dow lost another 357 points to finish off the worst week since 2008. One would expect a save-haven like gold to thrive in the midst of the massive stock selloff, but it had a bad day on Friday as well crashing through the $1,600 mark and plummeting as low as $1,568.

Gold rebounded Monday and was trading back above $1,600, but how do we make sense of its precipitous plunge? Has gold failed as a safe-haven?

The short answer is no.

The safe-haven bid is there, as evidenced by the rebound on Monday. But as with everything in the economy, there are multiple dynamics driving the gold market.

In the first place, some analysts believe the coronavirus scare is causing a bit of a tug-o-war on gold. On the one hand, we have the expected safe-haven buying. But fear of a sharp economic downturn also raises concern that consumer demand for gold could drop, particularly in big jewelry markets such as India and China. Worry that a longterm economic slowdown could hit consumers in these countries particularly hard could be putting some downward demand pressure on gold. China and India rank as the first and second biggest gold consuming countries in the world and account for about 1,000 tons per year.

But there is a more fundamental reason we saw a big gold sell-off as stock markets crashed, and it is not a good sign for the overall state of the market.

In a nutshell – panic.

Traders and investors were scrambling to liquidate assets to raise capital for margin calls. In other words, they were selling gold to keep afloat. As one analyst told MarketWatch, “Investors are selling anything with a bid and running for cover, and that includes typical hedges like gold.”

We’ve seen this same thing happen before – in the early stages of the 2008 crash. As the MarketWatch article pointed out, there was a rash of gold-selling as the stock market began to tank in ’08.

Once investors understood and appreciated the scope of central bank stimulus coming down the pike, they began buying gold.”

From there, the price of the yellow metal more than doubled.

In a note to clients, RBC Capital Markets reiterated that investors were “cashing out to cover losses and meet margin calls in other markets.”

 We do not view this as a loss in faith in gold’s role as a ‘perceived safe haven’ or a fundamental shift in the attitude toward gold.”

More central bank easing is almost certainly in the cards. CME Group’s FedWatch translates Fed funds futures pricing into traders’ monetary policy expectations. As of Friday morning, it was pricing in a 72% chance of a quarter-point rate cut at the Fed’s March meeting, and better than even odds of two more such rate cuts by the end of July.  And futures are beginning to point to an even bigger 50 basis-point cut in March.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell up expectations with an unusual move Friday, releasing a note saying the central bank will “act as appropriate” to support the economy, raising expectations we could see another cut as early as the March meeting. The Bank of Japan also issued a statement saying it will “strive to provide ample liquidity.”

As Peter Schiff said during an interview on Fox Business last week, gold is in the most “unloved bull market ever.”

We’ve been climbing this wall of worry, so I think too many people look to take profits. They really have no idea how high the price of gold is going to go. And it’s not the coronavirus that’s driving it. It’s Fed monetary policy. And especially the additional easing that I think the markets are correctly starting to price in that is going to result from the coronavirus.”

As the stock market really started selling off, it wasn’t just profit-taking. It was a panic rush to liquidate gold and raise cash. But the rebound Monday indicates the safe-haven bid is not dead. MineLife Pty senior resource analyst Gavin Wendt  told Bloomberg gold’s fundamentals “remain overwhelmingly strong.”

Any near-term price corrections aren’t significant in terms of the bigger picture. Bullion’s retreat last week was nowhere as bad as the 10%-plus drubbing equity markets took, so it can be argued gold has passed its safe-haven challenge.”


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/02/2020 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32MWEXk Tyler Durden

“I Have To Plead For Tests” – NYC ER Doc Warns “There’s Going To Be 1000s Of US Cases By Next Week”

“I Have To Plead For Tests” – NYC ER Doc Warns “There’s Going To Be 1000s Of US Cases By Next Week”

Dr. Matt McCarthy, an infectious disease physician at an NYC Emergency Room, and author of the best-selling book “Superbugs”, unleashed a storm of man-on-the-ground doom-speak about the Covid-19 virus spread across the US this morning on CNBC.

“Before I came here this morning, I was in the emergency room seeing patients,” he said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

“I still do not have a rapid diagnostic test available to me.”

Alongside, former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb, McCarthy pointed to problems identified with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) diagnostic tests for the virus. The CDC sent test kits earlier in the outbreak to public health labs around the country, but those kits were problematic and potentially inaccurate, CDC officials have since said.

McCarthy, a staff physician at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, says he still does not have access to test kits.

“I’m here to tell you, right now, at one of the busiest hospitals in the country, I don’t have it at my finger tips,” he said.

I still have to make my case, plead to test people. This is not good. We know that there are 88 cases in the United States. There are going to be hundreds by middle of week. There’s going to be thousands by next week. And this is a testing issue.”

In contrast to McCarthy’s “in the field” analysis, TV Doctor Drew Pinsky claims it’s “overblown press created hysteria.”

As Summit News’ Steve Watson notes, David Drew Pinsky, otherwise known as ‘Dr Drew’, has slammed the media for over-hyping the coronavirus, leading people the world over to panic buy provisions and medical supplies.

Speaking with Daily Blast Live, Dr Drew said

“Let me frame it this way: we have in the United States 24 million cases of flu-like illness, 180,000 hospitalizations, 16,000 dead from influenza,”

“Why is that not being reported? Why isn’t the message: get your flu shot?” he added.

In a previous appearance on the show, Dr Drew urged that “We are not overreacting; the press is overreacting, and it makes me furious.”

“The press should not be reporting medical stories as though they know how to report it,” he continued.

So, who do you believe, the TV doctor or the NYC ER doctor who wrote the book on epidemics.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/02/2020 – 12:40

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

Chicago Police Shooting Captured on Video Leads to Outrage, Dropped Charges

Two Chicago cops tackled and then shot a man under very suspicious circumstances. Fortunately, the incident was captured on video, leading to public outrage, an investigation, and dropped charges.

The video, recorded on Friday at the Grand Avenue Red Line Station, shows the tackled man struggling and refusing to let the officers arrest him. (Nothing in the video shows him trying to hurt the officers—just to get away from them.) After they failed to get him under control, a loud gunshot rings out.

The witness posted the video on Twitter:

The video prompted outrage. Once the context became more clear, it looked even worse for the two officers. The man, later identified as Ariel Roman, was being arrested because he violated a city ordinance against moving between two train cars.

That’s it. The two officers, assigned to Chicago’s mass transit unit, chased him and tackled him on the train platform. The shots were fired not as Roman was attempting to attack the officers but as he was getting away. He was shot twice, once in the abdomen, and once in the buttocks, according to his lawyer. He was in critical condition but is now recuperating.

Roman was charged with resisting arrest and narcotics possession. But once the video got out, Interim Police Superintendent Charlie Beck asked prosecutors to drop the case. On Sunday, prosecutors agreed. The two officers are on administrative duty, and the FBI has gotten involved in investigating the incident.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has called the video footage “extremely disturbing,” but USA Today notes that the shooting took place just hours after Lightfoot, the Chicago Police, and the Chicago Transit Authority announced plans to tackle crimes on public transit. Maybe they should have been a bit more specific about which crimes.

This encounter is exactly what troubles people when police announce enforcement actions on mass transit. We’d like to assume that police are tackling muggers and other people with violent or larcenous intentions. And perhaps the two cops suspected that Roman was bouncing from car to car because he was planning something bad. But they had no evidence Roman had actually done anything to victimize anybody else.

It’s a familiar pattern. Politicians use fears of serious crimes to push through ordinances that criminalize all sorts of non-threatening behavior, and those are then used to justify police interventions. Whether or not serious crimes get prevented, we get a crackdown on petty offenses. Many people get harassed. And in this case, one gets shot.

Chicago Lodge 7 of the Fraternal Order of the Police has predictably slammed city leaders for being horrified by the shooting. Union president Kevin Graham asked on Facebook: “Why has the superintendent and the mayor not commented on the fact that not one individual assisted these officers during the struggle to place the offender clearly engaged in felony resisting into custody, an offender who once again failed to comply with police orders?”

Because they were afraid they’d get shot?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2x3MhT7
via IFTTT

Chicago Police Shooting Captured on Video Leads to Outrage, Dropped Charges

Two Chicago cops tackled and then shot a man under very suspicious circumstances. Fortunately, the incident was captured on video, leading to public outrage, an investigation, and dropped charges.

The video, recorded on Friday at the Grand Avenue Red Line Station, shows the tackled man struggling and refusing to let the officers arrest him. (Nothing in the video shows him trying to hurt the officers—just to get away from them.) After they failed to get him under control, a loud gunshot rings out.

The witness posted the video on Twitter:

The video prompted outrage. Once the context became more clear, it looked even worse for the two officers. The man, later identified as Ariel Roman, was being arrested because he violated a city ordinance against moving between two train cars.

That’s it. The two officers, assigned to Chicago’s mass transit unit, chased him and tackled him on the train platform. The shots were fired not as Roman was attempting to attack the officers but as he was getting away. He was shot twice, once in the abdomen, and once in the buttocks, according to his lawyer. He was in critical condition but is now recuperating.

Roman was charged with resisting arrest and narcotics possession. But once the video got out, Interim Police Superintendent Charlie Beck asked prosecutors to drop the case. On Sunday, prosecutors agreed. The two officers are on administrative duty, and the FBI has gotten involved in investigating the incident.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has called the video footage “extremely disturbing,” but USA Today notes that the shooting took place just hours after Lightfoot, the Chicago Police, and the Chicago Transit Authority announced plans to tackle crimes on public transit. Maybe they should have been a bit more specific about which crimes.

This encounter is exactly what troubles people when police announce enforcement actions on mass transit. We’d like to assume that police are tackling muggers and other people with violent or larcenous intentions. And perhaps the two cops suspected that Roman was bouncing from car to car because he was planning something bad. But they had no evidence Roman had actually done anything to victimize anybody else.

It’s a familiar pattern. Politicians use fears of serious crimes to push through ordinances that criminalize all sorts of non-threatening behavior, and those are then used to justify police interventions. Whether or not serious crimes get prevented, we get a crackdown on petty offenses. Many people get harassed. And in this case, one gets shot.

Chicago Lodge 7 of the Fraternal Order of the Police has predictably slammed city leaders for being horrified by the shooting. Union president Kevin Graham asked on Facebook: “Why has the superintendent and the mayor not commented on the fact that not one individual assisted these officers during the struggle to place the offender clearly engaged in felony resisting into custody, an offender who once again failed to comply with police orders?”

Because they were afraid they’d get shot?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2x3MhT7
via IFTTT

Buffett Lost $90 Billion By Not Following His Own Advice

Buffett Lost $90 Billion By Not Following His Own Advice

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Every year, investors anxiously await the release of Warren Buffett’s annual letter to see what the “Oracle of Omaha” has to say about the markets, economy, and where he is placing his money.

Before we blindly heed Buffett’s advice we must factor in that he has long been a source of contradiction. As Michael Lebowitz previously penned:

The general platitudes of market and economic optimism Buffett shares in his CNBC interviews, letters to investors and shareholder meetings often run counter to the actions he has taken in his investment approach.

This year was no different as Buffett wrote in his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders:

“If something close to current rates should prevail over the coming decades and if corporate tax rates also remain near the low level businesses now enjoy, it is almost certain that equities will over time perform far better than long-term, fixed-rate debt instruments. These elements, coupled with the ‘American Tailwind,’ will make ‘equities the much better long-term choice for the individual who does not use borrowed money and who can control his or her emotions.”

To clarify, Buffett is suggesting that over the coming decades, it will be better to be invested in equities (aka S&P 500 Index) versus Treasury bonds, given that the yield on bonds is so low.

That point doesn’t quite square with facts. Buffett is now holding his largest amount of cash in the history of the firm.

As the old saying goes: “Follow the money.” 

If he thinks stocks will outperform bonds why is holding $128 billion in short term bonds?

There is an important distinction to be made if you choose to follow Mr. Buffett’s advice. It is true that stocks will outperform bonds over the long-term given the right starting valuations and a long enough time frame. Currently, using Warren Buffett’s favorite measure of valuations (Market Capitalization to GDP), there is a substantial risk of low returns from stocks over the next decade.

While valuations DO NOT predict market crashes, they are very predictive of future returns on investments from current levels.

Period.

I previously quoted Cliff Asness on this issue in particular:

“Ten-year forward average returns fall nearly monotonically as starting Shiller P/E’s increase. Also, as starting Shiller P/E’s go up, worst cases get worse and best cases get weaker.

If today’s Shiller P/E is 30x, and your long-term plan calls for a 10% nominal return on the stock market, you are assuming a best case scenario to play out in a market that is drastically above the average case from these valuations. We can prove that by looking at forward 10-year total returns versus various levels of PE ratios historically.

Importantly, this is likely the reason that Buffett is sitting on $128 billion in historically low yielding bonds. The graph below provides further evidence using his favorite valuation indicator, market cap to GDP.

Not surprisingly, like every other measure of valuation, forward return expectations are substantially lower over the next 10-years as opposed to the past 10-years.

“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” – Warren Buffett

Do What I Say, Not What I Do

So the question is this:

“If Warren is suggesting you should just invest in the index and hold on, why is he sitting on so much cash?”

The immediate observation is that he is just waiting on a “good deal” to come along. He has been vocal about looking for a new acquisition. However, he hasn’t done so. Why, “valuations”  are sky high.

Unfortunately, “good deals” based on valuations, and market crashes, have typically been highly correlated throughout history. As he said in his letter:

“Anything can happen to stock prices tomorrow. Occasionally, there will be major drops in the market, perhaps of 50% magnitude or even greater.”

Interestingly, while Buffett has been telling everyone else to buy a stock index, and avoid bonds, he has been doing exactly the opposite by “buying bonds.”

Make no mistake, Buffett is indeed a great investor, and has made a tremendous amount of money for his shareholders over the years. One of the reasons for this is that at times of market excesses he has preferred holding cash.At the time he is leaving money on the table, but that cash can be deployed when markets are panicking and value appears. Remember, Buffett had cash on hand in 2008 to lend to Goldman Sachs at 10%.

The downside to holding cash is that performance of Berkshire Hathaway is no longer outperforming the S&P in recent years. This is due to the shear “size” of the company as Buffett no longer has the luxury of making small value-based acquisitions of a few hundred million in value. Such acquisitions don’t “move the needle” in terms of returns for shareholders. Berkshire has grown to the point it has essentially become an index itself.

The chart below shows Buffett’s annual cash holdings versus the S&P 500 ($SPY) over the last several years.

So, what would have happened if Buffett had taken his own advice and invested his cash into the S&P 500 index rather than bonds. The index is highly liquid, so he could have sold the index at any time he needed cash for an acquisition, and the shares could have been lent out for an additional return on his investment.

However, the chart below shows the difference in market cap of the Berkshire Hathaway currently, with the cash invested in the S&P 500 index, as compared to the returns of the S&P 500 index. Not surprisingly, returns to shareholders improved over the last decade.

While it may not look like much on a percentage basis, the cumulative return lost to Berkshire Shareholders over the last decade was roughly $90 Billion dollars.

Or rather, a $1000 investment in 2010 would have grown to nearly $4000 versus just $3500.

Summary

As Michael Lebowitz previously wrote:

“Warren Buffett is without question the modern day icon of American investors. He has become a living legend, and the respect he receives is warranted. He has certainly been a remarkable steward of wealth for himself and his clients.

Where we are challenged with regard to his approach, is the way in which he shirks his responsibilities as a leader. To our knowledge, he is not being overtly dishonest but he certainly has a way of rationalizing what appears to be obvious contradictions. Because of his global following and the weight given to each word he utters, the fact that his actions often do not match the spirit of his words is troubling.”

Warren Buffett did not amass his fortune by following the herd but by leading it.

He is sitting on a $128 Billion in cash for a reason. Buffett is fully aware of the gains he has forgone, yet still continues his ways. Buffet is not dumb!

Before taking his advice to buy an index and hold on, you may want to consider more carefully why he is telling you to “do as I say, not as I do.” 


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/02/2020 – 12:21

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ts3s8m Tyler Durden

Stocks Extend Gains After IMF, World Bank Pledges To “Stand Ready To Help”

Stocks Extend Gains After IMF, World Bank Pledges To “Stand Ready To Help”

US equity markets are pushing higher (Dow up over 750 points from Friday and up 1300 points from the overnight lows) after the International Monetary Fund and World Bank pledged to use “available instruments to the fullest extent possible, including emergency financing, policy advice, and technical assistance” to aid member countries as they respond to the coronavirus.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva and World Bank President David Malpass said in a joint statement Monday:

“We are engaged actively with international institutions and country authorities, with special attention to poor countries where health systems are the weakest and people are most vulnerable,” the two global institutions said.

“We will use our available instruments to the fullest extent possible, including emergency financing, policy advice, and technical assistance….

Of course, this momo-driven panic-buying is modest in context of the decline, but still…

Notably, Nasdaq and S&P are about to test critical technical thresholds – Nasdaq 100DMA and S&P 200DMA…

Bonds, however, ain’t buying the bounce…

Additionally, the Washington-based institutions said strengthening country health surveillance and response systems “is crucial to contain the spread of this and any future outbreaks.”

So more ‘pandemic bonds’?


Tyler Durden

Mon, 03/02/2020 – 12:06

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38gETjW Tyler Durden

“Once the Cat Is Out of the Bag, the Ball Game Is Over”

In January, I blogged about an interesting Colorado case, in which the defendants moved to retroactively seal some previously filed court documents. I opposed the motion, and the movant narrowed it, but added this request:

Finally, to ensure that the Restriction is implemented, and in the face of Professor Volokh’s expressed desire to publish documents from this case, which publication would seriously harm Bonsai’s business interests, Bonsai requests that this Court’s order specify that no publication of these documents (or redacted portions of documents) be published, regardless of whether these documents were previously available on the court’s website or otherwise.

That, I argued to the court, would violate my free speech and free press rights, and not just my right of access to court records. Once someone has downloaded publicly accessible documents, that person has a right to quote them and write about them, and that right cannot be taken away by retroactively sealing the documents. The sealing order could bar future access to the documents in the court file, and might also constrain the parties to the case. But it can’t bar continued speech about those documents by outsiders who had lawfully accessed them. (Cf. Florida Star v. B.J.F.)

The motion was resolved a few days later (following an excellent telephonic oral argument by my student Jennifer Wilson), but I got distracted and neglected to blog an update; so here it is.

[1.] Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty didn’t reach the gag order question, because he denied the motion to seal, thus rendering the gag order request moot.

[2.] And he denied the motion to seal chiefly relying on his opinion four years before in Gunn v. WCA Logistics, LLC, No. 13-cv-02197-WJM-MEH, 2016 WL 7868827, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2016). He didn’t issue a detailed written order, but this passage from Gunn summarizes the matter well:

The documents at issue in Defendants’ motion were not filed under [seal]…. Only [some weeks later] did Defendants seek to [seal] the documents. Because Defendants failed to avail themselves of the protections provided by the District’s local rules in filing [the documents], any claim to confidentiality has been waived. The cat has already been let out of the bag. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Once the cat is out of the bag, the ball game is over.”) …. After-the-fact sealing should not generally be permitted. See id. at 144 (“… We simply do not have the power, even were we of the mind to use it if we had, to make what has thus become public private again.”).

To be sure, mistakes happen, and in my experience attempts to seal filed just a day or two after an erroneous open-court filing are sometimes granted. But once you wait weeks, and especially once others see the cat and decide to post a cat video of it on the Internet, the feathers don’t go back into the pillow. Courts actually give lawyers considerable latitude to fix procedural errors, especially if the lawyers ask nicely and contritely enough. But some errors are hard or impossible to fix; missed jurisdictional deadlines are a classic example, and so are erroneous filings in open court (again, especially if the request comes after weeks or months rather than days).

[3.] Attempts to unseal can work even years after the sealing, see, e.g., EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 146 F.3d 1042, 1047 (2d Cir. 1998); Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1354 (9th Cir. 2013); United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990). But some court rules strongly prefer prompt objections to motions to seal—the District of Colorado seeks objections basically within four business days of the motion, which is posted on the District’s web site. As a result, I had to move to oppose sealing right away, if I wanted to easily write about the case in the future; otherwise, moving to unseal later would be dicier and at least more time-consuming. I hope to write more about the case, which involves interesting issues of tort law, waivers of liability for recreational activities, and zip-line accidents, as more develops.

But in the meantime, here’s one of the documents that the court ruled couldn’t be sealed; it was filed as an attachment to the Complaint. (Of course, though it is potentially relevant to the case, it is by no means dispositive of whether the company is liable, and for all I know they may be entirely not at fault.)

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

“Once the Cat Is Out of the Bag, the Ball Game Is Over”

In January, I blogged about an interesting Colorado case, in which the defendants moved to retroactively seal some previously filed court documents. I opposed the motion, and the movant narrowed it, but added this request:

Finally, to ensure that the Restriction is implemented, and in the face of Professor Volokh’s expressed desire to publish documents from this case, which publication would seriously harm Bonsai’s business interests, Bonsai requests that this Court’s order specify that no publication of these documents (or redacted portions of documents) be published, regardless of whether these documents were previously available on the court’s website or otherwise.

That, I argued to the court, would violate my free speech and free press rights, and not just my right of access to court records. Once someone has downloaded publicly accessible documents, that person has a right to quote them and write about them, and that right cannot be taken away by retroactively sealing the documents. The sealing order could bar future access to the documents in the court file, and might also constrain the parties to the case. But it can’t bar continued speech about those documents by outsiders who had lawfully accessed them. (Cf. Florida Star v. B.J.F.)

The motion was resolved a few days later (following an excellent telephonic oral argument by my student Jennifer Wilson), but I got distracted and neglected to blog an update; so here it is.

[1.] Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty didn’t reach the gag order question, because he denied the motion to seal, thus rendering the gag order request moot.

[2.] And he denied the motion to seal chiefly relying on his opinion four years before in Gunn v. WCA Logistics, LLC, No. 13-cv-02197-WJM-MEH, 2016 WL 7868827, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2016). He didn’t issue a detailed written order, but this passage from Gunn summarizes the matter well:

The documents at issue in Defendants’ motion were not filed under [seal]…. Only [some weeks later] did Defendants seek to [seal] the documents. Because Defendants failed to avail themselves of the protections provided by the District’s local rules in filing [the documents], any claim to confidentiality has been waived. The cat has already been let out of the bag. Cf. Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 144 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Once the cat is out of the bag, the ball game is over.”) …. After-the-fact sealing should not generally be permitted. See id. at 144 (“… We simply do not have the power, even were we of the mind to use it if we had, to make what has thus become public private again.”).

To be sure, mistakes happen, and in my experience attempts to seal filed just a day or two after an erroneous open-court filing are sometimes granted. But once you wait weeks, and especially once others see the cat and decide to post a cat video of it on the Internet, the feathers don’t go back into the pillow. Courts actually give lawyers considerable latitude to fix procedural errors, especially if the lawyers ask nicely and contritely enough. But some errors are hard or impossible to fix; missed jurisdictional deadlines are a classic example, and so are erroneous filings in open court (again, especially if the request comes after weeks or months rather than days).

[3.] Attempts to unseal can work even years after the sealing, see, e.g., EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 146 F.3d 1042, 1047 (2d Cir. 1998); Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349, 1354 (9th Cir. 2013); United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1427 (10th Cir. 1990). But some court rules strongly prefer prompt objections to motions to seal—the District of Colorado seeks objections basically within four business days of the motion, which is posted on the District’s web site. As a result, I had to move to oppose sealing right away, if I wanted to easily write about the case in the future; otherwise, moving to unseal later would be dicier and at least more time-consuming. I hope to write more about the case, which involves interesting issues of tort law, waivers of liability for recreational activities, and zip-line accidents, as more develops.

But in the meantime, here’s one of the documents that the court ruled couldn’t be sealed; it was filed as an attachment to the Complaint. (Of course, though it is potentially relevant to the case, it is by no means dispositive of whether the company is liable, and for all I know they may be entirely not at fault.)

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