Gloria Álvarez became one of the best-known libertarian personalities in Latin America in 2014, after she gave a talk arguing against populism on both left and right and pointing out the absurdity of admiring the socialist dictatorships in Venezuela and Cuba.
The 35-year-old granddaughter of Cuban and Hungarian refugees is the host of the program Liber Viernes, or Free Fridays, on the Guatemalan radio station Libertopolis, and she’s the author of several books, including The Populist Deception, How To Talk to a Progressive, and How To Talk to a Conservative.
Nick Gillespie sat down with Álvarez at a Reason Foundation conference in Guatemala to talk about the resurgence of socialism in Latin America, reaching young people with libertarian ideas, and why she believes that political, cultural, economic, and sexual freedom are all intertwined and non-negotiable.
Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser. Intro by Lex Villena. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Pablo Gordillo.
This morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Texas v. United States, the ambitious red state lawsuit trying to tear down the entire Affordable Care Act because Congress zeroed out the tax penalty for failing to purchase qualifying insurance. As Josh notes below, the case will be heard on the Fall (though whether before or after the election remains to be determined).
The reason for the cert grant is understandable: A lower federal court invalidated a provision of federal law, with potentially significant implications. This is often reason enough to grant certiorari. Of note, the Court accepted both the petition filed by the blue states challenging the Fifth Circuit’s decision, as well as the cross-petition filed by the red states seeking to ensure that severability is among the questions presented to the Court.
As readers know, I believe this is a dog of a case. The case plaintiffs have standing is quite weak, and the ultimate severability arguments are unmoored from existing doctrine as well as the original understanding of the Article III judicial power.
I critiqued the Fifth Circuit’s opinion here. Most of my other prior posts on this case are listed in this post (except for this one).
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Tz39J1
via IFTTT
“They’re Flying It In!” – Canadians Furious At Trudeau As Government Refuses To Stop Travelers From Iran
Furious Canadians slammed the government for failing to cancel flights from Iran, presently the country with the worst outbreak outside China, and other policies that suggest a dangerously blithe response from the government, perhaps as a consequence of PM Trudeau’s commitment to ‘woke’ policies (many have slammed travel bans as racist).
#COVID-19 is coming. With the explosion of the virus in Italy, Korea, China, and Iran, containment is no longer realistic.
It is however important to slow the spread so hospitals are not overwhelmed.
One critic even accused Ottawa of “flying in” the virus by refusing to cancel flights. Though, to be fair, while President Trump has cracked down on China and Iran, his reaction to Italy and South Korea has been slightly more mild (though the State Department has issued travel advisories targeting SK and Italy.
Can someone in Ottawa take this seriously already and shut down all flights and not allow anyone from key areas – China, Korea and Iran from entering Canada.
Yesterday, Canadian public health officials confirmed four new cases of the virus, each diagnosed at hospitals in Greater Toronto. That brought Canada’s total to 24.
“As a result of the co-ordinated efforts of our health care and public health system, all individuals who have tested positive have been quickly assessed and isolated,” the province’s ministry of health said in a statement.
All of Canada’s cases have been definitively tied to travelers. One patient, a man in his 50s who is a Toronto resident temporarily living in Vaughan, Ontario, where he is under self-isolation, is the brother of a Toronto man who had traveled to Iran recently, Global News reports.
Another man, this one in his 60s, was diagnosed at North York General Hospital after an emergency department visit with symptoms on Friday. He had also recently visited Iran.
And yet a third patient is the spouse of a woman who also contracted the virus. The couple recently traveled to Iran with their young daughter. He was tested at Mackenzie Health Hospital.
“As usual, Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve are slow to act. Germany and others are pumping money into their economies. Other Central Banks are much more aggressive. The U.S. should have, for all of the right reasons, the lowest Rate. We don’t, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. We should be leading, not following!”
But, Mizhuho rates strategist, Peter Chatwell, is concerned that The Fed will ‘deliver’ what Trump and the market is demanding, sending it even deeper into a liquidty trap…
Dear Fed,
On Friday you gave yourself the option to ease and provided a bit of calm to the stock market. It won’t work. Don’t make the mistakes the BoJ and ECB have made in trying to paper over structural problems with liquidity. If you do, your actions will be deflationary and you will devalue your monetary tools. Your real structural problems are rising inequality and the number of ‘zombie’ companies.
The virus will have a major economic impact. Global growth may fall on par with the GFC. It will, with a lag of 6-9 months, justify you easing through the employment dimension of your mandate. It will not, however, be disinflationary. Getting Fed Funds down to 1.25% would put your monetary policy back to a slightly accommodative setting.
However, moving too early, in order to support confidence (let’s admit it, stocks), will put you in a currency war you cannot win. Other central banks, who are missing their inflation targets will follow swiftly, reducing the FX benefit of your easing. By moving to support “confidence” (stocks) and “transmission” (spreads) you will in fact be generating deflationary forces.
Your easing since the GFC has allowed zombie companies to continue their lumbering, groaning, slow-motion takeover of the economy. By no means are we saying you need to shoot them (hike), but equally don’t support them just to satisfy your urges for a roaring SPX. Instead society needs them to bow out gracefully (let PE take the risk). Equities will perform better in the long run if you let the zombies die.
By cutting rates on March 18th, you will be telling the market a) that, all else equal, the underlying value from this level is dubious, and b) that you are determined to support asset bubbles. You will be advocating leveraged longs of failing companies. Your rate cuts will reduce the neutral Fed Funds rate once again. You are choosing to dive into a liquidity trap, racing to 0% Fed Funds and a QE restart. Yield curve control (another market vol killer) should also be avoided. Please learn the lessons from your international counterparts. The water in the liquidity trap isn’t lovely, don’t dive in!
Your attempt to change your inflation target becomes all the less credible in a liquidity trap. Instead of hitting the new target, you will be stuck answering the academic paradox of the reversal rate. As the central bank of the world’s largest economy, you set the tone for other central banks. Forcing them closer to their own reversal rates in this arms race is irresponsible, undermining fiat currency purely to attempt to put a base into equities.
This morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Texas v. United States, the ambitious red state lawsuit trying to tear down the entire Affordable Care Act because Congress zeroed out the tax penalty for failing to purchase qualifying insurance. As Josh notes below, the case will be heard on the Fall (though whether before or after the election remains to be determined).
The reason for the cert grant is understandable: A lower federal court invalidated a provision of federal law, with potentially significant implications. This is often reason enough to grant certiorari. Of note, the Court accepted both the petition filed by the blue states challenging the Fifth Circuit’s decision, as well as the cross-petition filed by the red states seeking to ensure that severability is among the questions presented to the Court.
As readers know, I believe this is a dog of a case. The case plaintiffs have standing is quite weak, and the ultimate severability arguments are unmoored from existing doctrine as well as the original understanding of the Article III judicial power.
I critiqued the Fifth Circuit’s opinion here. Most of my other prior posts on this case are listed in this post (except for this one).
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Tz39J1
via IFTTT
This morning the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Obamacare cases from Texas. Will the case be argued before or after November 3, 2020, the date of the Presidential election? According to the Supreme Court’s calendar for the October 2020 Term, there are six possible oral argument dates prior to election day: October 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, and November 2. Assuming each case is one hour long, the Court can hear twelve hours of argument time before the election.
So far, the Supreme Court has already granted five petitions (including consolidated cases) that have not been scheduled for OT 2019, and will presumably be granted for OT 2020. (Let me know if I am missing any). I’ve sorted them by date of grant:
The Supreme Court does not always schedule cases based on the order in which the petitions for certiorari were granted. That is, there is no guarantee that Salinas is argued on the first Monday in October.
If the ACA case is scheduled on October 5, 6, 7, 13, or 14, I am fairly confident that the oral argument audio will be used in political advertisements against President Trump. (If the case is argued on Monday, November 2, the audio would not be released until Friday, November 6, after the election.)
The Supreme Court already has some experience with its oral Obamacare oral arguments being used in political ads. Indeed, in 2012, the RNC doctored audio from Solicitor General Verrilli’s oral argument in Florida v. HHS oral argument. NPR offered this report:
The ad has been criticized for doctoring the audio at the start of Solicitor General Donald Verilli Jr.’s argument at which he paused, took a sip of water and cleared his throat.
Verilli’s hesitation was brief, just a few seconds. But the ad makes it appear that Verilli was completely at a loss by lengthening the pause and repeating the sound of the ice clinking in his glass and repeating Verilli saying “Excuse me” to the justices.
The ad ends with the text “ObamaCare: It’s a tough sell.” Bloomberg News’ Julie Hirshfeld Davis and Greg Stohr offers one of the more comprehensive stories about the ad.
I offered this account in Unprecedented:
The Drudge Report blasted a picture of Verrilli with the headline “Obama’s Lawyer Chokes Again.” Within hours a. er the audio of the arguments was released, the Republican National Committee released a YouTube advertisement attacking Verrilli’s performance. The advertisement took the audio of Verrilli choking at the podium and doctored it to make the awkward silence last longer than it actually did. Over a stark picture of the Supreme Court, the headline “ObamaCare: It’s a Tough Sell” appeared. The import was clear—not even the government could justify this law. The Obama administration rallied to defend Verrilli. Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, said that the attack on Verrilli was a “low blow” and that he was “one of the most talented attorneys in this country. He made a very forceful argument and we knew these arguments were going to be tough.”
Tom Goldstein, a frequent Supreme Court litigant and the founder of SCOTUSBlog, described the advertisement as “the single most classless and misleading thing I’ve ever seen related to the Court. It is as if the RNC decided to take an incredibly serious and successful argument that has the chance to produce a pathbreaking legal victory for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, drag it through the mud, and vomit on it.”
I agree with Goldstein. And this decision went a long way to keep cameras out of the Supreme Court chamber.
I fully expect similar ads to be created if the Supreme Court schedules oral arguments on October 5, 6, 7, 13, or 14. Indeed, I worry that one or more Justices will ask questions that, out of context, seem far more accusatory in a sliced-and-diced advertisement.
If the Court schedules the case after the election, it will be painted as political. If it schedules the case before the election, and arguments seem favorable to President Trump, the Court will be painted as political. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The upshot of the former option, is that these political attacks will be kept out of the election spotlight.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Iegzox
via IFTTT
This morning the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Obamacare cases from Texas. Will the case be argued before or after November 3, 2020, the date of the Presidential election? According to the Supreme Court’s calendar for the October 2020 Term, there are six possible oral argument dates prior to election day: October 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, and November 2. Assuming each case is one hour long, the Court can hear twelve hours of argument time before the election.
So far, the Supreme Court has already granted five petitions (including consolidated cases) that have not been scheduled for OT 2019, and will presumably be granted for OT 2020. (Let me know if I am missing any). I’ve sorted them by date of grant:
The Supreme Court does not always schedule cases based on the order in which the petitions for certiorari were granted. That is, there is no guarantee that Salinas is argued on the first Monday in October.
If the ACA case is scheduled on October 5, 6, 7, 13, or 14, I am fairly confident that the oral argument audio will be used in political advertisements against President Trump. (If the case is argued on Monday, November 2, the audio would not be released until Friday, November 6, after the election.)
The Supreme Court already has some experience with its oral Obamacare oral arguments being used in political ads. Indeed, in 2012, the RNC doctored audio from Solicitor General Verrilli’s oral argument in Florida v. HHS oral argument. NPR offered this report:
The ad has been criticized for doctoring the audio at the start of Solicitor General Donald Verilli Jr.’s argument at which he paused, took a sip of water and cleared his throat.
Verilli’s hesitation was brief, just a few seconds. But the ad makes it appear that Verilli was completely at a loss by lengthening the pause and repeating the sound of the ice clinking in his glass and repeating Verilli saying “Excuse me” to the justices.
The ad ends with the text “ObamaCare: It’s a tough sell.” Bloomberg News’ Julie Hirshfeld Davis and Greg Stohr offers one of the more comprehensive stories about the ad.
I offered this account in Unprecedented:
The Drudge Report blasted a picture of Verrilli with the headline “Obama’s Lawyer Chokes Again.” Within hours a. er the audio of the arguments was released, the Republican National Committee released a YouTube advertisement attacking Verrilli’s performance. The advertisement took the audio of Verrilli choking at the podium and doctored it to make the awkward silence last longer than it actually did. Over a stark picture of the Supreme Court, the headline “ObamaCare: It’s a Tough Sell” appeared. The import was clear—not even the government could justify this law. The Obama administration rallied to defend Verrilli. Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, said that the attack on Verrilli was a “low blow” and that he was “one of the most talented attorneys in this country. He made a very forceful argument and we knew these arguments were going to be tough.”
Tom Goldstein, a frequent Supreme Court litigant and the founder of SCOTUSBlog, described the advertisement as “the single most classless and misleading thing I’ve ever seen related to the Court. It is as if the RNC decided to take an incredibly serious and successful argument that has the chance to produce a pathbreaking legal victory for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, drag it through the mud, and vomit on it.”
I agree with Goldstein. And this decision went a long way to keep cameras out of the Supreme Court chamber.
I fully expect similar ads to be created if the Supreme Court schedules oral arguments on October 5, 6, 7, 13, or 14. Indeed, I worry that one or more Justices will ask questions that, out of context, seem far more accusatory in a sliced-and-diced advertisement.
If the Court schedules the case after the election, it will be painted as political. If it schedules the case before the election, and arguments seem favorable to President Trump, the Court will be painted as political. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The upshot of the former option, is that these political attacks will be kept out of the election spotlight.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Iegzox
via IFTTT
US Manufacturing Growth Slows As New Orders, Imports Slump
Janaury’s (and preliminary February) data signaled mixed messages in the US manufacturing sector with ISM bouncing aggressively and PMI sliding for the 3rd straight month (but both in expansion – above 50).
Markit US Manufacturing PMI fell from 51.9 to 50.7 (below the flash print of 50.8) – 3rd straight month of declines – as new order growth slowed to nine-month lows.
ISM US Manufacturing survey disappointed, dropping from 50.9 to 50.1 (barely above contraction) amid contraction in new orders, and employment.
Source: Bloomberg
PMI remains very near the weakest levels since 2009…
And in the ISM data, three of five components fell, led by the biggest drop in production since 2018.
The gauge of supplier deliveries also rose to the highest level since 2018 — indicating slower delivery times that may be due to supply disruptions from the coronavirus.The imports index swung into contraction, falling the most on record to 42.6, the lowest reading since 2009. Export orders grew at a slower pace.
Supply chain delays stemming from supplier factory shutdowns in China and the outbreak of coronavirus led to a further deterioration in vendor performance, which reportedly held back output and the processing of backlogs due to a shortage of components. As a result, firms registered a renewed rise in outstanding business and a drop in pre-production inventories.
“Manufacturing production and order book trends deteriorated markedly in February as producers struggled against the double headwinds of falling export sales and supply chain delays, both in turn often linked to the coronavirus outbreak.
“Any growth in sales was once again largely driven by domestic consumers, though even here the rate of growth was weakened considerably compared to late last year.
“Historical comparisons against official data indicate that the survey is consistent with factory production and orders both falling at annualised rates of around 3%, with manufacturing jobs being lost at a monthly rate of roughly 20,000.
“While trade war fears have eased, helping push firms’ expectations for future growth to the highest since last April, coronavirus-related supply chain issues threaten to constrain production in coming months. At the same time, companies have become increasingly concerned that the COVID-19 outbreak will also hit demand, which is reportedly already cooling amid uncertainly leading up to the presidential election. Recent stock market volatility could also further dampen consumer spending and deter business investment.”
Sadly for the hopefuls, there is not enough here to shake The Fed’s confidence that
“the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong” (Powell),
“I wouldn’t want to to prejudge the March meeting” (Bullard),
“there is some risk, but basically I think the U.S. outlook looks pretty good” (Yellen),
Millennials Marooned As RobinHood Experiences System-Wire Outage
Last week it was Fidelity shutting down, not allowing investors to trade during the historic market crash, now Robinhood trading app, popularized by millennials, has experienced trading issues on Monday morning.
“We are experiencing a system-wide outage. We are working to resolve this issue as soon as possible,” the company said.
Millennials are freaking out as the market could puke again…
@Robinhood is a joke. One of the biggest trading Mondays in recent history and the app is completely down and crashed since opening bell. People are losing THOUSANDS over this nonsense.
— Vivek Sevak _TLSM (@vivek_sevak_313) March 2, 2020
CDC Accidentally Releases ‘Diamond Princess’ Evacuee Who Tested Positive For The Virus
This doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the federal government’s virus response, and certainly doesn’t bode well for American officials’ ability to suppress the virus.
Early Monday, the CDC admitted that it had mistakenly released an infected coronavirus patient from the San Antonio Texas Center for Infectious Disease the day prior after the patient twice tested negative for the virus. At that time the patient had no symptoms and technically met the criteria for release, and so was allowed to leave, ABC 7 reports.
However, the patient was soon returned to isolation after a subsequent lab test came back positive for the novel coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19. So the CDC decided to bring them back to quarantine “out of an abundance of caution.”
According to CNN, the patient was one of the evacuees from Wuhan, who was evacuated to Texas’s Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio , been kept in quarantine on military bases in California, Texas and Nebraska.
So, why was the patient released if they still had a lab pending? The agency didn’t offer any kind of explanation.
“The fact that the CDC allowed the public to be exposed to a patient with a positive COVID-19 reading is unacceptable,” said San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said.
The CDC said the individual, who is currently being retested, had some “limited contact” with healthy individuals on the outside. The CDC said this wasn’t the first time a patient has seen back-to-back tests go from negative to positive. The agency is going to need to tighten its ‘criteria’ for what constitutes a ‘cured’ case. Hopefully they will before they really drop the ball, if it’s not already too late.
Today we learned that the CDC mistakenly released a patient from the Texas Center for Infectious Disease who later returned a positive COVID-19 reading.
The fact that the CDC allowed the public to be exposed to a patient with a positive COVID-19 reading is unacceptable.
— Mayor Ron Nirenberg (@Ron_Nirenberg) March 2, 2020
The CDC also released a statement:
The discharged patient had some contact with others while out of isolation, and CDC and local public health partners are following up to trace possible exposures and notify them of their potential risk
CDC is aware others have encountered similar situations where test results have alternated back & forth between negative & positive. That is part of why CDC criteria states a patient must have two negative test results from specimens taken more than 24 hrs apart.
With the federal quarantine period for the Diamond Princess evacuees coming to an end on Monday, Nirenberg said the city and health department will do all they can to keep the community safe.
“Our San Antonio Metro Health District and other local officials continue to address the situation with the utmost professionalism and care,” Nirenberg said.
Meanwhile, other local officials criticized the mayor and federal officials.
“This has been our biggest concern and now we will experience the consequences of no action,” said Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff in a joint statement. “Time and time again, I have raised issues concerning evacuees, inappropriate accommodations, the risk of exposure during transporting and the need for additional monitoring and extended quarantine periods.”
Similarly, India reported a case on Monday involving an individual who tested negative for the virus, but later tested positive and was brought in for treatment, but only after being allowed to have contact with family and members of the public.
