While We Wait

While We Wait

By Michael Every of Rabobank

While We Wait

It goes without saying that today will be all about US payrolls – more so after a bumper ADP print of 978K yesterday. Which means those of us in Asia face a long day of waiting ahead. However, we have enough to chew on in the meantime.

In the US, President Biden has dropped some proposed tax increases as part of the fiscal package he now seems less likely to be able to get through due to having less ‘reconciliation’ bullets than had been thought (or so says the Senate Parliamentarian). He’s apparently prepared to discuss a floor corporate tax rate of 15%, closing off loopholes and exemptions, rather than any increases. This would match the rate being proposed globally to be discussed at the G7 next week – and G7 finance ministers, including Yellen, will be meeting today in advance of the national leaders. Expect related headlines today and Saturday. The press reports the president also had a call with Larry Summers, who despite being regarded as the one who discovered “secular stagnation” (rather than Kalecki), is also a critic of current US fiscal stimulus plans.

On another front, the White House issued an executive order expanding, not reducing, the Trump-era list of Chinese firms off-limits to US investors due to their links to the Chinese military. There are 59 now named, including China Mobile and Huawei. US China hawks suggest this was actually a step backwards by not expanding the scope of the order, and excluding some candidates, but it is still not going to improve US-China relations. Then again, for those thinking this is bad, in the background former-President Trump has stated that China should have to pay $10 trillion in compensation for Covid-19 – and he still seems to have a lot of sway over the Republican party’s general line of thinking, so goodness knows where this all ends up.

Meanwhile, as supply-chain driven inflation continues to bite, a key world food price index just hit the highest level since the Arab Spring of 2008, a worrying trend we flagged as possible a few months ago. The correlation between expensive food and global political instability should be obvious as a huge threat ahead given there is no immediate sign of this trend reversing: except perhaps to those who never, ever go hungry, and who see not being able to go to their favourite restaurant on a Friday night, and having to order in instead, as the real punishment.

On which relative ‘First World Problems’ front, the UK is up in arms because Portugal has been removed from the government’s ‘Green List’ of summer holiday destinations at the last minute due to a surge in worrying new Covid variants – the logical result of Portugal opening up to global tourism before it had been fully vaccinated. That basically leaves Brits with the choice of Iceland (population: 300,000 – so bring a sleeping bag), or Israel (which isn’t at war this month – so far), or the windswept Falkland Islands. Or Devon and Cornwall – like the G7. So time to go long cream teas again. And at least all the stimulus money is circulating at home, as any good proponent of MMT knows it should.

But more serious news stems from the Taiwanese port of Kaohsiung –the 14th busiest in the world, just behind Antwerp, and well above LA at #17– where a Chinese-owned vessel collided with a Taiwanese one, causing substantial damage to the port itself. Without getting into any (more) finger pointing, the last thing strained global supply chains needed to see was another major port facility operating at reduced capacity – and yet that is what we just got. Taiwan seems to be having a really bad run of logistical luck in the past few months.

And on strains, both geopolitical and supply-chain, yesterday saw bombshell news from the EU too: Europe plans to impose carbon emission costs –read tariffs– on imports of iron and steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, and electricity, potentially starting as soon as 2023. In other words, as was promised in the Commission’s early 2021 trade review, the EU is serious about ensuring it does not spend its money on goods produced by ‘dirtier’ economies. The question is if this really goes ahead, and if it stops at the above list of goods – because almost everything can be produced sustainably or unsustainably; and if the US then follows, setting up a new “Greenies vs. Meanies” world trading order. The key point for markets is that global supply chains will not have fully recovered from the current disruption by the time new structural changes may then kick in.

And on structural changes, one also has to note Russia taking the decision to strip the USD from its sovereign wealth (“National Wellbeing”) fund’s $186bn holdings. (Yet note which currency I just had to denominate the soon-to-be-dollarless entity in.) It will instead shift to a basket of Euro (40%), Yuan (30%), Gold (20%), Yen (5%) and Sterling (5%: “Go, Global Britain, Go!”, as Russians clearly really like Cornish/Devonian cream teas too). And so begins a great global game of pass-the-parcel, as everyone else who still does use the dollar has to end up making those dollar transactions for Russia instead.

Lastly, a lot of ‘things’ happened in meme-stocks, which would require a separate Daily of its own to do justice to, but isn’t the primary focus here.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/04/2021 – 08:13

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3yZKWIl Tyler Durden

Futures Coiled Ahead Of Closely Watched Jobs Report

Futures Coiled Ahead Of Closely Watched Jobs Report

US stock index futures fluctuated listlessly in a narrow range on Friday as investors braced for a crucial report that is likely to show jobs growth accelerated last month, possibly fanning fears over inflation and easing of the Federal Reserve’s support. At 7:30am emini were down 11 points, or 0.03%, S&P 500 e-minis were up 3 points, or 0.08%, and Nasdaq 100 e-minis were up 22 points, or 0.16%. The meme mania was dormant this morning with reddit stocks all lower after peaking two days ago.  Treasuries were steady and the dollar rose modestly to fresh 3-week highs. Gold dropped and bitcoin slumped after a Elon Musk tweet trolled cryptos.

Shares of so-called “meme-stocks” weakened in early trade, with AMC Entertainment down nearly 10% a day after the Reddit darling completed its second share offering this week. Here are some of the more notable premarket movers:

  • AMC Entertainment (AMC) drops 6% in Friday’s premarket session, falling 6% from the last close, as it sold equity to shore up a depleted balance sheet.Shares of Koss Corp (KOSS), BlackBerry and GameStop (GME) dropped between 2% and 5%.
  • Cryptocurrency-exposed companies like Coinbase (COIN) and Marathon Digital (MARA) decline Friday after Elon Musk tweets a broken-heart emoji which appeared to hint at a potential split between the Tesla boss and Bitcoin.
  • Other meme stocks like Koss Corp. (KOSS), Express Inc. (EXPR) and BlackBerry (BB) also slide as the meme rally cools.
  • Pershing Square Tontine (PSTH) blank-check company falls 7.2% in premarket trading after confirming talks to buy 10% of Universal Music Group from France’s Vivendi.
  • Senseonics Holdings (SENS) jumps 40% in premarket trading on Friday after saying Promise study demonstrated strong accuracy of 180 Day CGM Sensor.
  • Workhorse (WKHS) slides 7.6% after Cowen downgrades the stock, saying that it now looks fairly valued following the retail trader-driven rally.
  • Facebook Inc (FB) dropped 1.1% after EU antitrust regulators opened an investigation into the world’s largest social network’s use of advertising data to see whether it breached EU rules

The May jobs report at 8:30 a.m. ET (full preview here) is expected to show nonfarm payrolls increased by 674,000 jobs in May, after an unexpected slowdown in labor market in April. However, A scheduled appearance by Joe Biden after the report has lifted the whisper number to above 1 million. The release is likely to spur volatility as traders scramble to reassess the case for ongoing policy accommodation: a (much) stronger-than-expected reading could further stoke worries that the robust economic recovery could push the Fed to contemplate paring back its bond buying and raising interest rates.

“Any major surprise today could go a long way in shaping the narrative around the Fed’s normalization timeline,” said Marios Hadjikyriacos, investment analyst for XM. “The market reaction will depend on the size of any surprise.”

“If the nonfarm payroll numbers were to surprise to the upside, and I’m talking about anything above 700,000, that’s going to keep the pressure on the U.S. fixed income market and definitely very supportive of the dollar,” Eugenia Victorino, head of Asia strategy at Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB in Singapore, said in a Bloomberg TV interview.

European equities give back small gains, trading little changed onvolumes down 30% vs 20DMA. Spain’s IBEX fares the worst with a 0.7% drop. Banks, utilities and telecoms are the worst performing sectors. Here are some of the biggest European movers today:

  • Saipem shares rise as much as 5.3% in Milan, the steepest intraday advance since April 8 and the day’s best-performer on the FTSE MIB index. Analysts highlight the acquisition of Naval Energies’ floating wind business, noting deal will boost company’s position in this field.
  • Collector gains as much as 8.3%, the most since April 30, after Chairman Erik Selin purchased 700,000 shares in the Swedish company.
  • Boliden climbs as much as 3.2% after DNB raised the stock to buy from hold, seeing potential from hidden value, according to a note.
  • European airline stocks fall again after Thursday’s news that the U.K. cut Portugal from its “green list“ of travel destinations, and added no new countries to the roster.
  • EasyJet slide as much as 3%, Wizz -3.7%, British Airways/Iberia-parent IAG -2.3%, Ryanair -1.7%, Lufthansa -1.6%
  • ING shares drop as much as 2.3% after Barclays downgraded the stock to underweight, saying “goldilocks is going overboard” as company-compiled consensus has “become overly optimistic.”
  • Fingerprint Cards falls as much as 15%, the most since Feb. 16, after the company said it’s withdrawing its 2Q revenue forecast.

Earlier in the session, Asia stocks slipped, as strong U.S. jobs data stoked inflation concerns, while China shares reversed initial declines after President Joe Biden amended an investment ban list for the country’s companies. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index fell 0.2% at 5:47 p.m. in Singapore, led lower by shares in the tech-heavy markets of Taiwan and South Korea as worries of higher interest rates affect the sector’s earnings outlook. Data released overnight showed an increase in U.S. private payrolls and record service-sector growth, bringing up the possibility of faster withdrawal of central bank stimulus. Japan’s Topix eked out gains, climbing for a fourth straight day. Meanwhile, China’s CSI 300 Index closed 0.5% higher led by gains in consumer staples and financial stocks. The gain came even as the Biden administration moved to put 59 companies on a list that bans U.S. investment. The docket includes Huawei Technologies Co. and the country’s three biggest telecommunications companies. Asia-based investors are looking ahead to the monthly U.S. payrolls report due Friday for cues on the direction of growth and inflation. The Asian stock gauge is still set for a third straight week of gains, its longest winning streak since February. “Market positioning ahead of the US jobs data showed a preference for derivatives in FX, bond and equity markets as traders hedged their portfolio risks and built leverage bets in anticipation of the data,” Anderson Alves, a trader at brokerage ActivTrades, wrote in a note. Malaysian stocks were the biggest decliners in the region as Covid-19 cases in the country remain elevated. India’s Sensex pared gains as the central bank kept borrowing costs at a record low level and cut its economic-growth projection.

In rates, trading was also quiet, with Treasuries steady over Asia and early European session with price action limited ahead of the jobs report. Treasury 10-year yields around 1.622%, near to Thursday’s closing levels and trading broadly in line with bunds and gilts. Range on 10-year yields was just 1.4bp through the overnight session and up to 7am ET. 10y German yields are little changes near -0.187%, with peripheral spreads widen a touch, Italy underperforms ahead of today’s scheduled ratings review by Fitch.

In FX, the Bloomberg Dollar index extended gains to a three-week high; the greenback was mixed versus its Group-of-10 peers, though most currencies were confined to tight ranges. The euro fell a fourth day to approach $1.21, a level last seen in mid- May; European government bonds were steady, in line with Treasuries. The pound reversed a modest Asia session loss, with concerns lingering over a delay to the U.K.’s full economic reopening. The Aussie held near a seven-week low while Australia’s bonds fell after Westpac’s Bill Evans said that the central bank won’t roll over its three-year yield target to the November 2024 maturity.Turkish lira faded ~0.6% of early weakness to trade flat.

In commodities, crude futures rose toward best levels for the week. WTI is 0.6% higher, back on a $69-handle. Spot gold fades Asia’s modest weakness to trade little changed near $1,870/oz. Most base metals are in the green, trading off worst levels for the week; LME aluminum and tin outperform peers

Looking at the day ahead, the highlight will be the aforementioned US jobs report later on. There’s also an array of central bank speakers including Fed Chair Powell, ECB President Lagarde, BoJ Governor Kuroda and PBoC Governor Yi Gang, while G7 finance ministers will be meeting in London. Otherwise, the data highlights will include the German and UK construction PMIs for May, as well as Euro Area retail sales and US factory orders for April.

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures little changed at 4,190.75
  • STOXX Europe 600 little changed at 450.72
  • MXAP down 0.2% to 209.49
  • MXAPJ down 0.2% to 703.68
  • Nikkei down 0.4% to 28,941.52
  • Topix little changed at 1,959.19
  • Hang Seng Index down 0.2% to 28,918.10
  • Shanghai Composite up 0.2% to 3,591.85
  • Sensex down 0.3% to 52,061.15
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 up 0.5% to 7,295.35
  • Kospi down 0.2% to 3,240.08
  • Brent Futures up 0.5% to $71.66/bbl
  • Gold spot down 0.05% to $1,869.75
  • U.S. Dollar Index little changed at 90.56
  • German 10Y yield fell 0.1 bps to -0.184%
  • Euro down 0.1% to $1.2113

Top Overnight News

  • Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is facing pressure to move toward a global tax deal by the end of the week as she meets her Group of Seven counterparts for the first time as the world’s most powerful finance minister at a summit in London
  • Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and HSBC Holdings Plc are opening their offices fully in Hong Kong as a fourth wave of infections was contained and the U.S. investment bank said half of its staff in the financial hub are now vaccinated
  • As European government bond yields rise amid inflation expectations and an economic recovery, investors may opt to buy such debt instead of corporates, said Martine Wehlen-Bodé, a senior portfolio manager at UBS Asset Management in Zurich

Quick look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

Asian equity markets traded cautiously following the tech-led declines in the US and with sentiment constrained by US-China tensions, as well as the looming NFP jobs data. ASX 200 (+0.5%) was initially subdued with underperformance in the mining-related sectors after underlying metal prices suffered the ill-effects of a stronger dollar, although the index managed to recover helped by strength in healthcare and resilience in the top-weighted financials industry. Nikkei 225 (-0.4%) was dragged lower amid the early broad cautious tone and a predominantly firmer currency which overshadowed the better-than-expected Household Spending data for Japan that printed the largest Y/Y increase since comparable data was made available in 2001. Hang Seng (-0.3%) and Shanghai Comp. (+0.2%) initially declined amid ongoing frictions between the world’s two largest economies after US President Biden signed an order which expanded on the Trump investment ban and included 59 companies linked to China’s military and surveillance technology, while there were also reports that China’s market regulator warned another eight sharing-economy companies regarding unclear prices which resulted in early heavy pressure for Meituan shares. However, Chinese markets gradually recovered, helped by easing of mainland money market rates and with China also proposing an appropriate reduction in stamp duty. Finally, 10yr JGBs were lower on spillover selling from T-notes after the strong data stateside and with some questions raised following the Fed’s recent plan to unwind its corporate bond holdings, while a lack of BoJ presence in the market today also contributed to the constrained demand for Japanese government bonds.

Top Asian News

  • Goldman, HSBC to Open Hong Kong Offices Fully as Virus Wanes
  • With or Without the PBOC, the Yuan Is Set to Weaken From Here
  • Meituan Founder Donates $2.3 Billion Stake as Probe Persists
  • Japan Enters Taiwan-China Fight With Vaccine Shipments to Taipei

Major bourses in Europe exhibit the same indecisive and lacklustre trade seen throughout most of the week in the run-up to the US jobs report (full preview available in the Newsquawk Research Suite), with US equity futures trading sideways in the absence of any fresh catalysts. From a macro perspective, the noise surrounding the possible start of taper discussions has grown over the week, especially after the Fed opted to end its Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility – which although was not meant to be seen as a broader unwind signal – has riled up conversations about what lies ahead at the bank. Further, Fed’s Harker (2023 voter), Rosengren (2022 voter), and Kaplan (2023 voter) all hinted at the possibility of beginning to talking about the taper plan as soon as this month (meeting on June 15-16), albeit the more influential members have yet to come on board. Back to European trade, some mild underperformance can be seen in Spain’s IBEX (-0.5%) as its heavy-weighted Travel & Leisure sector sees headwinds from the UK’s latest travel list revisions which reminds us of the threats to the tourism-dependent countries going ahead. The overall breadth of the market remains narrow, but the UK’s FTSE 100 (-0.2%) also errs lower due to the overnight losses across base metals coupled with a modestly firmer Sterling. Sectors are mixed with no overarching theme nor bias, and again with a narrow breath. In terms of individual movers, Vivendi (-0.4%) is softer despite confirming that Pershing Square SPAC is to acquire 10% of Universal Music Group for around USD 4bln, representing an enterprise value of EUR 35bln. Meanwhile, NN Group (+0.2%) failed to garner much traction from source reports that its asset management unit valued at EUR 1.5bln has reportedly drawn interest from UBS, Allianz, Generali, and DWS.

Top European News

  • Swiss Banker on Trial With Alleged $2.2 Million Insider Trader
  • Swedish Wind Developer OX2 Plans $400 Million IPO
  • Grocery Startups Raise $795 Million in Rapid-Shopping Boom
  • Deutsche’s DWS, Generali Said to Vie for NN’s Asset Manager

In FX, the Dollar is mixed vs major counterparts, but maintaining recovery momentum after extending gains in wake of yesterday’s largely supportive US releases (ADP, final Markit services/composite PMIs and several elements of the non-manufacturing ISM), and now looking towards NFP for further validation or another fall from grace if the headline number disappoints again. The index made a firm break above 90.000 on Wednesday and is now forming a solid base around 90.500 between 90.629-464 parameters awaiting the BLS report, while also keeping eyes on technical levels and some hefty option expiries in G10 pairings that might curtail price action ahead of 13.30BST if not the actual NY cut itself.

  • GBP/JPY/AUD/NZD – Sterling caught a bid even before a firmer than expected UK construction PMI, lifting Cable back above the 1.4100 mark to touch the 21 DMA (circa 1.4132 today) and the move seemed to be Eur/Gbp cross related as it reversed through 0.8600 to retest a low congestion zone from 0.8578 to 0.8575. Meanwhile, the Yen has pared some loses from a virtual double bottom in wake of considerably better than forecast Japanese household spending data, though not quite to the extent of threatening option expiry interest starting at the 110.00 strike and reaching 109.90 in 1.4 bn. Similarly, the Aussie and Kiwi have regained a bit of poise to trade back above 0.7650 and around 0.7150 respectively, and with the former flanked by big option expiries at 0.7730-50 (1.8 bn) and 0.7780-0.7800 (2.3 bn).
  • EUR/CHF/CAD/NOK/SEK – G10 laggards, albeit marginally, as the Euro strives to keep hold of the 1.2100 handle amidst mixed Eurozone construction PMIs and a retail sales miss, though also looks enshrined and liable to have its direction defined by expiry interest covering a large part of the expanse from 1.2100 to 1.2200. Indeed, 1.4 bn resided between 1.2100-10, 1 bn at 1.2150, 1.2 bn from 1.2170-75 and 1.1 bn at 1.2200. Elsewhere, the Franc is still striving to contain the downside beneath 0.9050, but remains firmer against the Euro near 1.0950 vs 1.1000 earlier this week, while the Loonie is trading defensively under 1.2100 irrespective of ongoing strength in crude ahead of Canada’s payrolls showdown with the US. Turning to Scandinavia, the Swedish Crown is holding around 10.1000 vs the Euro following a solid Q1 current account surplus, but the Norwegian Krona is lagging sub-10.1700 after mixed revisions to core inflation and growth estimates from Stats Norway for 2021 and next year.

In commodities, WTI and Brent front month futures err higher in early European trade but remain within recent ranges, with WTI Jul just north of USD 69/bbl (68.33-69.26 range), whilst Brent Aug hovers above USD 71.50 (70.73-71.76 range). Participants will be looking ahead to the US jobs release for influence on the crude complex, with scheduled oil-specific events/data for the week out of the way, barring the Baker Hughes Rig Count. Meanwhile, the week ahead sees the release of the EIA STEO followed by the OPEC and IEA MOMR towards the latter part of the week. However, these releases are unlikely to provide much colour given the fluidity of energy fundamentals and OPEC+ holding monthly meetings. Elsewhere spot gold and silver remain on standby for the key data release, with the former around its 21 DMA (1,870/oz) ahead of the 200 DMA at 1,840/oz, whilst spot silver consolidates in the low USD 28/oz levels. LME copper has clambered off worst levels but remains sub-USD 10,000/t as it moved in sympathy to the losses seen in Shanghai futures as US-Sino relations remain sour despite the recent constructive engagement. Overnight, Chinese steel rebar futures logged in its first weekly gain in four, with some citing off-peak season demand as a factor.

US Event Calendar

  • 8:30am: May Change in Nonfarm Payrolls, est. 674,000, prior 266,000
    • 8:30am: May Change in Private Payrolls, est. 610,000, prior 218,000
    • 8:30am: May Change in Manufact. Payrolls, est. 25,000, prior -18,000
  • 8:30am: May Unemployment Rate, est. 5.9%, prior 6.1%
    • 8:30am: May Underemployment Rate, prior 10.4%
    • 8:30am: May Labor Force Participation Rate, est. 61.8%, prior 61.7%
  • 8:30am: May Average Hourly Earnings YoY, est. 1.6%, prior 0.3%; Average Hourly Earnings MoM, est. 0.2%, prior 0.7%
    • 8:30am: May Average Weekly Hours All Emplo, est. 34.9, prior 35.0
  • 10am: April Durable Goods Orders, est. -1.3%, prior -1.3%; -Less Transportation, est. 1.0%, prior 1.0%
  • 10am: April Factory Orders, est. -0.3%, prior 1.1%; Ex Trans, prior 1.7%
  • 10am: April Cap Goods Orders Nondef Ex Air, est. 2.3%, prior 2.3%
  • 10am: April Cap Goods Ship Nondef Ex Air, prior 0.9%

DB’s Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

In a career where I’ve seen around 310 US payroll Fridays and the same number of US CPI releases I suspect that today’s employment is in the top 5% for anticipation levels but with next week’s CPI close to being the most potentially interesting I’ve ever seen. Obviously either or both could end up being a damp squib but it feels like something exciting is going to come out of these reports.

A reminder that payrolls grew by just +266k last month, which was well beneath the +1m job growth expected. Fortunately, the consensus is expecting that last month’s jobs report will prove a blip rather than the trend, and our own US economists are looking for an +800k increase in nonfarm payrolls, with the unemployment rate in turn falling back to a post-pandemic low of 5.9%.

However, whatever happens today the arguments on both sides of the inflation and overheating debate are hardly likely to go away soon. Even if the +800k jobs growth were realised, that would still leave nonfarm payrolls more than 7m beneath their pre-Covid peak, which would back up Fed Chair Powell’s argument that he wants to see a “string” of good jobs numbers before the Fed starts to pare back its support. And as our US economists have noted, it’s also worth looking at some of the broader labour market variables that the Fed are tracking in addition to the standard unemployment rate, as they seek to achieve their maximum employment objective. Expect every last drop of the report to be pored over for clues about the real state of the labour market.

With all that excitement to come, yesterday saw a bunch of better-than-expected data releases that led investors to slightly upgrade the likely path of future policy tightening, which subsequently put some pressure on a number of different financial assets. Firstly, the ADP’s report of private payrolls came in at +978k in May (vs. +650k expected), marking the biggest rise since last June, and then we also had the weekly initial jobless claims for the week through May 29, which fell to another post-pandemic low of 385k (vs. 387k expected). And on top of those, the ISM services index rose to a record 64.0 (vs. 63.2 expected), adding further evidence of a still strengthening recovery. The ISM prices paid figure (80.6) reached the second highest level on record while supplier delivery times remained elongated. Both service providers and manufacturers reported their largest order backlogs ever, with the manufacturing sector building on the record from last month.

US Treasuries sold off in response to all this data, with 10yr yields up +3.8bps to 1.625%, in a rise that was more than driven by real yields (+6.1bps) rather than inflation expectations (-2.4bps). The moves were echoed in Europe too, where yields on 10yr bunds (+1.5bps), OATs (+1.5bps) and BTPs (+0.5bps) all rose too. And over in equity markets, interest-sensitive tech stocks underperformed, with the NASDAQ losing -1.03%, whilst Europe’s STOXX 600 (-0.12%) also slipped back from its record high the previous day.

The US market looked set for bigger losses (-0.95% at the early lows) but headlines from the Washington Post mid-way through the session that President Biden had offered to create a tax floor of 15% rather than raising the corporate tax rate to 28% sparked a rally that saw the S&P 500 close only -0.36% lower. For reference, 116 companies in the S&P 500 reported an effective tax rate less than 15% last year. This story was not entirely new news as the Biden administration had previously included the minimum corporate tax in its future tax plans. However the idea that the Biden administration may delay a tax hike on the higher rate seemed to help markets.

So all-in-all, while the S&P “broke out” and ended its run of moving less than a quarter of a per cent in either direction it still hasn’t moved more than half a per cent either way for the last seven sessions – the longest run since November 2019.

Overnight, Asian markets are trading mixed after recovering from initial losses. The Hang Seng (+0.14%) and Shanghai Comp (+0.14%) are up while the Nikkei (-0.39%) and Kospi (-0.08%) are down. Futures on the S&P 500 are up +0.04% while those on the Stoxx 50 are down -0.15%. In terms of overnight data releases, Japan’s April household spending came in strong at +13.0% yoy (vs. +8.7% yoy expected).

In other news, President Biden yesterday signed the amended order we highlighted yesterday banning US investment in Chinese companies with ties to China’s military or in the surveillance industry. The order named 59 companies in total with most of them being carried forward from the previous administrations list. However there were a few new names like Zhonghang Electronic Measuring Instruments Co. and Jiangxi Hongdu Aviation Industry Co. Shares in the targeted companies are trading mixed this morning with Hikvision broadly flat as we type while SMIC fell as much as -3.3% Hong Kong trading.

In terms of Fed speak, we heard from Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard that the ratio of unemployed workers to job openings which is approaching an all-time low, “suggests a very tight labor market, which would be consistent with anecdotal reports that it is hard to hire workers.”

On the pandemic, there was some positive news from the UK yesterday, as more than half of the adult population have now received both doses of the vaccine. However, the UK also confirmed that Portugal would be moving to their amber travel list, meaning that those returning have to self-isolate.

As we noted yesterday in my CoTD (see here), younger Americans are not getting vaccinated at as a high a rate as other groups and accordingly New York City announced plans to offer shots at bars, restaurants and other nightlife locations. Even still New York State, once the global epicenter of the pandemic, had fewer than 1000 hospitalisations for the first time since October and the positive rate on first time tests fell to a record low of 0.44%.

Looking at yesterday’s other data, the final services and composite PMIs for May generally showed upgrades from the flash readings, with the Euro Area composite PMI revised up to 57.1 (vs. flash 56.9) and the US composite PMI revised up to 68.7 (vs. flash 68.1). For the Euro Area, that was the strongest composite PMI since February 2018, while for the US it was the highest reading since the series began in 2009.

To the day ahead now, and the highlight will be the aforementioned US jobs report later on. There’s also an array of central bank speakers including Fed Chair Powell, ECB President Lagarde, BoJ Governor Kuroda and PBoC Governor Yi Gang, while G7 finance ministers will be meeting in London. Otherwise, the data highlights will include the German and UK construction PMIs for May, as well as Euro Area retail sales and US factory orders for April.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/04/2021 – 08:01

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3igONLf Tyler Durden

Conservative Attacks on ‘Big Tech’ Are Turning the Constitution on Its Head


dreamstime_xl_8631531

Throughout my life, conservatives have believed the U.S. Constitution means what its authors intended. While it can sometimes be challenging to apply the document’s verbiage to modern times, conservatives know that when the founders wrote, “Congress shall make no law” they meant that, “Congress shall make no law.” Easy peasy, as the saying goes.

By contrast, liberals have often championed a “living and breathing” Constitution—one that evolves with the times. They don’t mean proper change via amendment, but through “enlightened” court interpretations. Like shamans, liberal justices don’t obsess over the founders’ intentions, but on truths found in penumbras. Go figure, but their divinations usually conform to their own biases.

In a bizarre twist, conservatives are now sounding like liberal jurists rather than traditionalists on some key constitutional questions. Let’s take the First Amendment, which the founders viewed with particular significance given that they placed it, well, first in the Bill of Rights. These days, conservatives are busy reinterpreting its meaning and have been quite creative with their new interpretations and divination.

For instance, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis recently signed a law that applies governmental moderating standards to social-media companies. It fines tech companies if they suspend political candidates prior to elections, lets the state attorney general and even private citizens sue these companies if they believe they’ve been treated unfairly, and gives online publishers a list of enforceable editorial conditions.

That’s obviously a government restriction on speech given that the government is mandating that private publishers behave in a certain way. Yet writing in American Spectator, the Heartland Institute’s S.T. Karnick has discovered such a novel method of interpreting that law that he would have made former Justice Thurgood Marshall, the late justice who was known for his creative constitutional gyrations, quite proud.

“Defenders of Big Tech routinely argue that these companies have a right to do whatever they want because they are not government entities. That is false,” Karnick wrote. “The fact that they are in the private sector does not change the definition of the word” censorship. If we erase the distinction between private censorship (which we all do) and government censorship, however, we essentially erase the First Amendment.

The Constitution forbids Congress specifically from regulating private speech, but then the 14th Amendment applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states and their governments. Karnick also argues that the 10th Amendment gives Florida the right to exercise its authority on this basic-rights issue, which is a rather odd position for a conservative.

If the 10th Amendment, which vests many powers in the states rather than the federal government, can be justified to obliterate constitutionally protected rights, then California can ban firearm ownership, despite what the Second Amendment says. If you don’t think rights should apply to tech companies whose decisions anger you, then they might not apply when your decisions anger others.

The “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated equal time for political views on “public” airwaves, offers a template for what conservatives now are suggesting. Its elimination allowed for the proliferation of conservative talk radio, given that such imbalanced programming previously was verboten. What would happen if the Biden administration could force broadcast outlets to balance the views of Mark Levin and Tucker Carlson? Take a guess.

Many of these conservatives are like liberals in another important way. They seek to control private-sector companies because they don’t like how they operate. For instance, David Marcus complained in a Fox News column last week about the media’s Johnny-come-lately coverage of the theory that the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese laboratory.

Yes, the media mostly treated that story as a conspiracy when Donald Trump had postulated it—but are treating it seriously now that Trump is gone. So what? Publications can print whatever they choose, some do a lousy job and all of them are biased. My conclusion is the media should learn from its mistakes, but Marcus’ take is more draconian.

“Nobody is checking the fact checkers, and it is time that changed,” he wrote. “It’s time for government to regulate the fact checking industry.” He named Politifact and Associated Press as examples of organizations that need government oversight as they advise social media—even though they are journalism organizations.

Marcus claims the First Amendment forbids regulation of “in-house” fact checkers, but he carves out the exception for independent checkers—something he appears to have pulled from thin air just like the living-and-breathing jurists. “This may seem antithetical to traditional conservative values of small government,” he says, but we ought not be “slaves to orthodoxy.”

Perhaps the Biden administration should appoint a regulator to fact-check Marcus’ writing for the next few weeks—and then he can report on the experience. Thanks to First Amendment “orthodoxy” that won’t happen, but it’s time for conservatives to grow a thicker skin and stop attacking the constitutional protections all of us enjoy.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uKWUCo
via IFTTT

Conservative Attacks on ‘Big Tech’ Are Turning the Constitution on Its Head


dreamstime_xl_8631531

Throughout my life, conservatives have believed the U.S. Constitution means what its authors intended. While it can sometimes be challenging to apply the document’s verbiage to modern times, conservatives know that when the founders wrote, “Congress shall make no law” they meant that, “Congress shall make no law.” Easy peasy, as the saying goes.

By contrast, liberals have often championed a “living and breathing” Constitution—one that evolves with the times. They don’t mean proper change via amendment, but through “enlightened” court interpretations. Like shamans, liberal justices don’t obsess over the founders’ intentions, but on truths found in penumbras. Go figure, but their divinations usually conform to their own biases.

In a bizarre twist, conservatives are now sounding like liberal jurists rather than traditionalists on some key constitutional questions. Let’s take the First Amendment, which the founders viewed with particular significance given that they placed it, well, first in the Bill of Rights. These days, conservatives are busy reinterpreting its meaning and have been quite creative with their new interpretations and divination.

For instance, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis recently signed a law that applies governmental moderating standards to social-media companies. It fines tech companies if they suspend political candidates prior to elections, lets the state attorney general and even private citizens sue these companies if they believe they’ve been treated unfairly, and gives online publishers a list of enforceable editorial conditions.

That’s obviously a government restriction on speech given that the government is mandating that private publishers behave in a certain way. Yet writing in American Spectator, the Heartland Institute’s S.T. Karnick has discovered such a novel method of interpreting that law that he would have made former Justice Thurgood Marshall, the late justice who was known for his creative constitutional gyrations, quite proud.

“Defenders of Big Tech routinely argue that these companies have a right to do whatever they want because they are not government entities. That is false,” Karnick wrote. “The fact that they are in the private sector does not change the definition of the word” censorship. If we erase the distinction between private censorship (which we all do) and government censorship, however, we essentially erase the First Amendment.

The Constitution forbids Congress specifically from regulating private speech, but then the 14th Amendment applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states and their governments. Karnick also argues that the 10th Amendment gives Florida the right to exercise its authority on this basic-rights issue, which is a rather odd position for a conservative.

If the 10th Amendment, which vests many powers in the states rather than the federal government, can be justified to obliterate constitutionally protected rights, then California can ban firearm ownership, despite what the Second Amendment says. If you don’t think rights should apply to tech companies whose decisions anger you, then they might not apply when your decisions anger others.

The “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated equal time for political views on “public” airwaves, offers a template for what conservatives now are suggesting. Its elimination allowed for the proliferation of conservative talk radio, given that such imbalanced programming previously was verboten. What would happen if the Biden administration could force broadcast outlets to balance the views of Mark Levin and Tucker Carlson? Take a guess.

Many of these conservatives are like liberals in another important way. They seek to control private-sector companies because they don’t like how they operate. For instance, David Marcus complained in a Fox News column last week about the media’s Johnny-come-lately coverage of the theory that the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese laboratory.

Yes, the media mostly treated that story as a conspiracy when Donald Trump had postulated it—but are treating it seriously now that Trump is gone. So what? Publications can print whatever they choose, some do a lousy job and all of them are biased. My conclusion is the media should learn from its mistakes, but Marcus’ take is more draconian.

“Nobody is checking the fact checkers, and it is time that changed,” he wrote. “It’s time for government to regulate the fact checking industry.” He named Politifact and Associated Press as examples of organizations that need government oversight as they advise social media—even though they are journalism organizations.

Marcus claims the First Amendment forbids regulation of “in-house” fact checkers, but he carves out the exception for independent checkers—something he appears to have pulled from thin air just like the living-and-breathing jurists. “This may seem antithetical to traditional conservative values of small government,” he says, but we ought not be “slaves to orthodoxy.”

Perhaps the Biden administration should appoint a regulator to fact-check Marcus’ writing for the next few weeks—and then he can report on the experience. Thanks to First Amendment “orthodoxy” that won’t happen, but it’s time for conservatives to grow a thicker skin and stop attacking the constitutional protections all of us enjoy.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3uKWUCo
via IFTTT

The Media’s Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning ‘Misinformation’ Is a Terrible Idea


coronavirus_lab_leak_misinformation

Facebook made a quiet but dramatic reversal last week: It no longer forbids users from touting the theory that COVID-19 came from a laboratory.

“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps,” the social media platform declared in a statement.

This change in policy comes in the midst of heated debate about how to respond to the perception that social media is amplifying the spread of false information. For the last several years, journalists and politicians have pushed to police so-called misinformation through various means. Major news organizations have hired mis- or disinformation reporters. Lawmakers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) have urged social media sites to prohibit speech deemed wrong or dangerous—and have sometimes suggested that this should be required by law. More recently, various groups have asked President Joe Biden to establish a federal initiative to combat online misinformation.

But Facebook’s concession that the lab leak story it once viewed as demonstrably false is actually possibly true should put to rest the idea that banning or regulating misinformation should be a chief public policy goal.

It’s one thing to discuss, debate, and correct wrong ideas, and both tech companies and media have roles to play in fostering healthy public dialogue. But Team Blue’s recent obsession with rendering unsayable anything that clashes with its preferred narrative is the height of hubris. The conversation should not be closed by the government and its yes-men in journalism, in tech, or even in public health.

From False Claim to Live Possibility

Consider that Facebook’s new declaration sits atop its About page, just above the site’s previous policy on coronavirus-related misinformation—dated February 8, 2021—which was to vigorously purge so-called “false claims,” including the notion that the disease “is man-made or manufactured.” The mainstream media had deemed this notion not merely wrong but dangerously absurd, and tech companies followed suit, suppressing it to the best of their abilities.

“Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked,” read a February 2020 Washington Post article that criticized the Arkansas senator for departing from the prevailing narrative. Similarly, Politico both mischaracterized Cotton’s claims and said the rumor was “easily debunked within three minutes.”

But in recent weeks, the lab leak theory—the idea that COVID-19 inadvertently escaped from a laboratory, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology—has gained some public support among experts. In March, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) chief Robert Redfield said that he bought the theory. (His admission earned him death threats; most of them came from fellow scientists.) Nicholson Baker, writing in New York, and Nicholas Wade, formerly of The New York Times, both wrote articles that accepted the lab leak as equally if not more plausible than the idea that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans in the wild (or at a wet market). Even Anthony Fauci, the White House’s coronavirus advisor and an early critic of the lab leak theory, now concedes it shouldn’t be ruled out as a possibility.

This has forced many in the media to eat crow. Matthew Yglesias, formerly of Vox, assailed mainstream journalism’s approach to lab leak as a “fiasco.” The Post rewrote its February headline, which now refers to the lab leak as a “fringe theory that scientists have disputed” rather than as a debunked conspiracy theory. New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait noted that a few ardent opponents of lab leak “with unusually robust social-media profiles” had used Twitter—the preferred medium of progressive politicos and journalists—to promote the idea that any dissent on this subject was both wrong and a sign of racial bias against Asian people.

“Story after story depicted the lab-leak hypothesis as clearly false and even racist,” wrote Chait. “The outlets that fared worst were those like the Guardian, Slate, and Vox (which is owned by the same company that owns New York Media), which embraced a ‘moral clarity’ ethos of forgoing traditional journalistic norms of restraint and objectivity in favor of calling out lies and bigotry.”

To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else. (Moreover, there is considerable confusion about whether the U.S. government was funding the sort of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that could have produced COVID-19.) The Chinese government has stymied efforts to investigate the origins of the disease, and it’s possible the world will never know the truth.

But many lab-leak foes had not merely called the theory unproven. They had lobbied for the theory’s adherents to be effectively silenced. They asserted that anyone discussing it was a conspiracy theorist or even a racist. Indeed, some are still discouraging this conversation.

“I & other AAPIs are increasingly concerned that speculation over the lab leak theory will increase anti-Asian hate,” tweeted Leana Wen, a professor of public health and CNN medical analyst, earlier this week. “As we embark on a full scientific investigation, we must take actions to prevent the next escalation of anti-Asian racism.”

She did not explain why speculation about the lab leak theory would increase anti-Asian hate to a more appreciable degree than speculation about the wet market theory. The idea is counterintuitive: The lab leak theory indicts a handful of individual scientists and the Chinese government, whereas the wet market theory can be used to indict broader Asian cultural traditions that have often been criticized in the West. And while an apparent surge in anti-Asian hate crimes is at this point taken for granted among professional pundits and politicians, its extent and underlying causes are far from clear. For instance, the Atlanta spa killings are often cited as the prime example of the lethal nature of anti-Asian bias, but no definitive evidence has emerged thus far that racism was a conscious motivating factor in the shootings.

Yet it’s clear that a certain segment of lab-leak critics believed two things: 1) the theory would fan the flames of racism, and 2) for that reason, it should be proactively censored. Such is the slipperiness of the misinformation label, which has come to include all sorts of claims that are not straightforwardly false.

When ‘Misinformation’ Turns Out To Be True

What’s true of the debate over COVID-19’s origins is also true of countless other policy disputes. When The New York Post published a report on Hunter Biden’s efforts to lobby his father on behalf of foreign governments, the media pressured everyone to pretend the story did not even exist. Journalists who did share the article on social media were shamed for doing so, and the uniform assertions that the paper had fallen prey to a Russian disinformation campaign swiftly persuaded both Facebook and Twitter to throttle the story. Later, when it became evident that the information undergirding the story (if not all its conclusions) was accurate, tech companies were forced to admit their error. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has apologized repeatedly.

Big Tech takes its cues from the mainstream media, making decisions about which articles to boost or suppress based on the prevailing wisdom coming from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and elite media fact-checkers. (That’s according to information I obtained from insiders at Facebook during research for my forthcoming book, Tech Panic.) Social media companies are also wary of government officials, who have shown increasing interest in punishing them for platforming misinformation. Facebook, Twitter, et al are rationally skittish: Congress has hauled Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and others to Washington D.C. numerous times to answer questions about why specific pieces of content were allowed to exist. The best example of this was an April 2018 hearing in which Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.) printed out pictures of Facebook groups, glued them to a poster board, and demanded that Zuckerberg personally explain whether they were Russian in origin.

In February 2021, Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both of California, sent letters not just to tech companies but to cable providers taking them to task for airing outlets that spread misinformation. Later that week, Congress convened a hearing on “disinformation and extremism,” where lawmakers discussed whether the failure to purge all false claims about the 2020 election from the internet and television may have contributed to the Capitol riots.

Right-wing spaces are undoubtedly rife with absurd election claims, from the idea that President Trump actually won last year to the recent notion that a coup will restore him to office by August. The spread of election-related falsehoods—for which no one is more to blame than the former president himself—fanned the violence and destruction on January 6.

But some of the early reporting about what transpired at the Capitol also turned out to be false. Most notably, an angry MAGA mob did not bludgeon Officer Brian Sicknick to death with a fire extinguisher, as The New York Times and Associated Press initially claimed. It later emerged that Sicknick had suffered a stroke, yet no one called on Facebook to ban the AP. The defining characteristic of modern campaigns to police misinformation is naked partisanship.

An Epidemic of Federal Falsehoods

No issue has exposed the one-sidedness of the anti-misinformation drive as thoroughly as the pandemic, which has brought us countless examples of health officials making naïve, staggeringly wrong predictions. These have continued to the present day. A few short weeks ago, on March 30, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky warned of “impending doom” because some states were lifting COVID-19 restrictions too quickly. Thankfully, the doom didn’t materialize: Coronavirus cases and deaths have continued to declined precipitously, and now even the CDC has recommended a return to normal for everyone who has received the vaccine.

Trump’s advocacy of ridiculous or questionable COVID-19 cures earned widespread denunciation, and also inspired considerable fear that people would start drinking bleach and fish-tank cleaners. (When a man died after consuming the chemical, the media raced to blame Trump. The story subsequently turned out to be much more complicated.)

But millions of Americans spent the pandemic wildly scrubbing surfaces and cleaning their groceries due to bad guidance—what might reasonably be called misinformation— from the CDC. Many public spaces still follow such guidance. A requirement to power-wash desks and classrooms was a sticking point in the school reopening debate as recently as February of this year.

Most charitably, those are examples of experts applying their best judgement and making honest mistakes. But there are also instances of intentional lies. In the pandemic’s early stages, Fauci discouraged the use of masks only to abruptly reverse himself later. He later admitted that he was worried there wouldn’t be enough masks for hospitals and thus was deliberately evasive on the issue. In January, Fauci again confessed to a purportedly noble lie: He purposely set the herd immunity threshold at a lower level because he didn’t think the public could handle the actual number. In any fair accounting, this meets the classic definition of spreading misinformation, yet the media’s love affair with Fauci has hardly abated at all.

Meanwhile, progressives keep pressuring President Biden to do something to stem the spread of misinformation. A coalition of advocacy groups that includes PEN America, the Poynter Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others recently sent a letter to Biden urging his administration to create a federal disinformation task force. Several members of the coalition are generally quite supportive of free speech, and their statement calls for “remaining vigilant against censorship and other threats to free expression.” Nevertheless, they want the government to explore potential solutions to the problem of social media companies platforming falsehoods.

If the government really wants to fight misinformation, an important first step would be for its own health officials to stop saying things that are false. If social media companies want to help foster the spread of truthful information—as Zuckerberg emailed Fauci to say last year—they should remember that many supposedly authoritative sources in and out of government have partisan axes to grind.

Any broader effort to shut down conversations that include a great number of lies is likely to inadvertently criminalize some politically inconvenient truth, or something that seemed untrue but later proved prescient—lab leak or no lab leak.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34LDYZB
via IFTTT

The Media’s Lab Leak Debacle Shows Why Banning ‘Misinformation’ Is a Terrible Idea


coronavirus_lab_leak_misinformation

Facebook made a quiet but dramatic reversal last week: It no longer forbids users from touting the theory that COVID-19 came from a laboratory.

“In light of ongoing investigations into the origin of COVID-19 and in consultation with public health experts, we will no longer remove the claim that COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured from our apps,” the social media platform declared in a statement.

This change in policy comes in the midst of heated debate about how to respond to the perception that social media is amplifying the spread of false information. For the last several years, journalists and politicians have pushed to police so-called misinformation through various means. Major news organizations have hired mis- or disinformation reporters. Lawmakers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) have urged social media sites to prohibit speech deemed wrong or dangerous—and have sometimes suggested that this should be required by law. More recently, various groups have asked President Joe Biden to establish a federal initiative to combat online misinformation.

But Facebook’s concession that the lab leak story it once viewed as demonstrably false is actually possibly true should put to rest the idea that banning or regulating misinformation should be a chief public policy goal.

It’s one thing to discuss, debate, and correct wrong ideas, and both tech companies and media have roles to play in fostering healthy public dialogue. But Team Blue’s recent obsession with rendering unsayable anything that clashes with its preferred narrative is the height of hubris. The conversation should not be closed by the government and its yes-men in journalism, in tech, or even in public health.

From False Claim to Live Possibility

Consider that Facebook’s new declaration sits atop its About page, just above the site’s previous policy on coronavirus-related misinformation—dated February 8, 2021—which was to vigorously purge so-called “false claims,” including the notion that the disease “is man-made or manufactured.” The mainstream media had deemed this notion not merely wrong but dangerously absurd, and tech companies followed suit, suppressing it to the best of their abilities.

“Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked,” read a February 2020 Washington Post article that criticized the Arkansas senator for departing from the prevailing narrative. Similarly, Politico both mischaracterized Cotton’s claims and said the rumor was “easily debunked within three minutes.”

But in recent weeks, the lab leak theory—the idea that COVID-19 inadvertently escaped from a laboratory, possibly the Wuhan Institute of Virology—has gained some public support among experts. In March, former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) chief Robert Redfield said that he bought the theory. (His admission earned him death threats; most of them came from fellow scientists.) Nicholson Baker, writing in New York, and Nicholas Wade, formerly of The New York Times, both wrote articles that accepted the lab leak as equally if not more plausible than the idea that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans in the wild (or at a wet market). Even Anthony Fauci, the White House’s coronavirus advisor and an early critic of the lab leak theory, now concedes it shouldn’t be ruled out as a possibility.

This has forced many in the media to eat crow. Matthew Yglesias, formerly of Vox, assailed mainstream journalism’s approach to lab leak as a “fiasco.” The Post rewrote its February headline, which now refers to the lab leak as a “fringe theory that scientists have disputed” rather than as a debunked conspiracy theory. New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait noted that a few ardent opponents of lab leak “with unusually robust social-media profiles” had used Twitter—the preferred medium of progressive politicos and journalists—to promote the idea that any dissent on this subject was both wrong and a sign of racial bias against Asian people.

“Story after story depicted the lab-leak hypothesis as clearly false and even racist,” wrote Chait. “The outlets that fared worst were those like the Guardian, Slate, and Vox (which is owned by the same company that owns New York Media), which embraced a ‘moral clarity’ ethos of forgoing traditional journalistic norms of restraint and objectivity in favor of calling out lies and bigotry.”

To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else. (Moreover, there is considerable confusion about whether the U.S. government was funding the sort of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that could have produced COVID-19.) The Chinese government has stymied efforts to investigate the origins of the disease, and it’s possible the world will never know the truth.

But many lab-leak foes had not merely called the theory unproven. They had lobbied for the theory’s adherents to be effectively silenced. They asserted that anyone discussing it was a conspiracy theorist or even a racist. Indeed, some are still discouraging this conversation.

“I & other AAPIs are increasingly concerned that speculation over the lab leak theory will increase anti-Asian hate,” tweeted Leana Wen, a professor of public health and CNN medical analyst, earlier this week. “As we embark on a full scientific investigation, we must take actions to prevent the next escalation of anti-Asian racism.”

She did not explain why speculation about the lab leak theory would increase anti-Asian hate to a more appreciable degree than speculation about the wet market theory. The idea is counterintuitive: The lab leak theory indicts a handful of individual scientists and the Chinese government, whereas the wet market theory can be used to indict broader Asian cultural traditions that have often been criticized in the West. And while an apparent surge in anti-Asian hate crimes is at this point taken for granted among professional pundits and politicians, its extent and underlying causes are far from clear. For instance, the Atlanta spa killings are often cited as the prime example of the lethal nature of anti-Asian bias, but no definitive evidence has emerged thus far that racism was a conscious motivating factor in the shootings.

Yet it’s clear that a certain segment of lab-leak critics believed two things: 1) the theory would fan the flames of racism, and 2) for that reason, it should be proactively censored. Such is the slipperiness of the misinformation label, which has come to include all sorts of claims that are not straightforwardly false.

When ‘Misinformation’ Turns Out To Be True

What’s true of the debate over COVID-19’s origins is also true of countless other policy disputes. When The New York Post published a report on Hunter Biden’s efforts to lobby his father on behalf of foreign governments, the media pressured everyone to pretend the story did not even exist. Journalists who did share the article on social media were shamed for doing so, and the uniform assertions that the paper had fallen prey to a Russian disinformation campaign swiftly persuaded both Facebook and Twitter to throttle the story. Later, when it became evident that the information undergirding the story (if not all its conclusions) was accurate, tech companies were forced to admit their error. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has apologized repeatedly.

Big Tech takes its cues from the mainstream media, making decisions about which articles to boost or suppress based on the prevailing wisdom coming from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and elite media fact-checkers. (That’s according to information I obtained from insiders at Facebook during research for my forthcoming book, Tech Panic.) Social media companies are also wary of government officials, who have shown increasing interest in punishing them for platforming misinformation. Facebook, Twitter, et al are rationally skittish: Congress has hauled Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and others to Washington D.C. numerous times to answer questions about why specific pieces of content were allowed to exist. The best example of this was an April 2018 hearing in which Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–Vt.) printed out pictures of Facebook groups, glued them to a poster board, and demanded that Zuckerberg personally explain whether they were Russian in origin.

In February 2021, Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both of California, sent letters not just to tech companies but to cable providers taking them to task for airing outlets that spread misinformation. Later that week, Congress convened a hearing on “disinformation and extremism,” where lawmakers discussed whether the failure to purge all false claims about the 2020 election from the internet and television may have contributed to the Capitol riots.

Right-wing spaces are undoubtedly rife with absurd election claims, from the idea that President Trump actually won last year to the recent notion that a coup will restore him to office by August. The spread of election-related falsehoods—for which no one is more to blame than the former president himself—fanned the violence and destruction on January 6.

But some of the early reporting about what transpired at the Capitol also turned out to be false. Most notably, an angry MAGA mob did not bludgeon Officer Brian Sicknick to death with a fire extinguisher, as The New York Times and Associated Press initially claimed. It later emerged that Sicknick had suffered a stroke, yet no one called on Facebook to ban the AP. The defining characteristic of modern campaigns to police misinformation is naked partisanship.

An Epidemic of Federal Falsehoods

No issue has exposed the one-sidedness of the anti-misinformation drive as thoroughly as the pandemic, which has brought us countless examples of health officials making naïve, staggeringly wrong predictions. These have continued to the present day. A few short weeks ago, on March 30, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky warned of “impending doom” because some states were lifting COVID-19 restrictions too quickly. Thankfully, the doom didn’t materialize: Coronavirus cases and deaths have continued to declined precipitously, and now even the CDC has recommended a return to normal for everyone who has received the vaccine.

Trump’s advocacy of ridiculous or questionable COVID-19 cures earned widespread denunciation, and also inspired considerable fear that people would start drinking bleach and fish-tank cleaners. (When a man died after consuming the chemical, the media raced to blame Trump. The story subsequently turned out to be much more complicated.)

But millions of Americans spent the pandemic wildly scrubbing surfaces and cleaning their groceries due to bad guidance—what might reasonably be called misinformation— from the CDC. Many public spaces still follow such guidance. A requirement to power-wash desks and classrooms was a sticking point in the school reopening debate as recently as February of this year.

Most charitably, those are examples of experts applying their best judgement and making honest mistakes. But there are also instances of intentional lies. In the pandemic’s early stages, Fauci discouraged the use of masks only to abruptly reverse himself later. He later admitted that he was worried there wouldn’t be enough masks for hospitals and thus was deliberately evasive on the issue. In January, Fauci again confessed to a purportedly noble lie: He purposely set the herd immunity threshold at a lower level because he didn’t think the public could handle the actual number. In any fair accounting, this meets the classic definition of spreading misinformation, yet the media’s love affair with Fauci has hardly abated at all.

Meanwhile, progressives keep pressuring President Biden to do something to stem the spread of misinformation. A coalition of advocacy groups that includes PEN America, the Poynter Institute, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and others recently sent a letter to Biden urging his administration to create a federal disinformation task force. Several members of the coalition are generally quite supportive of free speech, and their statement calls for “remaining vigilant against censorship and other threats to free expression.” Nevertheless, they want the government to explore potential solutions to the problem of social media companies platforming falsehoods.

If the government really wants to fight misinformation, an important first step would be for its own health officials to stop saying things that are false. If social media companies want to help foster the spread of truthful information—as Zuckerberg emailed Fauci to say last year—they should remember that many supposedly authoritative sources in and out of government have partisan axes to grind.

Any broader effort to shut down conversations that include a great number of lies is likely to inadvertently criminalize some politically inconvenient truth, or something that seemed untrue but later proved prescient—lab leak or no lab leak.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34LDYZB
via IFTTT

AMC CEO Reveals He Isn’t Wearing Pants While Hinting At Potential Deal

AMC CEO Reveals He Isn’t Wearing Pants While Hinting At Potential Deal

In just a short time, AMC CEO Adam Aron has earned a reputation as a masterful pied piper of the “ape” army of retail traders who have rallied around his company, driving the firm’s shares up by nearly 400% in under 2 weeks.

Earlier this week, Aron announced a unique “rewards program” promising AMC shareholders special offers (for starters: free large popcorn). Bloomberg’s Matt Levine suggested that this might pay dividends for AMC in terms of shareholder engagement since popcorn is cheap, and the company could just about cover its food and beverage costs for the last three years (just shy of $640M, according to the company’s annual report) by selling another 12M shares at last night’s close of $51.34.

After AMC shares went on another wild ride Thursday (and management asked for shareholders’ permission to raise the cap on the shares it can issue), Aron sat for an interview with Trey’s Trades, a popular YouTube channel that has gained a following thanks to the retail trading boom. The interview afforded Aron an almost uninterrupted opportunity to expound upon the company’s strategy, including its plans for strengthening its capital structure via more share offerings.

While Aron promised he would leave some ammo in the hopper in case of an unforeseen emergency, he also vigorously defended the company’s decision to repeatedly tap the markets for more capital, and why he wants to ask for even more, while sketching out what some might describe as a grandiose vision for the future of AMC.

The take

“We can also use the $800M we just raised…and whatever we might be able to raise in 2022, or 2023…maybe there’s another movie theater company we can buy, maybe there’s a great acquisition for us outside of pure-play movie theaters that would allow us to vertically integrate…if you arm us with the tool to go find value-creating opportunities for AMC shareholders, we can do that. If you don’t arm us with this tool, you will be tying our hands behind our back.”

Could AMC buy another movie chain? Or perhaps even a movie studio? Who knows? But with 80% of the company’s float owned by retail traders, Aron has a lot of wiggle room to do pretty much whatever he wants with the money…so long as he can make an argument that it will benefit AMC’s bottom line.

Readers can watch the full interview below:

But Aron really got the audience’s attention when he appeared to accidentally knock over his camera, inadvertently revealing that he wasn’t wearing pants.

The accident occurred just as Aron was making the conclusion to his argument for AMC’s long-term future.

As Aron admitted during the interview, he has been spending a lot of time on twitter lately. So he probably understands that these types of “viral moments” play well with the Internet-addicted ‘apes’ that are buying his stock.

Some interpreted the move as a sign: perhaps some kind of message to AMC shorts that more pain lies ahead? Is AMC going to make some kind of big announcement in the near future?

Are they going to “diversify” by launching their own streaming platform? Probably not. But Aron strongly hinted at the possibility of AMC buying a rival chain, so long as the market doesn’t tie the company’s hands by dumping the stock.

At any rate, the interview is just the latest sign of how the army of retail traders is changing markets and media, as CNBC was left scrambling for a follow-up.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/04/2021 – 07:28

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3yX4kpD Tyler Durden

Performative Pandemic Panic


dpaphotosfour904509

It’s bad enough when government officials impose draconian policies out of sincere, if misguided, intentions to protect the public from harm. It’s worse when those draconian policies are imposed for performative reasons, in order to elicit a reaction and frighten people. But, over a year after the beginning of the pandemic, it looks like much of the damaging and divisive policy we suffered was just that: not efforts to preserve health, but instead schemes to prod the population into compliance.

“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, wrote in February 2020 in one of thousands of emails obtained by BuzzFeed News. “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep[ing] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.”

Fauci voiced his skepticism towards masks to Sylvia Burwell, apparently the same one who served as President Barack Obama’s second-term secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. But, despite his doubts, he spent the following months pushing mask-wearing to the public, even touting double-masking as recently as February 2021, a year after he advised Burwell against the practice. During the intervening months, masks became yet another point of conflict between police and the public during a year of protests against law enforcement misbehavior.

“One man took his mask off to answer his phone. Another walked alone on a quiet street with a bare face. The third kept his mask nearby outside a Lincoln Road restaurant while he examined its menu,” the Miami Herald reported last August of people slapped with fines by cops for leaving faces uncovered.

Face masks became yet another political flashpoint in a politically polarized country.

“Wearing a mask is for smug liberals,” Politico noted in May 2020. “Refusing to is for reckless Republicans.”

Now, even with widespread vaccination, mask-wearing remains politically divisive. Some Team Blue partisans retain the coverings just to demonstrate that they aren’t Republicans even after Fauci admitted that the chance of vaccinated people getting infected is extremely low, making masks unnecessary.

The situation may have been even worse in the U.K., where public officials deliberately tried to scare the hell out of the public in order to make people more malleable.

“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian’,” The Telegraph reported last month about the tactics adopted by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B). “SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from Covid-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened’.”

The story drew on A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth, a recently published book that charges the British government with weaponizing fear in its pandemic response in order to manipulate the public into accepting lockdowns and other coercive policies.

Manipulative negativity played a powerful role in the U.S., too, with Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warning of “impending doom” in March, even as millions of Americans flocked to get vaccinated and return to normal life. President Joe Biden simultaneously threatened renewed lockdowns as he warned of new infections in a population steadily gaining protection against anything of the sort. That gloom seeped into and dominated media coverage, which bombarded the public with panic porn even when there was encouraging news to report.

“Ninety one percent of stories by U.S. major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty four percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty five percent for scientific journals,” found Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacredote and two co-authors in “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?” Published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. “The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials. Media negativity is unresponsive to changing trends in new COVID-19 cases or the political leanings of the audience.”

Unsurprisingly, when officials and the media tell people that the sky is falling, a fair number will take them seriously—at least until they discover that they’ve been misled. When asked what percentage of COVID-19 patients require hospitalization, “Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%,” the Brookings Institution’s Jonathan Rothwell and Franklin Templeton’s Sonal Desai reported of polling data. “Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization. If that were true, the millions of resulting patients would have overwhelmed hospitals throughout the pandemic.”

Along the way, the potential risks of the virus became yet another partisan issue. While the need for hospitalization is hyped across the political spectrum, in general “Republicans consistently underestimate risks, while Democrats consistently overestimate them,” Rothwell and Desai add.

Maybe it’s only fair that Americans are politically partisan in their response to politicians attempting to manipulate them.

Americans are not only further divided by the performative policies of cynical officials, they’re made poorer by them. Lockdowns imposed by officials who often ignored their own rules crippled businesses, economists point out. And the government “stimulus” spending sold as a replacement for normal economic activity threatens to hobble Americans for years to come.

Perhaps the only saving grace is that, with contradictory and manipulative dictates to the public, officialdom shed its credibility in wholesale lots. Public figures tailored policies and messages with seemingly less regard for the evidence than for herding the population into desired behavior. It’s unlikely they’ll command sufficient good will to pull such stunts again anytime soon.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34JTuFq
via IFTTT

Performative Pandemic Panic


dpaphotosfour904509

It’s bad enough when government officials impose draconian policies out of sincere, if misguided, intentions to protect the public from harm. It’s worse when those draconian policies are imposed for performative reasons, in order to elicit a reaction and frighten people. But, over a year after the beginning of the pandemic, it looks like much of the damaging and divisive policy we suffered was just that: not efforts to preserve health, but instead schemes to prod the population into compliance.

“Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, wrote in February 2020 in one of thousands of emails obtained by BuzzFeed News. “The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep[ing] out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you. I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location.”

Fauci voiced his skepticism towards masks to Sylvia Burwell, apparently the same one who served as President Barack Obama’s second-term secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. But, despite his doubts, he spent the following months pushing mask-wearing to the public, even touting double-masking as recently as February 2021, a year after he advised Burwell against the practice. During the intervening months, masks became yet another point of conflict between police and the public during a year of protests against law enforcement misbehavior.

“One man took his mask off to answer his phone. Another walked alone on a quiet street with a bare face. The third kept his mask nearby outside a Lincoln Road restaurant while he examined its menu,” the Miami Herald reported last August of people slapped with fines by cops for leaving faces uncovered.

Face masks became yet another political flashpoint in a politically polarized country.

“Wearing a mask is for smug liberals,” Politico noted in May 2020. “Refusing to is for reckless Republicans.”

Now, even with widespread vaccination, mask-wearing remains politically divisive. Some Team Blue partisans retain the coverings just to demonstrate that they aren’t Republicans even after Fauci admitted that the chance of vaccinated people getting infected is extremely low, making masks unnecessary.

The situation may have been even worse in the U.K., where public officials deliberately tried to scare the hell out of the public in order to make people more malleable.

“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behaviour during the Covid pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian’,” The Telegraph reported last month about the tactics adopted by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B). “SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from Covid-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened’.”

The story drew on A State of Fear by Laura Dodsworth, a recently published book that charges the British government with weaponizing fear in its pandemic response in order to manipulate the public into accepting lockdowns and other coercive policies.

Manipulative negativity played a powerful role in the U.S., too, with Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warning of “impending doom” in March, even as millions of Americans flocked to get vaccinated and return to normal life. President Joe Biden simultaneously threatened renewed lockdowns as he warned of new infections in a population steadily gaining protection against anything of the sort. That gloom seeped into and dominated media coverage, which bombarded the public with panic porn even when there was encouraging news to report.

“Ninety one percent of stories by U.S. major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty four percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty five percent for scientific journals,” found Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacredote and two co-authors in “Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?” Published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. “The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive scientific developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials. Media negativity is unresponsive to changing trends in new COVID-19 cases or the political leanings of the audience.”

Unsurprisingly, when officials and the media tell people that the sky is falling, a fair number will take them seriously—at least until they discover that they’ve been misled. When asked what percentage of COVID-19 patients require hospitalization, “Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%,” the Brookings Institution’s Jonathan Rothwell and Franklin Templeton’s Sonal Desai reported of polling data. “Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization. If that were true, the millions of resulting patients would have overwhelmed hospitals throughout the pandemic.”

Along the way, the potential risks of the virus became yet another partisan issue. While the need for hospitalization is hyped across the political spectrum, in general “Republicans consistently underestimate risks, while Democrats consistently overestimate them,” Rothwell and Desai add.

Maybe it’s only fair that Americans are politically partisan in their response to politicians attempting to manipulate them.

Americans are not only further divided by the performative policies of cynical officials, they’re made poorer by them. Lockdowns imposed by officials who often ignored their own rules crippled businesses, economists point out. And the government “stimulus” spending sold as a replacement for normal economic activity threatens to hobble Americans for years to come.

Perhaps the only saving grace is that, with contradictory and manipulative dictates to the public, officialdom shed its credibility in wholesale lots. Public figures tailored policies and messages with seemingly less regard for the evidence than for herding the population into desired behavior. It’s unlikely they’ll command sufficient good will to pull such stunts again anytime soon.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34JTuFq
via IFTTT

Now Everybody—


minisnoweverybody_

Thomas Pynchon’s reputation as a “difficult” writer may be exaggerated—some of his shorter fictions are pretty accessible—but it isn’t exactly undeserved. Books like V. and Gravity’s Rainbow are rich, encyclopedic, and frequently funny works of anti-authoritarian literature, but they’re also dense, complex, experimental, at times deliberately confusing, and prone to extended tangents. Pynchon’s postmodern doorstops are about as far as you could get from the spare simplicity of a Hank Williams song.

But what if you could experience him as a Hank Williams song?

Pynchon has always been prone to inserting verses into his novels. With Now Everybody—, the alt-country band Visit has set a bunch of those ditties to music. The group experiments with different genres: There’s a calypso number, a psychedelic rock song, some sound collages. But most of the tracks are country music, with loopy Pynchonian lines like “That hometown Vampire gang’s/all Flashin their fangs/it can Do funny thangs/to your brain” backed by a moaning steel guitar.

That particular track—”Full Moon in Pisces,” taken from Pynchon’s lysergic detective novel Inherent Vice—has a melody that owes more than a little to Hank Williams’ 1953 single “Weary Blues From Waitin’.” And so help me, the combination works. As the song goes: “So what if it feels/A little head over heels/No big deal/you’re not real-/ly insane.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3g6ZpJW
via IFTTT