Month: January 2022

Watch: Ukrainians Attempt To Storm Parliament Building

Watch: Ukrainians Attempt To Storm Parliament Building

Social unrest erupted on Tuesday outside the parliament building in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, amid the escalating tensions between the US and Russia over Ukraine. 

Russian news agency TASS reports small and medium-sized business owners tried to storm the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, over changes to the tax system implemented this year. 

Opponents of the new rules, pushed by President Volodymyr Zelensky, said the law that makes cash registers required for all businesses should be abolished. They also called for a simplified tax system. 

Stunning photos and videos surfaced on Twitter showing protesters surrounding the parliament building, waving Ukrainian flags. 

The protesters attempted to enter the parliament building. TASS said, “the picketers are again attempting to enter the Rada. Police cordons do not allow them to do so yet.”

Then all hell broke out. “During previous clashes, the protesters managed to break through the fence and they came very close to the parliament,” the Russian news agency said. 

Ukrainian media reports at least two dozen were attested, and a number of protesters and police officers suffered injuries due to the clashes. 

Rada lawmakers were evacuated from the building as the unrest outside unfolded, leaving only journalists and police officers in the building.

The unrest outside the parliament building comes as President Biden and western corporate media drum up the threat of a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine. Biden said it would be the “largest invasion since World War II.” 

Biden’s remarks come as the US orders family members and embassy staff to leave Ukraine. About 8,500 US troops were put on high alert as tensions between NATO and Russia over Ukraine worsened this week. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 08:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tZ8Gwj Tyler Durden

Mainstream Suddenly Realizes Raising Interest Rates In A World Buried In Debt Might Be A Problem

Mainstream Suddenly Realizes Raising Interest Rates In A World Buried In Debt Might Be A Problem

Authored by Michael Maharrey via SchiffGold.com,

The Federal Reserve is talking about raising interest rates. But the US economy is buried under piles of debt. I’ve been asking how this is going to work for months. Apparently, the question has finally occurred to the mainstream.

A CNBC article declared, “Fed rate hikes will intensify a global debt crisis, research warns.”

Well, yeah. Duh.

According to the study came from a UK non-profit the Jubilee Debt Campaign, debt payments rose in developing countries by 120% between 2010 and 2021. They are currently at their highest levels since 2001.

The sharp increase in debt payments is hindering countries’ economic recovery from the pandemic, the report suggested, and rising US and global interest rates in 2022 could exacerbate the problem for many lower income countries.”

The study and the CNBC article are really a pitch for debt cancellation, but their narrative swerves into an unpleasant truth for US policymakers. Raising interest rates in a world awash in red ink is going to be a problem. And not just for “developing countries.”

The US government is closing in fast on $30 trillion in debt with no end to the borrowing and spending in sight. The federal government managed to run a deficit in December despite record receipts.

In December alone, the federal government spent $508 billion. The was the highest December spending level ever. Through the first three months of fiscal 2022, the federal government has already spent $1.43 trillion. That’s a record for the first quarter of any fiscal year.

Raising interest rates will drastically increase the cost of servicing all of that debt. And it will increase the cost of borrowing more money for the Biden spending coming down the pike.

In the fiscal year 2020, Uncle Sam spent $345 billion in net interest payments alone, despite near-zero interest rates. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that even a 2% increase in interest rates would cause net interest payments to rise to a whopping $750 billion. And this estimate was calculated before the passage of the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. That was followed up with a big surge in interest rates on US Treasuries. In other words, $750 billion underestimates the cost.

On top of that, American consumers are buried under debt. Consumer debt jumped 11% year-on-year in November. It was the biggest single-month jump in consumer debt in 20 years. Total consumer debt now stands at over $4.41 trillion. And that doesn’t include mortgages.

Revolving debt – primarily credit card balances – grew by a staggering 23.4% year-on-year in November. That was the biggest increase since 1998.

And that’s not all. Businesses and corporations are also leveraged to the hilt.

The year 2020 set a record for corporate debt issuance with $2.28 trillion of bonds and loans, comprising both new bonds and bonds issued to refinance existing debt.

All of this debt is a feature of the Fed’s loose monetary policy – not a bug.

The Federal Reserve and the US government have built a post-pandemic “economic recovery” on stimulus and debt. It is predicated on consumers spending stimulus money borrowed and handed out by the federal government or running up their own credit cards.

Now, the Fed is threatening to turn off that easy money spigot. How is that going to work? How will consumers buried under more than $1 trillion in credit card debt pay those balances down with interest rates rising?  With rising rates, minimum payments will rise. It will cost more just to pay the interest on the outstanding balances.

Overleveraged companies have the same problem.

And so does the US government.

This does not bode well for an economy that depends on borrowing and spending to sustain itself.

The only reason Americans can borrow money is because the Fed is enabling them. It holds interest rates artificially low. That’s how the economy works. And that’s why I think the Fed will ultimately relent on any move it makes toward tighter monetary policy. As Peter Schiff put it, the Fed can’t do what it’s claiming it will do.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 08:29

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3G2gHD1 Tyler Durden

The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: The Duties to Retreat and to Comply with Negative Demands

I’ve just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I’d serialize it here, minus most of the footnotes (which you can see in the full PDF). I’d love to hear people’s reactions and recommendations, since there’s still plenty of time to edit it. You can also be previous posts (and any future posts, as they come up), here.

[* * *]

Thirteen states and D.C. continue to recognize a so-called “duty to retreat” as a limitation on the right to use lethal force in self-defense.[1] The Model Penal Code captures the standard definition well: Even in defending against threat of death or serious bodily harm, deadly force may not be used if “the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.” And this likely means that the defenders can’t return to the place from which they retreated, at least for some time.

Seven states also recognize the duty to comply with negative demands, by denying the right to use deadly force in self-defense if “the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety … by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take.”[2] And one state appears to recognize a narrow duty to comply with both positive and negative demands, but only if they are minor: North Dakota denies the right to use deadly force in self-defense if “it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by … conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the individual menaced.”

Here too the law in essence requires people to comply with criminal demands. Say Craig tells Danielle, “leave this bar or I’ll kill you.” (It’s not Craig’s bar, so he’s not just demanding that she cease an illegal trespass.) If Danielle refuses to comply with Craig’s demands, she will lose her right to use deadly force to protect herself against Craig’s deadly attack.[3] And “[t]he same result follows, of course, if there is no demand but the actor knows that he will be attacked if he appears in a certain place.” (Not all duty to retreat scenarios involve such demands—sometimes the attacker actually wants the defender to stay, for instance when the attacker wants to beat up the defender. But they often do involve such a “retreat or else” demand, and then the duty to retreat, if state law recognizes it, applies.)

Likewise if Craig tells Danielle, “don’t dance with your new lover in front of me at this bar.” That is “a demand that [s]he abstain from any action which [s]he has no duty to take.” By refusing to “comply[] with [that] demand,” Danielle again loses her right to use deadly force should Craig attack her. And the statutory formulation of the duty to comply could in principle extend to serious demands indeed: “Don’t have sex with my ex-lover or I’ll kill you”; “don’t set up your business competing with me, or I’ll kill you”; “don’t set up an abortion clinic, or I’ll kill you.”

Of course, the theory behind such duties is that Danielle should try to have Craig arrested and prosecuted. But say he denies having made the threat, and it’s just his word against Danielle’s at that point. The police may then decline to arrest him, the prosecutor may decline to prosecute (perhaps foreseeing that it would be hard to prove the threat beyond a reasonable doubt based just on Danielle’s word), or the jury may acquit for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then Danielle would still lose her lethal self-defense rights by (say) dating the ex-lover. Indeed, her report of Craig’s threat to the police could be used against her, since it would show that Craig had indeed made a demand with which Danielle has refused to comply. Self-defense is a form of self-help, which is especially useful if past attempts to enlist the legal system’s help have failed. The duties to retreat and to comply foreclose that form of self-help.

The duties to retreat and comply are sometimes characterized as a special case of the “necessity” requirement in self-defense law:

  1. To lawfully use deadly force in self-defense, the defender must reasonably believe that the use is necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, or (in some states) some other serious crimes.
  2. Deadly self-defense is necessary, the argument goes, only if there is no alternative that would still avert the danger without using deadly force.
  3. And if there is an alternative—averting the danger by safely retreating—that means deadly force isn’t necessary.

But this formulation of “necessity” is incomplete, because the law always recognizes that some alternatives need not be taken, because they unduly impose on your liberty.

For instance, say you’re in a jurisdiction that doesn’t allow deadly force simply to prevent robbery. (Half of all American jurisdictions take this view.) The “can’t use lethal self-defense if it’s not necessary” approach would suggest that you therefore can’t use lethal self-defense if a robber demands your money, you refuse to obey, and he attacks you in a way that threatens death or serious bodily injury. After all, you could have averted the danger by handing over the money, so deadly force wasn’t necessary.

Yet even the Model Penal Code’s duty to comply wouldn’t require this. Instead, it makes clear that the duty to comply never includes the duty to turn over property (except property demanded under a claim of right, for instance as with repossession of borrowed or mortgaged property). Having to turn over even a modest sum is seen as such an intrusion on liberty—or perhaps on dignity—that you don’t lose your right to self-defense by refusing to take that alternative.

Likewise, say someone credibly says, “beg me for mercy, or I’ll break your arm.” No jurisdiction would bar you from using deadly force against this threat of serious bodily injury on the theory that deadly force was not “necessary” because you could have avoided the injury by begging.[4] Even the Model Penal Code makes clear that, while you have a duty to comply with demands to abstain from action—or else lose your right to self-defense—you don’t have a duty to comply with demands to take action. Though there is an alternative (begging) that would still avert the danger without using deadly force, the Code (and, to my knowledge, the law of all states) would still let you use deadly force to protect yourself, without condemning such use as unnecessary.

The Code’s drafters justified this exclusion of a duty to comply with positive demands by saying th­at such demands of “positive action” could be “infinite in variety,” and some of them may be “outrageous, a demand to which the answer is that one would risk death rather than comply.” Perhaps a demand for begging might so qualify for some people, and other positive demands for still more people.

So the duty to retreat is more specific than a necessity requirement: It is a statement that, if threatened with serious violence, you must surrender your right to be in a particular place—but not your right not to turn over your money, or your right not to beg—or lose your right to deadly self-defense. Likewise for the duty to comply with negative demands.

This may be part of the reason why, despite the Model Penal Code’s endorsement, the duty to retreat is now recognized in only about a quarter of the states—and why the duty to comply has been adopted by even fewer states. Dean Margaret Raymond put it well in a 2009 article:

[The Model Penal Code’s] approaches inappropriately undervalue that actor’s dignitary interest …[:] the actor’s interest in being permitted to move about freely and to pursue those activities fundamental to a free society, without being subjugated to the unlawful demands of another actor…. Any rule that constrains the law-abiding citizen’s choice of lawful options by requiring her to submit to the unlawful demands of others in order to retain the privilege of self-defense improperly invades that interest. Such a rule … requires her to submit to the subjugation of an aggressive and unlawful actor. This allows bullies effectively to require compliance with their [express or implicit] demands.

Whatever the (uncertain) pragmatic costs and benefits of such duties to retreat or comply, such legally mandated “submi[ssion] to the subjugation of an aggressive and unlawful actor” is understandably unpopular.

The duty to comply with negative demands, by the way, appears to have been inherited from the Restatement (First) of Torts, where it was a limitation on the self-defense defense to a tort claim for battery. The Restatement, as best I can tell, invented the rule; it offers no case citations supporting its position. The Restatement (Second) continued to endorse the rule, but it was deliberately removed from the Restatement (Third).

The practical limitation on the duty to comply may be prosecutorial discretion. I have found only two appellate cases that refer to the duty having been invoked, and the facts in both seem unusual.

[1.] James Savage and C. Sumner Morrill were fellow bluegrass band members; Savage had an affair with Morrill’s wife, and after that ended,

Savage and his wife went to [Morrill’s farm]. Savage brought a loaded revolver, a tape recorder and copies of letters and tapes from Morrill’s wife.

As a result of an earlier confrontation, Savage was aware that Morrill did not wish to discuss Savage’s relationship with Morrill’s wife…. Savage placed the tape recorder on the table and said he wanted Morrill to hear something. Morrill said he did not want to hear it, he knew all about it, this was his home and that he would have to get his “persuader.” Savage fired four shots at Morrill, the first two in his chest, a third through the side and a fourth through his back as he was kneeling on the floor. Savage testified that Morrill had previously threatened to kill Savage and that he thought Morrill referred to a gun when he mentioned “persuader.”

The court upheld the conviction, and in particular endorsed a jury instruction “that Savage was not justified in using deadly force if he knew that he could with complete safety comply with a demand by the victim that he abstain from doing something that he was not obliged to do”—namely, the demand that Savage stop talking about the affair.

Two facts here, though, make this an unusually strong case for a duty to comply, and may explain why it was argued in this case but so few others. First, Savage was in Morrill’s house, doing something that Morrill had told me he didn’t want to do. It doesn’t appear that Morrill had demanded that Savage leave, so Savage wasn’t exactly a trespasser. Still, any claim for a right to defy others’ demands appears weaker when one is defying a homeowner’s demands in his own home.

Morrill could have lawfully demanded that Savage leave, and could have lawfully threatened deadly violence as a means of backing that up. Morrill’s demand that Savage abide by Morrill’s conditions if he were to stay seems comparable.

Second, Savage was talking to Morrill, over Morrill’s objections. The law often gives people considerable veto powers over others’ talking to them, whether through unwanted letters, unwanted phone calls, or other unwanted contact. (Indeed, the ban on fighting words may be seen as a special case of that principle.) That would not justify Morrill’s seeming implicit threat to shoot Savage if Savage continued discussing the matter. But it does weaken any interest on Savage’s part in continuing to exercise his liberty notwithstanding Morrill’s threat.

[2.] Lauren Daly and Margaret Dover were raising children together; after they broke up, they had conflicts about the custody arrangements. At one exchange of children, Daly shot Dover; her defense was that she believed Dover was trying to run her over with her car, and therefore shot in self-defense. The parties had apparently agreed that all exchanges would take place with Daly remaining in the home (presumably to avoid tense in-person interactions between Daly and Dover); and the judge instructed the jury that

[If the Commonwealth proves that Daly] knew that she could avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by complying with a demand that she abstain from any action she had no duty to make and failing to do so by coming out of the house and coming to the proximity of this automobile during the transfer of the child[,] … the actions of [Daly] are not justified.

This seems to me to be an error on the judge’s part, because “the duty to retreat does not arise until the defendant forms a reasonable belief that the other person ‘is using or about to use deadly physical force'”; by the same logic, the duty to comply wouldn’t, either. Thus, if Daly and Dover were (say) having a non-visibly-life-threatening argument, and Dover said “just go away,” Daly didn’t go away, and Dover tried to run Daly over with her car, Daly would be able to use deadly force if she were unable to safely retreat at that point—it wouldn’t matter that she could have avoided the problem by leaving before the situation became deadly (or else we would have a standing duty to avoid anyone who we think might threaten us if a conversation goes bad). Likewise here: If at the point Dover was (supposedly) trying to run Daly over, Daly couldn’t safely avoid the situation by retreating or complying with a demand to abstain, she should have the right to use lethal force in self-defense—even if she could have avoided the problem by complying before the threat to her life became apparent.

[1] The states are essentially the mid-Atlantic and New England states (minus New Hampshire and Vermont), plus three midwestern states (Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska) and Hawaii.

[2] Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

[3] The right to use deadly force in self-defense against threats of death or serious bodily harm is understood by American law as a right—often even a constitutional right—and not just as a benefit that the law is free to withdraw.

[4] I assume that even under North Dakota’s provision that “The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by … conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the individual menaced,” such begging-on-demand would be seen as more than a minimal interference with freedom.

The post The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: The Duties to Retreat and to Comply with Negative Demands appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nZqh3q
via IFTTT

Futures Surge After Microsoft Reversal With All Eyes On Fed

Futures Surge After Microsoft Reversal With All Eyes On Fed

Yesterday, after Microsoft stock initially slumped despite beating across the board as the skeptical market latched on to even the smallest weakness to hammer the stock, dragging down both the Nasdaq and S&P futures close to session lows, we said that the reaction was premature and would reverse, as the earnings release did not include guidance and would promptly reverse once the company revealed its cloud guidance in its conference call a little over an hour later. Well, that’s precisely what happened and after first tumbling as much as 5% after hours, the 2nd largest US company (MSFT has $2.2 trillion in market cap) reversed all losses and is now trading solidly in the green, sparking broader tech momentum, lifting the Nasdaq as much as 2.1% this morning and (briefly) helping traders forget that today at 2pm the Fed is expected to unveil a March rate hike and balance sheet runoff a few months later.

Indeed, contracts on the Nasdaq 100 led broad-based gains – which would have been gaping losses had MSFT failed to reverse late on Tuesday – as U.S. stock futures rallied, with investors bracing for the Federal Reserve’s decision and preparing for a slew of earnings from companies including Tesla, Intel and Boeing. Nasdaq 100 futures jumped as much as 2.1% while S&P 500 and Dow Jones futures also rallied. The VIX fell from a one-year high, snapping six days of gains. Elsewhere, the Stoxx Europe 600 rose 2% in the biggest jump in seven weeks. 10Y TSY yields rose to 1.79% with the Fed’s policy announcement in the limelight; the dollar was slightly higher, as was Bitcoin while Brent oil traded just shy of $90 on its way to triple digits.

Of course, the big event today is the Fed policy statement at 2pm ET and press conference 2:30pm, which are expected to ratify expectations for rate increases beginning in March

  • Short-term interest rate futures price in just 1bp of rate-hike premium for January meeting but fully price in 25bp for March
  • Commentary on shrinking the central bank’s balance sheet is also anticipated

We will have a detailed post on what to expect from the Fed shortly.

“We expect inflation to remain high and interest rates to rise more than investors are expecting today,” said Norbert Frey, head of portfolio management at Fuerst Fugger Privatbank. “A rising interest rate environment is leading to a revaluation of all business models and we think 2022 can be a year of value stocks.”

While equities have had had a rocky start to 2022 as bond yields rose with investors anticipate tighter policy from the Fed, while Russia-U.S. tension added to investor concerns. Now, strategists from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to Citigroup Inc. are saying it’s time to buy the dip.

“Any further significant weakness at the index level should be seen as a buying opportunity, in our view,” Goldman strategists including Peter Oppenheimer wrote in a note on Wednesday. 

In U.S. premarket trading, Microsoft Corp rose, with analysts positive on the software maker’s outlook for growth for its Azure cloud-computing services. Shares gained 4.1% in U.S. premarket trading after initially tumbling before the market heard the company’s strong cloud guidance, with analysts positive on the software maker’s outlook for growth for its Azure cloud-computing services. Analysts also highlighted the company’s commercial bookings and a supportive IT spending backdrop. Texas Instruments shares also rose 4% after the chipmaker gave a first-quarter forecast that was stronger than expected, with analysts noting the company’s conservatism amid a still supportive demand backdrop. Texas Instruments also reported its fourth-quarter results. Other notable premarket movers:

  • Cryptocurrency-exposed stocks in Europe and the U.S. are trading higher as Bitcoin kept regaining ground ahead of the Federal Reserve decision. Marathon Digital (MARA US) +6%, (RIOT US) Riot Blockchain +5%, (COIN US) Coinbase +3.4%.
  • Electric vehicle stocks climb in U.S. premarket trading ahead of Tesla’s fourth-quarter results due Wednesday after the market close. Rivian (RIVN US) +3.5%; Tesla (TSLA US) +4.4%; Nikola (NKLA US) +3.6%.
  • Moderna’s (MRNA US) stock valuation “makes a lot more sense” after more than halving since Deutsche Bank initiated in October, prompting the broker to upgrade the vaccine maker to hold from sell. Shares gain 4.6% premarket.
  • Capital One (COF US) reported adjusted earnings per share for the fourth quarter that beat the average analyst estimate. Shares dropped postmarket, with higher expenses “the only wrinkle” in the bank’s quarter, according to Vital Knowledge.
  • Stride (LRN US) shares gained 7% postmarket Tuesday after the technology-based education company boosted its revenue forecast for the full year. The guidance beat the average

Global stocks have shed about 7% in January, on track for the worst month since the pandemic roiled markets back in 2020. Some strategists are optimistic about the outlook following the declines.

“The growth-policy trade-off may be less favourable, yet we think a lot of bad news is now priced in,” Emmanuel Cau, head of European equity strategy at Barclays Plc, wrote in a note. “Starts of policy normalisation typically bring higher volatility but rarely terminate bull markets, although higher-than-usual P/E multiples mean equities are more rates-sensitive this time.”

In the latest developments involving Russia and Ukraine, president Joe Biden said he would consider personally sanctioning Vladimir Putin if he orders an invasion of Ukraine, escalating efforts to deter the Russian leader from war. In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled that Moscow will respond to any “aggressive” action by the U.S. and its European allies as Germany and France pursue efforts to broker a peaceful resolution to the tensions over Ukraine.

European equities rally, brushing off geopolitical tensions, with most indexes clawing back roughly 3/4 of Monday’s sharp sell off to rise over 2%. Europe’s Stoxx 600 adds as much as 2% with travel, energy, miners and autos leading what is broad sectoral support. Here are some of the biggest European movers today:

  • Vestas Wind Systems shares rise as much as 6%, reversing an earlier decline, after guidance for 2022 was met with relief. Handelsbanken analysts said the guidance miss was unsurprising, and the market likely feared it would be worse.
  • Other European renewables stocks — which have been hit hard in the recent selloff — gain after Vestas’ update, rebounding after declines triggered by Siemens Gamesa’s profit warning last week.
  • Travel and leisure is the best-performing sector among Stoxx 600 groups on Wednesday. Airlines including Lufthansa and IAG lead gains, with the German carrier upgraded to buy at Stifel.
  • AutoStore advances after being raised to buy at Citi. The upgrade follows a slump of more than 50% amid uncertainty regarding patent litigation and a broader sell-off in tech stocks.
  • De Longhi rises as much as 8.9%, the most intraday since March 2021, after Equita upgrades to buy from hold, citing recent underperformance and more confidence in the company’s coffee business.
  • Essity falls the most since Oct. 2020 after the Swedish hygiene products manufacturer reported weaker-than-expected earnings and announced further price hikes in 2022.
  • Orpea shares continued their descent after its CEO was summoned to the French minister for elderly policy. The French nursing home operator also denied reports it had offered a journalist money to not publish a book critical of the company.
  • Barry Callebaut shares fell, reversing earlier gains, after reporting 1Q sales. Citi noted “some more caution” on commodities amid waning supply of cocoa beans.

Earlier in the session, stocks in Asia were mixed after slumping across the board in the previous session, as investors awaited the Federal Reserve’s policy decision. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index was down 0.1%, on track to fall for a fourth day, with advances in communication services and financials offsetting losses in technology shares. Benchmarks in China, Hong Kong and Singapore were among the gainers, while Japan’s Topix Index fell deeper into correction territory. Asian equities have tumbled this month amid heightened volatility on the prospect of U.S. monetary-policy tightening, with the Fed expected to telegraph a March interest-rate hike on Wednesday. Worries over rising rates sent a gauge of the region’s tech hardware stocks to its lowest in months on Wednesday, with chipmakers TSMC and Samsung Electronics among the biggest drags. “There’s a lot of noise in the market right now, and I don’t think anyone’s confident that this is the bottom, because we aren’t sure about Fed policy yet,” said Kyle Rodda, analyst at IG Markets. Despite the broader drop in tech shares, Tencent advanced on dip-buying, helping to boost the Hang Seng Tech Index. The CSI 300 Index whipsawed to narrowly avoid entering a bear market

Fixed income takes a back seat. Curves adopt a modest bear steepening theme with gilts underperforming both bunds and USTs by 1-2bps. Eurodollars bear flatten a touch ahead of today’s FOMC meeting. Peripheral and semi-core spreads narrow with Italy, Belgium and France outperforming.

Treasuries are under pressure in early U.S. trade with U.S. stock index futures higher by 1%-2%, European benchmarks by 2%-3%, with travel, energy, miners and autos leading a broad advance. Front-end yields cheaper by more than 2bp with most curve spreads within 1bp of Tuesday’s close; 10-year yields around 1.785%, outperforming gilts by ~1bp. Focal point of U.S. day is Fed policy decision and Chair Powell news conference. Auction cycle pauses for Fed, concluding with 7-year notes Thursday. The stellar 2Y & 5Y auctions are underwater after stopping through (the 5Y produced record-low dealer award), There is no Fed POMO today. IG dollar issuance slate empty so far and expected to remain slim; Treasury auctions resume with $53b 7-year note sale on Thursday, following strong demand for 2- and 5-year notes earlier this week.

In FX, Bloomberg Dollar Spot is little changed but mixed price action across much of G-10. USD/JPY rises through 114, EUR/USD dips back onto a 1.12-handle. Commodity currencies trade well as crude futures drift back toward Monday’s highs.

Bitcoin extended its gains for the week, trading near $38,000. 

In commodities, WTI adds 0.6%, regaining a $86-handle after the latest APIR report showed a draw in U.S. stockpiles and investors tracked tensions over Ukraine for signs the conflict may disrupt supplies. Brent climbs to about $89. Spot gold trades a tight range near $1,846/oz. Most base metals are well bid, lead by LME copper and tin; aluminum underperforms.

Looking at the day ahead now, the main highlight will be the aforementioned Federal Reserve decision and Chair Powell’s subsequent press conference, whilst there’s also a policy decision from the Bank of Canada. On the data side, we’ve got US new home sales for December, along with the preliminary December reading of wholesale inventories. Meanwhile earnings releases include Tesla, Abbott Laboratories, Intel, AT&T and Boeing.

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures up 1.2% to 4,399.50
  • STOXX Europe 600 up 1.8% to 467.79
  • MXAP down 0.1% to 186.79
  • MXAPJ little changed at 612.28
  • Nikkei down 0.4% to 27,011.33
  • Topix down 0.3% to 1,891.85
  • Hang Seng Index up 0.2% to 24,289.90
  • Shanghai Composite up 0.7% to 3,455.67
  • Sensex up 0.6% to 57,858.15
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 down 2.5% to 6,961.63
  • Kospi down 0.4% to 2,709.24
  • German 10Y yield little changed at -0.08%
  • Euro down 0.2% to $1.1284
  • Brent Futures up 0.8% to $88.92/bbl
  • Gold spot down 0.1% to $1,846.69
  • U.S. Dollar Index up 0.15% to 96.09

Top Overnight News from Bloomberg

  • Federal Reserve policy makers are poised to signal plans for their first interest rate hike since 2018 and discuss shrinking their bloated balance sheet as they seek to restrain the hottest inflation in nearly 40 years
  • The Treasury market appears more likely to respond in a logical way to Wednesday’s Federal Reserve communications because of indications that the past week’s U.S. stock-market bloodbath cleared out a crowded camp of bets on higher yields
  • The employment cost index, which Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell cited in December as a key reason for the central bank’s pivot to a more aggressive stance on inflation, is seen registering a fourth-quarter gain nearly on par with the record increase in the prior three months
  • Lithuanian Central Bank Governor Gediminas Simkus warned that Europe’s economy would suffer a significant blow if tensions escalate further between Russia and Ukraine, urging politicians to step up efforts to deter hostilities
  • OPEC and its allies are expected by delegates to stick to their plan and ratify another modest production increase next week as they try to satisfy rebounding oil demand

A more detailed look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

In Asian trading, APAC markets were subdued ahead of the FOMC and holiday-quietened conditions. Nikkei 225 (-0.4%) oscillated around the 27k level after record daily COVID-19 cases. KOSPI (-0.4%) faded opening gains with attention on earnings. Hang Seng (+0.2%) and Shanghai Comp. (+0.7%) were mixed as PBoC liquidity efforts and government support signals were offset as Evergrande default woes resurfaced.

Top Asian News

  • Foreigners Cash Out of Key Asian Emerging Markets Before Fed
  • China to Start Three-Year Crackdown on Money Laundering
  • China Criticizes U.S. Diplomats Seeking Exit Over Covid Rules
  • China South City Bonds Rally as Consent Given to Extend 2022s

European bourses are firmer in an extension of yesterday’s upside, with the Stoxx 600 +2.0% on the session but still lower on the week. US futures are firmer across the board with the NQ, +2.0%, outpacing and benefitting from MSFT post earnings, +4.0% in pre-market. European sectors are all in the green with Travel & Leisure outperforming amid broker action while Oil & Gas is a relatively close second given crude action. EU antitrust decision against Intel (INTC) has been annulled in part by the EU General Court. Microsoft (MSFT) Q2 2022 (USD): EPS 2.48 (exp. 2.31), Revenue 51.73bln (exp. 50.88bln). Co. sees Q3 product revenue between USD 15.6bln-15.8bln and expects Azure revenue growth to increase significantly, while it guides Q3 rev. USD 48.5bln-49.3bln (implied) vs exp. USD 47.7bln. +4.0% in the pre-market.

Top European News

  • Inflation Outlook No Reason for ECB to Change Track: Simkus
  • Italy Asks Firms Not to Meet With Putin Amid Ukraine Crisis
  • Finland ‘Wise’ to Sell Long-Maturity Debt Ahead of ECB Tapering
  • Europe Travel Stocks Gain on Airlines Boost; Lufthansa Upgraded

In FX, Loonie loving risk recovery and WTI revival in run up to likely BoC hike. Aussie rebounds in absence of those away for a national holiday. Greenback stands firm awaiting something hawkish from the Fed. Kiwi hovering ahead of NZ CPI. -Pound pensive before Partygate findings are published. Rouble unable to benefit from Brent bounce as Russia begins big drills in Black Sea to keep geopolitical tensions elevated.

In commodities, WTI and Brent March futures have continued grinding higher despite quiet news flow as focus remains on geopolitics and the benchmarks also benefit from equity action. At best, WTI and Brent have surpassed USD 86.00/bbl and USD 89.00/bbl respectively thus far. Spot Gold remains contained amid relatively rangebound USD action while Silver is buoyed ahead of USD 24.00 /oz and touted resistance marks. US Private Energy Inventory Data (bbls): Crude -0.9mln (exp. -0.7mln), Gasoline +2.4mln (exp. +2.5mln),
Distillates -2.2mln (exp. -1.3mln), Cushing -1.0mln. Qatar’s Emir is to meet US President Biden on Monday to discuss Afghanistan and contingency plans to supply natural gas to Europe in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Qatar Emir and US President Biden are to discuss additional Qatari gas supplies to Europe in the case of a Russian-Ukraine conflict at next week’s discussions, via Reuters sources; Qatar has little spare gas for Europe as most gas is pre-sold.

Geopolitics

  • US State Department said the US hasn’t seen the de-escalation that is necessary if diplomacy and dialogue with Russia is to prove successful, while US Department of Defense Spokesman Kirby said the US will not rule out adding further troops to the already 8,500 on alert.
  • Ukraine Foreign Ministers says the proposals the US will send to Russia do not raise Ukraine’s objections; subsequently, Moscow says received some answers to security guarantee proposals, but not in written form – awaiting further details.
  • Ukrainian President Zelensky said the situation in the east is under control and they are working to establish that the meeting of Presidents of Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France takes place as soon as possible.
  • Russian navy has commenced large-scale training in the Black Sea, according to Ifax.
  • UK Foreign Minister Truss, when question if they would sanction Russia’s Putin, says they are not ruling anything out.
  • Ukraine envoy to Japan said that they are fully committed to a diplomatic solution to the current tensions with Russia, while the envoy also stated that a full-scale war is very difficult to expect although they may see more localised conflict.

US Event Calendar

  • 7am: Jan. MBA Mortgage Applications, prior 2.3%
  • 8:30am: Dec. Advance Goods Trade Balance, est. -$96b, prior -$97.8b, revised -$98b
  • 8:30am: Dec. Retail Inventories MoM, est. 1.5%, prior 2.0%;  Wholesale Inventories MoM, est. 1.2%, prior 1.4%
  • 10am: Dec. New Home Sales MoM, est. 2.1%, prior 12.4%; New Home Sales, est. 760,000, prior 744,000
  • 2pm: FOMC Rate Decision

DB’s Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

With markets awaiting today’s policy decision from the Federal Reserve, yesterday marked another volatile session that saw the resumption of the equity selloff as investor jitters remained at the prospect of monetary policy tightening alongside burgeoning geopolitical tensions. Indeed, in many ways it was a repetition of Monday’s session with a further bout of wild intraday swings. At the start, the S&P 500 sold off heavily after the US open to hit an intraday low of -2.79%, with the index back in correction territory. Then it recovered to actually move back into the green for a few minutes, before selling off in the last hour to finish the day down -1.22%, closing -9.18% off its all-time highs reached at the start of the year. With Fed policy so acutely driving risk assets in recent weeks, it sets up an interesting day of communications ahead for the FOMC.

On that front, the Fed are expected to telegraph the start of their latest hiking cycle today, and our US economists write in their preview (link here) that the meeting statement and Chair Powell’s subsequent press conference should confirm that lift-off in the policy rate is likely at the following meeting in March. It comes as the unemployment has now fallen back beneath 4% for the first time since the pandemic began, while CPI in December hit +7.0% year-on-year for the first time since 1982. Our economists’ baseline is for that March hike to be the first of 4 this year, although as they’ve written recently (link here) there is the tail risk of a more aggressive pace still. The market agrees: pricing liftoff for March and 3.96 total hikes through the rest of the year. Balance sheet policy will be of particular focus. Our US econ team believes the Fed will begin QT in Q3. The year-to-date selloff of real rates and equity markets began with the Fed surprising markets by how much they were already considering an early and aggressive use of QT to augment their tightening of policy, so any incremental information will be devoured. While it’s likely too early for the Fed to deliver specific QT details today, our economists believe it’s possible Chair Powell begins to socialise a range of potential QT outcomes to start the give-and-take involved with guiding market expectations. Also of interest will be whether Powell is asked about the possibility of a larger +50bps increase in rates at some point, which had been the topic of some speculation before the latest selloff should the Fed need to tighten financial conditions quickly.

Back to the equity selloff, and there wasn’t a consistent sectoral revival story to tell yesterday, with the volatility sending the VIX higher for a 6th consecutive session to 31.16pts, the longest run of gains in over a year. Tech ended the day as the worst performer, down -2.34%, after rallying in the middle of the session, and the NASDAQ finished the day down -2.28%. Energy (+3.96%) was the key outperformer on the other hand, followed by financials (+0.47%) as the only other sector that managed to finish the day higher. Those moves came as oil rebounded from Monday’s losses, with Brent crude (+2.24%) and WTI (+2.75%) both advancing. After the close we also got earnings from Microsoft, which beat analyst sales and earnings expectations. The stock was slightly higher in after-hours trading on the growth prospects of the company’s cloud computing services. Later today we’ll get Tesla’s earnings and Apple’s tomorrow.

Amidst the equity volatility, sovereign bonds were comparatively subdued again yesterday, with yields on 10yr Treasuries down a paltry -0.2bps to 1.77%. The yield curve managed to flatten, with the 2s10s slope down -4.8bps yesterday to 74.8bps, its lowest closing level in almost a month. This is one of a number of classic late-cycle indicators Jim mentions in the chartbook, and it’s worth noting that on average the 2s10s curve has flattened by around 80bps following the first year of a hiking cycle, so if the Fed does hike in March and the curve follows that historic playbook, we could be looking at an inversion within the next 12-18 months.

Overnight in Asia, equities are putting in a more mixed performance, with the Nikkei (-0.21%), the Kospi (-0.33%) and the Hang Seng (-0.14%) seeing modest falls, whilst the Shanghai Comp is up +0.14%. Futures are pointing to a more positive session in the US and Europe today however, with those on the S&P 50 (+0.20%) and the DAX (+0.49%) both moving higher.

Back in Europe, markets followed a very different playbook yesterday. Having not been open at the time of the late US recovery on Monday, European equities advanced across the board following their rout at the start of the week, and the STOXX 600 rose +0.71%. Meanwhile, with the ECB’s Governing Council not meeting until next week, sovereign bonds also diverged from the US, with yields on 10yr bunds (+2.7bps), OATs (+2.7bps) and gilts (+3.8bps) all moving higher on the day.

With tensions remaining high between Russia and the West over Ukraine, President Biden said in response to a question that the US would consider personal sanctions against President Putin in the event of a Russia invasion. Sanctions against heads of state are an extremely rare step, but the US and others have already threatened severe sanctions if an invasion took place.

On the data side, the Conference Board’s consumer confidence index for January fell a bit less than expected to 113.8 (vs. 112.2 expected). It came as the present situation reading rose to 148.2, but the expectations measure fell to 90.8. Separately in Germany, the Ifo’s business climate indicator in January rose to 95.7 (vs. 94.5 expected), marking the first increase in the indicator after a run of 6 consecutive monthly declines.

Finally, the IMF released their World Economic Outlook update yesterday, in which they downgraded their global growth forecast for 2022 to +4.4% (vs. +4.9% in October). That included cuts to the projections for both the advanced and emerging market economies, with the US and China among those seeing the biggest downgrades. Indeed, the US forecast for this year was cut to +4.0% (vs. +5.2% in October), and China’s was cut to +4.8% (vs. +5.6% in October). One marginal respite was that 2023 did see a modest upgrade, with global growth now projected at +3.8% (vs. +3.6% in October).

To the day ahead now, and the main highlight will be the aforementioned Federal Reserve decision and Chair Powell’s subsequent press conference, whilst there’s also a policy decision from the Bank of Canada. On the data side, we’ve got US new home sales for December, along with the preliminary December reading of wholesale inventories. Meanwhile earnings releases include Tesla, Abbott Laboratories, Intel, AT&T and Boeing.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 08:09

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fYSDq1 Tyler Durden

The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: The Duties to Retreat and to Comply with Negative Demands

I’ve just finished up a rough draft of my The Right to Defy Criminal Demands article, and I thought I’d serialize it here, minus most of the footnotes (which you can see in the full PDF). I’d love to hear people’s reactions and recommendations, since there’s still plenty of time to edit it. You can also be previous posts (and any future posts, as they come up), here.

[* * *]

Thirteen states and D.C. continue to recognize a so-called “duty to retreat” as a limitation on the right to use lethal force in self-defense.[1] The Model Penal Code captures the standard definition well: Even in defending against threat of death or serious bodily harm, deadly force may not be used if “the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating.” And this likely means that the defenders can’t return to the place from which they retreated, at least for some time.

Seven states also recognize the duty to comply with negative demands, by denying the right to use deadly force in self-defense if “the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety … by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take.”[2] And one state appears to recognize a narrow duty to comply with both positive and negative demands, but only if they are minor: North Dakota denies the right to use deadly force in self-defense if “it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by … conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the individual menaced.”

Here too the law in essence requires people to comply with criminal demands. Say Craig tells Danielle, “leave this bar or I’ll kill you.” (It’s not Craig’s bar, so he’s not just demanding that she cease an illegal trespass.) If Danielle refuses to comply with Craig’s demands, she will lose her right to use deadly force to protect herself against Craig’s deadly attack.[3] And “[t]he same result follows, of course, if there is no demand but the actor knows that he will be attacked if he appears in a certain place.” (Not all duty to retreat scenarios involve such demands—sometimes the attacker actually wants the defender to stay, for instance when the attacker wants to beat up the defender. But they often do involve such a “retreat or else” demand, and then the duty to retreat, if state law recognizes it, applies.)

Likewise if Craig tells Danielle, “don’t dance with your new lover in front of me at this bar.” That is “a demand that [s]he abstain from any action which [s]he has no duty to take.” By refusing to “comply[] with [that] demand,” Danielle again loses her right to use deadly force should Craig attack her. And the statutory formulation of the duty to comply could in principle extend to serious demands indeed: “Don’t have sex with my ex-lover or I’ll kill you”; “don’t set up your business competing with me, or I’ll kill you”; “don’t set up an abortion clinic, or I’ll kill you.”

Of course, the theory behind such duties is that Danielle should try to have Craig arrested and prosecuted. But say he denies having made the threat, and it’s just his word against Danielle’s at that point. The police may then decline to arrest him, the prosecutor may decline to prosecute (perhaps foreseeing that it would be hard to prove the threat beyond a reasonable doubt based just on Danielle’s word), or the jury may acquit for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then Danielle would still lose her lethal self-defense rights by (say) dating the ex-lover. Indeed, her report of Craig’s threat to the police could be used against her, since it would show that Craig had indeed made a demand with which Danielle has refused to comply. Self-defense is a form of self-help, which is especially useful if past attempts to enlist the legal system’s help have failed. The duties to retreat and to comply foreclose that form of self-help.

The duties to retreat and comply are sometimes characterized as a special case of the “necessity” requirement in self-defense law:

  1. To lawfully use deadly force in self-defense, the defender must reasonably believe that the use is necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, or (in some states) some other serious crimes.
  2. Deadly self-defense is necessary, the argument goes, only if there is no alternative that would still avert the danger without using deadly force.
  3. And if there is an alternative—averting the danger by safely retreating—that means deadly force isn’t necessary.

But this formulation of “necessity” is incomplete, because the law always recognizes that some alternatives need not be taken, because they unduly impose on your liberty.

For instance, say you’re in a jurisdiction that doesn’t allow deadly force simply to prevent robbery. (Half of all American jurisdictions take this view.) The “can’t use lethal self-defense if it’s not necessary” approach would suggest that you therefore can’t use lethal self-defense if a robber demands your money, you refuse to obey, and he attacks you in a way that threatens death or serious bodily injury. After all, you could have averted the danger by handing over the money, so deadly force wasn’t necessary.

Yet even the Model Penal Code’s duty to comply wouldn’t require this. Instead, it makes clear that the duty to comply never includes the duty to turn over property (except property demanded under a claim of right, for instance as with repossession of borrowed or mortgaged property). Having to turn over even a modest sum is seen as such an intrusion on liberty—or perhaps on dignity—that you don’t lose your right to self-defense by refusing to take that alternative.

Likewise, say someone credibly says, “beg me for mercy, or I’ll break your arm.” No jurisdiction would bar you from using deadly force against this threat of serious bodily injury on the theory that deadly force was not “necessary” because you could have avoided the injury by begging.[4] Even the Model Penal Code makes clear that, while you have a duty to comply with demands to abstain from action—or else lose your right to self-defense—you don’t have a duty to comply with demands to take action. Though there is an alternative (begging) that would still avert the danger without using deadly force, the Code (and, to my knowledge, the law of all states) would still let you use deadly force to protect yourself, without condemning such use as unnecessary.

The Code’s drafters justified this exclusion of a duty to comply with positive demands by saying th­at such demands of “positive action” could be “infinite in variety,” and some of them may be “outrageous, a demand to which the answer is that one would risk death rather than comply.” Perhaps a demand for begging might so qualify for some people, and other positive demands for still more people.

So the duty to retreat is more specific than a necessity requirement: It is a statement that, if threatened with serious violence, you must surrender your right to be in a particular place—but not your right not to turn over your money, or your right not to beg—or lose your right to deadly self-defense. Likewise for the duty to comply with negative demands.

This may be part of the reason why, despite the Model Penal Code’s endorsement, the duty to retreat is now recognized in only about a quarter of the states—and why the duty to comply has been adopted by even fewer states. Dean Margaret Raymond put it well in a 2009 article:

[The Model Penal Code’s] approaches inappropriately undervalue that actor’s dignitary interest …[:] the actor’s interest in being permitted to move about freely and to pursue those activities fundamental to a free society, without being subjugated to the unlawful demands of another actor…. Any rule that constrains the law-abiding citizen’s choice of lawful options by requiring her to submit to the unlawful demands of others in order to retain the privilege of self-defense improperly invades that interest. Such a rule … requires her to submit to the subjugation of an aggressive and unlawful actor. This allows bullies effectively to require compliance with their [express or implicit] demands.

Whatever the (uncertain) pragmatic costs and benefits of such duties to retreat or comply, such legally mandated “submi[ssion] to the subjugation of an aggressive and unlawful actor” is understandably unpopular.

The duty to comply with negative demands, by the way, appears to have been inherited from the Restatement (First) of Torts, where it was a limitation on the self-defense defense to a tort claim for battery. The Restatement, as best I can tell, invented the rule; it offers no case citations supporting its position. The Restatement (Second) continued to endorse the rule, but it was deliberately removed from the Restatement (Third).

The practical limitation on the duty to comply may be prosecutorial discretion. I have found only two appellate cases that refer to the duty having been invoked, and the facts in both seem unusual.

[1.] James Savage and C. Sumner Morrill were fellow bluegrass band members; Savage had an affair with Morrill’s wife, and after that ended,

Savage and his wife went to [Morrill’s farm]. Savage brought a loaded revolver, a tape recorder and copies of letters and tapes from Morrill’s wife.

As a result of an earlier confrontation, Savage was aware that Morrill did not wish to discuss Savage’s relationship with Morrill’s wife…. Savage placed the tape recorder on the table and said he wanted Morrill to hear something. Morrill said he did not want to hear it, he knew all about it, this was his home and that he would have to get his “persuader.” Savage fired four shots at Morrill, the first two in his chest, a third through the side and a fourth through his back as he was kneeling on the floor. Savage testified that Morrill had previously threatened to kill Savage and that he thought Morrill referred to a gun when he mentioned “persuader.”

The court upheld the conviction, and in particular endorsed a jury instruction “that Savage was not justified in using deadly force if he knew that he could with complete safety comply with a demand by the victim that he abstain from doing something that he was not obliged to do”—namely, the demand that Savage stop talking about the affair.

Two facts here, though, make this an unusually strong case for a duty to comply, and may explain why it was argued in this case but so few others. First, Savage was in Morrill’s house, doing something that Morrill had told me he didn’t want to do. It doesn’t appear that Morrill had demanded that Savage leave, so Savage wasn’t exactly a trespasser. Still, any claim for a right to defy others’ demands appears weaker when one is defying a homeowner’s demands in his own home.

Morrill could have lawfully demanded that Savage leave, and could have lawfully threatened deadly violence as a means of backing that up. Morrill’s demand that Savage abide by Morrill’s conditions if he were to stay seems comparable.

Second, Savage was talking to Morrill, over Morrill’s objections. The law often gives people considerable veto powers over others’ talking to them, whether through unwanted letters, unwanted phone calls, or other unwanted contact. (Indeed, the ban on fighting words may be seen as a special case of that principle.) That would not justify Morrill’s seeming implicit threat to shoot Savage if Savage continued discussing the matter. But it does weaken any interest on Savage’s part in continuing to exercise his liberty notwithstanding Morrill’s threat.

[2.] Lauren Daly and Margaret Dover were raising children together; after they broke up, they had conflicts about the custody arrangements. At one exchange of children, Daly shot Dover; her defense was that she believed Dover was trying to run her over with her car, and therefore shot in self-defense. The parties had apparently agreed that all exchanges would take place with Daly remaining in the home (presumably to avoid tense in-person interactions between Daly and Dover); and the judge instructed the jury that

[If the Commonwealth proves that Daly] knew that she could avoid the necessity of using deadly force with complete safety by complying with a demand that she abstain from any action she had no duty to make and failing to do so by coming out of the house and coming to the proximity of this automobile during the transfer of the child[,] … the actions of [Daly] are not justified.

This seems to me to be an error on the judge’s part, because “the duty to retreat does not arise until the defendant forms a reasonable belief that the other person ‘is using or about to use deadly physical force'”; by the same logic, the duty to comply wouldn’t, either. Thus, if Daly and Dover were (say) having a non-visibly-life-threatening argument, and Dover said “just go away,” Daly didn’t go away, and Dover tried to run Daly over with her car, Daly would be able to use deadly force if she were unable to safely retreat at that point—it wouldn’t matter that she could have avoided the problem by leaving before the situation became deadly (or else we would have a standing duty to avoid anyone who we think might threaten us if a conversation goes bad). Likewise here: If at the point Dover was (supposedly) trying to run Daly over, Daly couldn’t safely avoid the situation by retreating or complying with a demand to abstain, she should have the right to use lethal force in self-defense—even if she could have avoided the problem by complying before the threat to her life became apparent.

[1] The states are essentially the mid-Atlantic and New England states (minus New Hampshire and Vermont), plus three midwestern states (Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Nebraska) and Hawaii.

[2] Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

[3] The right to use deadly force in self-defense against threats of death or serious bodily harm is understood by American law as a right—often even a constitutional right—and not just as a benefit that the law is free to withdraw.

[4] I assume that even under North Dakota’s provision that “The use of deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided, with safety to the actor and others, by … conduct involving minimal interference with the freedom of the individual menaced,” such begging-on-demand would be seen as more than a minimal interference with freedom.

The post The Right to Defy Criminal Demands: The Duties to Retreat and to Comply with Negative Demands appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3nZqh3q
via IFTTT

Charter Schools Win Support by Offering Education Flexibility


zumaamericastwentyfour168445

Charter schools are sort of the gateway drug of school choice. As publicly funded, tuition-free education options, they’re not hugely different from the traditional public schools with which they compete. And yet the private management of charter schools allows for an astonishing degree of experimentation in terms of curriculum, philosophy, and structure, and makes it comparatively easy to close institutions that don’t meet expectations. As a result, as modest an innovation as charter schools appear on the surface, they’re embraced by families of children who have been failed by traditional models.

Despite the opposition they often draw from teachers’ unions, charter schools were originally championed by Albert Shanker, then-president of the American Federation of Teachers, as a means of helping students underserved by traditional public schools. The first official charter school opened in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1992. The model has since spread across the country, largely remaining true to its original mission.

“According to most recently available data, 68.7% of charter school students and 52.4% of district school students are students of color, while 59.3% of charter school students and 54.3% of district school students were economically disadvantaged students,” reports the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

The number of students served by charter schools increased from 1.6 million to 3.3 million between 2009 and 2018, according to U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. That represents a jump from 3 percent to 7 percent of public-school students, although the share varies widely from state to state. Some states still have no charter schools (West Virginia is introducing them now), while 18 percent of public-school students in Arizona attend a charter. But those numbers have been growing for a reason: People are generally impressed by the results achieved by charter schools.

“Lottery-based studies of urban charter schools consistently show that charters improve students’ academic achievement and some longer-term outcomes, particularly among Black and Latinx students, students with disabilities, and low-performing students,” concludes a 2021 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Sarah Cohodes and Katharine Parham of Columbia University. 

“Given their small market share, charters’ greatest potential impact may come just as economic theory would predict—through their competitive impact on neighboring public schools,” they add. “A number of studies assessing the competitive impacts of charters have found that charters improve student achievement in nearby traditional public schools.”

Charter schools have a positive impact long past the classroom in terms of successfully sending their graduates all the way through college to earn bachelor’s degrees.

“Overall, the big charter networks are seeing college success rates that are anywhere from three to five times the rates for low-income students nationally,” Richard Whitmire wrote for the education publication The 74 in 2017. “The most successful networks are all in the 50 percent range — half of their alumni earn bachelor’s degrees within six years. Nationally, 9 percent of the students from low-income families meet that mark.”

Not every charter school achieves such success, of course. Like any other venture, some charters go off the rails, are run into the ground by poor management, or just fail at their mission. Teachers’ unions, having wandered far from the days of Albert Shanker’s advocacy of charters, are more than happy to point to charter schools that don’t do a good job. But that’s part of the attraction of charters; when they fail, as some institutions inevitably do, it’s easier to close one independently managed school and move its kids to competitors than to shut the doors of a traditional district school that has a near-monopoly on students in a geographic area.

“As difficult as it is to close a school, that is what is required to ensure that California’s charter movement fulfills its promises to students and the state, and maintains the high level of achievement required to continue to play a transformational role in the education system for years to come,” Jed Wallace, then-president of the California Charter Schools Association, wrote for the Los Angeles Times in 2013.

“Charter school advocates see closures as an unfortunate but necessary part of a bargain that should benefit students: Schools get more autonomy to operate, but if they fall short of their goals, they have to close,” Chalkbeat Detroit noted five years later.

That ability to try, fail, try again, and ultimately do better by students while inspiring the competition to put in more effort wins support not just from the parents of charter students, but from the public at large. In December 2021 polling by EdChoice, 90 percent of charter school parents report being very or somewhat satisfied with their children’s schooling, compared to 78 percent of district school parents (96 percent of private school parents and 88 percent of homeschool parents report being satisfied).

The same poll found overall public support for charter schools at 68 percent.

As you might expect of an education model rooted in the idea of providing a more flexible alternative to traditional public schools, charters need leeway in order to properly function and offer the greatest benefit to children. For that reason, the Educational Freedom Institute (EFI) now ranks states based on the environments they offer, published most recently in the EFI Charter School Ecosystems Rankings (ECER) report for 2022. 

“The report is grounded in a simple idea: States with charter schools that are widely available to students and produce greater learning gains are ranked high, while states with charter schools that are less available and produce smaller gains are ranked lower,” James Paul, EFI’s director of research, observed in December 2021. Combining consideration of such measures as the percentage of students enrolled in charters and student test scores, EFI developed rankings that reward charter-friendly jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C.; Arizona; Louisiana; and Oklahoma.

“The ECER 2022 rankings should be used by parents, researchers, policymakers, and advocates to see which states have charter school laws and policies worth emulating,” the report urges.

Given the achievements of charter schools as a “gateway” to school choice, and the satisfaction reported by the parents of students in these education options, emulating the example of places that have made the model work is good advice.

The post Charter Schools Win Support by Offering Education Flexibility appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/349yJpu
via IFTTT

Charter Schools Win Support by Offering Education Flexibility


zumaamericastwentyfour168445

Charter schools are sort of the gateway drug of school choice. As publicly funded, tuition-free education options, they’re not hugely different from the traditional public schools with which they compete. And yet the private management of charter schools allows for an astonishing degree of experimentation in terms of curriculum, philosophy, and structure, and makes it comparatively easy to close institutions that don’t meet expectations. As a result, as modest an innovation as charter schools appear on the surface, they’re embraced by families of children who have been failed by traditional models.

Despite the opposition they often draw from teachers’ unions, charter schools were originally championed by Albert Shanker, then-president of the American Federation of Teachers, as a means of helping students underserved by traditional public schools. The first official charter school opened in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1992. The model has since spread across the country, largely remaining true to its original mission.

“According to most recently available data, 68.7% of charter school students and 52.4% of district school students are students of color, while 59.3% of charter school students and 54.3% of district school students were economically disadvantaged students,” reports the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

The number of students served by charter schools increased from 1.6 million to 3.3 million between 2009 and 2018, according to U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. That represents a jump from 3 percent to 7 percent of public-school students, although the share varies widely from state to state. Some states still have no charter schools (West Virginia is introducing them now), while 18 percent of public-school students in Arizona attend a charter. But those numbers have been growing for a reason: People are generally impressed by the results achieved by charter schools.

“Lottery-based studies of urban charter schools consistently show that charters improve students’ academic achievement and some longer-term outcomes, particularly among Black and Latinx students, students with disabilities, and low-performing students,” concludes a 2021 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Sarah Cohodes and Katharine Parham of Columbia University. 

“Given their small market share, charters’ greatest potential impact may come just as economic theory would predict—through their competitive impact on neighboring public schools,” they add. “A number of studies assessing the competitive impacts of charters have found that charters improve student achievement in nearby traditional public schools.”

Charter schools have a positive impact long past the classroom in terms of successfully sending their graduates all the way through college to earn bachelor’s degrees.

“Overall, the big charter networks are seeing college success rates that are anywhere from three to five times the rates for low-income students nationally,” Richard Whitmire wrote for the education publication The 74 in 2017. “The most successful networks are all in the 50 percent range — half of their alumni earn bachelor’s degrees within six years. Nationally, 9 percent of the students from low-income families meet that mark.”

Not every charter school achieves such success, of course. Like any other venture, some charters go off the rails, are run into the ground by poor management, or just fail at their mission. Teachers’ unions, having wandered far from the days of Albert Shanker’s advocacy of charters, are more than happy to point to charter schools that don’t do a good job. But that’s part of the attraction of charters; when they fail, as some institutions inevitably do, it’s easier to close one independently managed school and move its kids to competitors than to shut the doors of a traditional district school that has a near-monopoly on students in a geographic area.

“As difficult as it is to close a school, that is what is required to ensure that California’s charter movement fulfills its promises to students and the state, and maintains the high level of achievement required to continue to play a transformational role in the education system for years to come,” Jed Wallace, then-president of the California Charter Schools Association, wrote for the Los Angeles Times in 2013.

“Charter school advocates see closures as an unfortunate but necessary part of a bargain that should benefit students: Schools get more autonomy to operate, but if they fall short of their goals, they have to close,” Chalkbeat Detroit noted five years later.

That ability to try, fail, try again, and ultimately do better by students while inspiring the competition to put in more effort wins support not just from the parents of charter students, but from the public at large. In December 2021 polling by EdChoice, 90 percent of charter school parents report being very or somewhat satisfied with their children’s schooling, compared to 78 percent of district school parents (96 percent of private school parents and 88 percent of homeschool parents report being satisfied).

The same poll found overall public support for charter schools at 68 percent.

As you might expect of an education model rooted in the idea of providing a more flexible alternative to traditional public schools, charters need leeway in order to properly function and offer the greatest benefit to children. For that reason, the Educational Freedom Institute (EFI) now ranks states based on the environments they offer, published most recently in the EFI Charter School Ecosystems Rankings (ECER) report for 2022. 

“The report is grounded in a simple idea: States with charter schools that are widely available to students and produce greater learning gains are ranked high, while states with charter schools that are less available and produce smaller gains are ranked lower,” James Paul, EFI’s director of research, observed in December 2021. Combining consideration of such measures as the percentage of students enrolled in charters and student test scores, EFI developed rankings that reward charter-friendly jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C.; Arizona; Louisiana; and Oklahoma.

“The ECER 2022 rankings should be used by parents, researchers, policymakers, and advocates to see which states have charter school laws and policies worth emulating,” the report urges.

Given the achievements of charter schools as a “gateway” to school choice, and the satisfaction reported by the parents of students in these education options, emulating the example of places that have made the model work is good advice.

The post Charter Schools Win Support by Offering Education Flexibility appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/349yJpu
via IFTTT

Ford Stops Orders For $20,000 Pickup Until Summer 2023 Due To Overwhelming Demand

Ford Stops Orders For $20,000 Pickup Until Summer 2023 Due To Overwhelming Demand

When demand is so overwhelming that you have to stop taking pre-orders, that’s usually a good sign – even when you’re battling a supply chain crisis.

This was the case with Ford’s new Maverick pickup truck which, priced at $20,000, has attracted so much demand that the automaker has been forced to stop taking orders until 2023. 

With auto prices skyrocketing over the last 18 months, the Wall Street Journal reports that the demand is a surefire sign that customers are “hungry for more-affordable options” in the auto market. 

On Monday of this week, dealers were told that Ford is “suspending customer orders” because it is “already straining to fill a backlog”. The company will resume taking orders this summer.

Dean Stoneley, general manager of Ford trucks told the WSJ: “We didn’t want to take more orders than we could build. We’re getting customers who would have perhaps bought a used car and are now buying the Maverick because it is so affordable.”

Chris Lemley, president of Sentry Auto Group in Boston called the move “unusual”, but also said that it’s “appropriate under the circumstances to avoid customer disappointment.”

“We desperately needed something in that price range,” he said of the Maverick’s $20,000 tag. 

Recall, in late December we noted that used car prices had smashed through yet another record high. The Manheim Index, the most recognized wholesale used-vehicle price index by financial and economic analysts, reported that the wholesale used car index rose 3.1% in the first 15 days of December compared to November. The overall index has jumped a mindboggling 48.9% from December 2020. 

“On a year-over-year basis, all major market segments saw seasonally adjusted price gains through the first 15 days of December. Pickups had the smallest year-over-year gains, vans had the largest at 63.3%, and both non-luxury car segments outpaced the overall industry in seasonally adjusted price growth. Compared to November, SUVs and vans had the smallest growth in the first half of December, while compact cars had the largest gain,” the report said. 

Heading into the new year, Goldman Sachs chief economist Jan Hatzius provided clients with an outlook on the automobile market. He expects “further increases in new and used car prices during the first quarter of 2022, but outlines “new car prices peak in Q2 (vs. Q1 previously) and used car prices peak in Q1 (vs. December 2021 previously).”  

Hopefully, for those looking to get their hands on a Ford Maverick this summer, price rises offer a slight respite. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32z74Oz Tyler Durden