US Preps Export Rule That Hammered Huawei To Target Russia’s Access To Global Electronics

US Preps Export Rule That Hammered Huawei To Target Russia’s Access To Global Electronics

The White House has informed the US chip industry that it must be prepared for potential new restrictions on exports in the event Russia attacks Ukraine, according to Reuters, as the Biden administration is still mulling the unprecedented move of preventing Russian consumers from getting US phones, computers, and cars – which would be an expansion of the Foreign Direct Product Rule previously used by Trump against Chinese telecoms firm Huawei.

“We have been very clear that if Russia further invades Ukraine, the United States is looking at a range of options – with allies and partners – to deliver severe costs to the Russian economy,” a White House spokeswoman said, after being asked about a phone call made Friday with the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), the foremost chip lobbying group in D.C.

It’s yet more “all options” talk and imposing severe “costs” on the Russian economy as the White House since last week has echoed its belief Russia is poised for a Ukraine offensive, even as urgent high level diplomatic engagement between Moscow and Western powers continues in Europe.

An official with SIA described the call with the White House as follows: “The NSC relayed in blunt and stark terms the gravity of the situation they are currently grappling with in Ukraine, noting that this is an extraordinary situation and potentially the worst cross border invasion to take place since WWII,” according to Reuters. “The NSC indicated that the administration is actively considering any and all options.”

Should such a retaliatory move be enacted, it would be akin to Trump-era actions taken against China’s telecoms giant Huawei – and also resembling current far-reaching export controls on Iran, which have devastated key sectors in the Middle East country.

Meanwhile there are already signs the Ukraine crisis and growing war-rhetoric surrounding it is hitting Russia’s business elite hard, also as the ruble continued its steep slide Monday:

Russia’s business elite is bracing for possible military conflict, billions in lost value and new rounds of hard-hitting Western sanctions in silent despair — unable to influence the course of events and unwilling to speak out publicly, business owners and representatives told The Moscow Times.

Russia’s stock market has been in steep decline in recent weeks and the value of the ruble has cratered to an almost all-time low as the standoff between Russia and the West over Ukraine shows no sign of abating. 

Russian default odds surging…

As for blocking chip exports, the latest statements from the administration suggest they’re not willing to pull the trigger unless Russia makes an advance on Ukraine. Antony Blinken in Sunday and Monday comments said its too early to step up sanctions, but the threat remains.

The Secretary of State said Sunday of ongoing diplomatic dialogue with Russia, “I tried to make clear both paths in my meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Geneva this week, and we’ll see if we can advance the diplomacy.” Some Western pundits have noted that a large Russian offensive remains unlikely unless the Ukrainian army moves against the breakaway republics in Donbass first. 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/25/2022 – 11:29

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

“Indefensible Edict” – DeSantis Rages After Biden’s FDA Restricts Use Of Monoclonal Antibody Treatments

“Indefensible Edict” – DeSantis Rages After Biden’s FDA Restricts Use Of Monoclonal Antibody Treatments

Governor Ron DeSantis is demanding the Biden Administration reverse its sudden  decision to revoke emergency use authorization (EUA) for monoclonal antibody treatments.

In a statement from the Florida Governor’s office, he rages that this abrupt and unilateral action by the Biden Administration will prevent access to lifesaving treatments for Floridians and Americans.

“Without a shred of clinical data to support this action, Biden has forced trained medical professionals to choose between treating their patients or breaking the law,” said Governor Ron DeSantis.

“This indefensible edict takes treatment out of the hands of medical professionals and will cost some Americans their lives. There are real-world implications to Biden’s medical authoritarianism – Americans’ access to treatments is now subject to the whims of a failing president.”

“Rather than giving Americans the option for various COVID treatments, the FDA and the Biden Administration issued their royal decree, taking away the very thing that is proven to reduce hospitalizations and save lives,” said Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nuñez.

“Monoclonal antibody treatments like Regeneron have had a positive impact for thousands of Floridians. For the CDC and FDA, which have been consistently inconsistent throughout the entire pandemic, to restrict treatment does nothing but put individuals at risk.”

“In our field of medicine, when someone comes to you seeking a treatment that could save their life, it is essential to have treatment options to ensure health care providers can make the best decisions for their patients,” said Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo.

“The Federal Government has failed to adequately provide the United States with adequate outpatient treatment options for COVID-19. Now, they are scrambling to cover up a failure to deliver on a promise to ‘shut down the virus.’”

As a result of this abrupt and clinically unsupported action, the appointments for more than 2,000 Floridians to receive this treatment were canceled on January 25, 2022, alone. This decision was made solely by Biden’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) without advance warning to states or health providers and without clinical data to support the decision. The deliberate decision by the Biden Administration to make this announcement effective immediately, through a press release, actively prevents states and health care providers from making real-time operational decisions that save lives.

Over the course of the past two years, scientists and researchers across the nation have worked hard to bring us treatments that are both safe and effective. One of these treatments has been monoclonal antibodies. This treatment has saved thousands of lives in Florida and across our nation.

*  *  *

Benny Johnson had an alternate take on the FDA’s strange decision:

Biden canceling proven life-saving treatment for the sick and elderly so Fauci-Pfizer can get a few extra points in the stock market is literally demonic

A theme of regulator-capture that was echoed almost uniformly yesterday.

*  *  *

As Mimi Nguyen Ly detailed earlier at The Epoch Times, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced Jan. 24 it is restricting the use of two monoclonal antibody treatments for COVID-19, saying data show such treatments are “highly unlikely” to be active against the Omicron variant, currently the dominant strain in the country.

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-created proteins that mimic natural antibodies the body produces to fight off harmful pathogens, such as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, also known as the novel coronavirus.

The agency revised its emergency authorization for the two COVID-19 treatments that come from Regeneron and Eli Lilly. Their use is now limited to when the COVID-19 patient is “likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.”

Because data show these treatments are highly unlikely to be active against the omicron variant, which is circulating at a very high frequency throughout the United States, these treatments are not authorized for use in any U.S. states, territories, and jurisdictions at this time,” the FDA stated.

“In the future, if patients in certain geographic regions are likely to be infected or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments, then use of these treatments may be authorized in these regions.”

The Omicron variant, which started spreading in the United States in late November 2021, is estimated to account for more than 99 percent of cases in the country as of Jan. 15, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Rationale

The move to revise the emergency authorization “avoids exposing patients to side effects, such as injection site reactions or allergic reactions, which can be potentially serious, from specific treatment agents that are not expected to provide benefit to patients who have been infected with or exposed to the omicron variant,” the FDA stated.

The move was recently recommended by the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Dec. 23, 2021. At the time, the panel said the Omicron variant “is predicted to have markedly reduced susceptibility” to several COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies, “especially bamlanivimab plus etesevimab and casirivimab plus imdevimab.” Eli Lilly’s monoclonal antibody treatments offers bamlanivimab and etesevimab, and Regeneron offers casirivimab and imdevimab.

The drug Bamlanivimab. (Courtesy of Eli Lilly via AP)

The panel added that GlakoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) and Vir Biotech’s antibody treatment, sotrovimab, “appears to retain activity against the Omicron variant.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Dec. 23, 2021, temporarily halted distribution of Regeneron’s and Eli Lilly’s antibody therapies, leaving sotrovimab as the only available treatment at the time.

Distribution was resumed after after complaints from governors, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who asserted the two monoclonal antibody treatments continued to help some COVID-19 patients. At the time, Omicron was circulating but the Delta variant was still the dominant variant in the United States.

The federal government has, since early January, shipped enough doses of the two monoclonal antibody treatments to treat more than 300,000 patients.

A Regeneron spokesperson had said the regulator would provide any potential communication on the topic. Lilly had no immediate comment but pointed to its statement from December 2021 saying its newer antibody candidate, bebtelovimab, maintains neutralization activity against all known variants of concern, including Omicron. The company said earlier this month it is “urgently working with the FDA to make bebtelovimab available under an emergency use authorization,” with a decision expected before April.

Patients wait for their treatment inside the Regeneron Clinic at a monoclonal antibody treatment site in Pembroke Pines, Florida, on August 19, 2021. (Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images)

Both companies previously announced they were developing new antibodies that target the Omicron variant. Regeneron stated in December 2021, “While Regeneron’s currently authorized REGEN-COV antibodies have diminished potency against Omicron, they are active against Delta, which currently is the most prevalent variant in the U.S.”

Other Treatments

The revision in emergency authorization comes days after the FDA on Jan. 21 expanded approval of the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat more COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir was the first government-approved drug for COVID-19 and was previously limited to treat hospitalized patients. It is now authorized for use in adults and children aged 12 and above early in a COVID-19 infection if the patient faces a high risk of ending up in hospital.

The agency said its move was supported by a study run by the drug’s developer, Gilead Sciences, results of which showed that the drug reduced the risk of hospitalization by 87 percent among COVID-19-positive people. The FDA didn’t cite any independent studies.

The FDA in its statement on Jan. 24 pointed to several other therapies that “are expected to work against the Omicron variant,” intended for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 to prevent progression to severe disease. They include sotrovimab, remdesivir, as well as two new antiviral pills from Pfizer and Merck, Paxlovid and molnupiravir, both of which are in short supply.

GSK and Vir Biotech are boosting production of their sotrovimab to help meet demand in the United States.

Remdesivir has been linked to kidney disease, gastrointestinal symptoms, and other severe side effects, according to some researchers. According to the FDA, some adverse events associated with remdesivir include allergic reaction, generalized seizure, rash. The WHO in late 2020 recommended against the use of remdesivir for COVID-19.

Pfizer’s Paxlovid is not recommended in those with severe kidney disease, according to the FDA. The agency also warns that “caution should be exercised” in giving Paxlovid to people with pre-existing liver diseases.

Meanwhile, some experts have expressed concerns about how Merck’s molnupiravir attacks the CCP virus, saying the pill has the potential to contribute to the development of cancer or cause birth defects in an unborn baby.

According to the FDA, sotrovimab may trigger a range of allergic reactions following infusion. The agency also noted, “It is possible that sotrovimab could interfere with your body’s own ability to fight off a future infection of SARS-CoV-2.

“Similarly, sotrovimab may reduce your body’s immune response to a vaccine for SARSCoV-2. Specific studies have not been conducted to address these possible risks. Talk to your healthcare provider if you have any questions.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/25/2022 – 11:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3tXr5JO Tyler Durden

The Overtime Quandary

It might seem churlish, after having been treated to what was almost certainly the most exciting weekend of football (or “Amfoo,” as a friend of mine calls it, to distinguish it from that other brand of football) ever, to lodge a complaint, but complain we must.

Though all four games were pretty thrilling – it was the first time that all four divisional championship games had been “walk-offs,” decided by a score on the final play – the final game of this weekend’s quartet, Buffalo v. Kansas City, was the best of the lot, a truly glorious display by two terrific teams.   (Among other highlights, the teams combined for a truly unbelievable 25 points in the last 1:58 of regulation play).

But the game exposed the fact that the NFL has by far the worst method for resolving games that are tied at the end of regulation of all the major sports – yes, even including soccer’s much-derided penalty shootouts.  At the end of regulation, a coin toss decides which team will receive the ensuing kickoff to begin the overtime period. If that team manages to score a touchdown, the game is over; the loser of the coin toss doesn’t get its “last licks.”

Kansas City won the toss, drove down the field for a touchdown, and that was that – as in nine of the previous ten playoff games that went to an overtime, the team winning the coin toss won the game.

It is, quite simply, unfair and indefensible; any nine-year-old in a playground pick-up game would recognize that. The toss of a coin should not have that kind of impact on the outcome of a game, and Bills fans are justifiably angry about having been cheated out of their chance for a victory.  No other sport ends games by giving one team only the opportunity to score. And it is positively bizarre that the NFL, whose rules allow for endless pauses during the game to allow for microscopic video inspection of whether a receiver’s left toe scraped the out-of-bounds line a microsecond before, or after, he gained “complete control” over the ball, or whether a running back’s knee touched the ground on the 2-yard line or two inches behind the 2-yard line, all ostensibly in pursuit of “getting it right,” would get it so wrong on this basic rule.  It should fix this ASAP.

The post The Overtime Quandary appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fW2rkM
via IFTTT

The Overtime Quandary

It might seem churlish, after having been treated to what was almost certainly the most exciting weekend of football (or “Amfoo,” as a friend of mine calls it, to distinguish it from that other brand of football) ever, to lodge a complaint, but complain we must.

Though all four games were pretty thrilling – it was the first time that all four divisional championship games had been “walk-offs,” decided by a score on the final play – the final game of this weekend’s quartet, Buffalo v. Kansas City, was the best of the lot, a truly glorious display by two terrific teams.   (Among other highlights, the teams combined for a truly unbelievable 25 points in the last 1:58 of regulation play).

But the game exposed the fact that the NFL has by far the worst method for resolving games that are tied at the end of regulation of all the major sports – yes, even including soccer’s much-derided penalty shootouts.  At the end of regulation, a coin toss decides which team will receive the ensuing kickoff to begin the overtime period. If that team manages to score a touchdown, the game is over; the loser of the coin toss doesn’t get its “last licks.”

Kansas City won the toss, drove down the field for a touchdown, and that was that – as in nine of the previous ten playoff games that went to an overtime, the team winning the coin toss won the game.

It is, quite simply, unfair and indefensible; any nine-year-old in a playground pick-up game would recognize that. The toss of a coin should not have that kind of impact on the outcome of a game, and Bills fans are justifiably angry about having been cheated out of their chance for a victory.  No other sport ends games by giving one team only the opportunity to score. And it is positively bizarre that the NFL, whose rules allow for endless pauses during the game to allow for microscopic video inspection of whether a receiver’s left toe scraped the out-of-bounds line a microsecond before, or after, he gained “complete control” over the ball, or whether a running back’s knee touched the ground on the 2-yard line or two inches behind the 2-yard line, all ostensibly in pursuit of “getting it right,” would get it so wrong on this basic rule.  It should fix this ASAP.

The post The Overtime Quandary appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fW2rkM
via IFTTT

After Yesterday’s “Head-Fake”, Stifel Says Wait For These 5 Signs To BTFD

After Yesterday’s “Head-Fake”, Stifel Says Wait For These 5 Signs To BTFD

Surprise!!!

US equity markets weakened from the moment cash trading closed yesterday, weakening overnight and puking at the open, erasing a large chunk of the unprecedented rampage higher in stocks yesterday afternoon (driven by put-sellers) before dip-buyers jumped in.

Nomura’s Charlie McElligott said that this morning so far is what happens after the “burn out” of part of that Dealer “short hedge” cover, in conjunction with the lost “bid” from the client short-covering hyperactivity.

And now to make things even spicier, the rally off the selloff lows yesterday on the US Equities Index has PERVERSELY brought us back to levels where Dealers are back near  “max short Gamma” in SPX and IWM (QQQ however a touch away from “max vs spot”).

But, SpotGamma warns, prices will remain unstable until implied volatility declines & puts are removed and does not expect either of these variables to shift significantly until after Wednesdays FOMC.


 

So, what everyone wants to know is – when to BTFD?!

Stifel’s Barry Bannister warned in a note this morning that yesterday was a “head-fake”, and says there are five (5) signs we need to see for a (probably late-1Q 2022) major equity index low to occur and the correction to end, but none are in the offing at this writing:

1. The Fed would have to turn more dovish (Hard to see before the first rate increase!), because such a dovish turn would likely lower the 10Y TIPS real (after-inflation) yield (Bloomberg USGGT10Y) which has been pressuring Growth stock P/E ratios much more than for Value; fading inflation (due to weaker growth and dollar strength, in our view) with a sticky nominal 10Y Treasury yield is our expectation for the peak of the 10Y TIPS yield, which we do not believe has occurred

2. The U.S. PMI Manufacturing index would have to bottom, which we doubt occurs before the end of 1Q22. with the capitulatory Mar-2022 low print for the PMI Mfg. index (Bloomberg NAPMPMI) potentially occurring Apr-1,2022;

…we note that the PMI index year-over-year change correlates with or leads year-to-year S&P 500 price, EPS and U.S. Industrial Production

3. Global M2 money supply growth would have to decisively bottom (and the dollar top), which is unlikely to occur until China s currency (CNY) weakens; we believe the next ‘shoe to drop’ is China s currency slipping from a strong 6.33 per $1 (having been supported up to now by a strong but likely peaking China current account balance) to around 6.75 per S1; China is 37% of global money supply (Bloomberg .GLMOSUPP) in dollar terms and a weaker Chinese yuan would send the dollar up and growth in global money supply in dollar terms down, tightening U.S. financial conditions (Bloomberg GSUSFCI) and lowering the P/E ratio for the S&P 500

4. S&P 500 quarterly EPS “beats” minus “misses” will have to bottom, but the beats-minus-misses difference has faded since the end of a stellar string for EPS through 1st half 2021; when EPS beats minus misses are under pressure, in this case falling below the long-term trend, investors in the S&P 500 must leam to live with diminished policy support (i.e.. correction risk) while also being subject to a lessening of the year/year change in S&P 500 price

5. Ukraine will have to be settled in a way that does not diminish U.S, living standards (I.e., living standards as measured by U.S. personal disposable income after subtracting energy and food costs), but that is far from certain; in many ways it appears to us that Russian President Putin is ‘playing (hard power) chess” while the West is “playing checkers.” such as NATO moving troops to Eastern Europe while leaving Ukraine exposed; in our view. Russia only has designs on eastern Ukraine (not Eastern European NATO members) and our assessment is that Russia has the non-dollar reserves, power over EU energy flows, popular support in Russia and firepower to accomplish their goal of a USSR-style buffer zone separating them from the West

Bannister reminds the bulls of Stein’s law: “If something cannot go on forever it will stop” (including Post-COVID policy settings and liquidity-fueled market exuberance) noting that he sees S&P 500 downside to 4,200 in the short-term.

Finally, however, Nomura’s Charlie McElligott warns that Powell will be perceived as incrementally hawkish in his commentary on Financial Conditions…

Especially as the market’s expectations shift modestly more dovish this week as stocks crashed…

which is obviously a “downside risk” for the Equities response.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/25/2022 – 10:50

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fTP1pd Tyler Durden

Don’t Exaggerate What’s at Stake in Ukraine


sfphotosfive241048

Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border, though it claims it doesn’t intend to invade. The U.S. is sending weapons, layering on sanctions, and placing 8,500 troops on “high alert” for possible deployment to Eastern Europe. And last week President Joe Biden, facing criticism for his “weak” stance on the conflict, drew a line in the sand: “If any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion. Let there be no doubt if [Russian President Vladimir] Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price.”

With a little less hubris and a little more realism, the escalation of the Ukraine affair could’ve at least been mitigated. But the foreign policy establishment seems to have forgotten how to do a cost-benefit analysis. The risks of this conflict simply outweigh Ukraine’s importance to U.S. foreign policy.

Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) wants “the sorts of sanctions that we use to bring Iran to the table.” But Russia controls a significant portion of global energy markets—nearly 40 percent of Europe’s gas imports—so permitting Iran-like measures against it would have disastrous effects. Economic sanctions on Russia were futile in 2014 when it invaded Crimea, and there’s no reason to believe that they would provide a deterrent effect now. More often than not, U.S. sanctions hurt American economic interests without changing the target’s behavior in the slightest.

Meanwhile, American military aid worth more than $200 million has reached Ukraine. This weapons dump has been justified a few different ways, ranging from the idea that it will change Putin’s mind to the notion that it will give the Ukrainian military a real chance against potential invaders. In 2021, the U.S. sent $650 million worth of weapons and military equipment to Ukrainethe most since 2014—and it clearly didn’t deter Putin from surrounding Ukraine on three fronts. It’s hard to believe that sending even more equipment into Ukraine will do the trick.

Defending Ukraine has never been about Ukraine, Michael Brendan Dougherty argues in National Review, but about defending “liberal world order.” The chief argument of the Russia hawks, like former President of the World Peace Foundation Robert Rotberg, is that failing to protect Ukraine from Russia would mean the U.S. is dishonoring those who fought in World War II. That the U.S. would be putting its hard-earned “superpower” status at risk. This is an exaggeration of disastrous magnitude.

“The world is paying a high price for relying on a flawed theory of world politics,” writes Harvard University’s Stephen Walt in Foreign Affairs. Russia sees Ukraine as a strategic imperative. Ukraine will never be as high on America’s list of foreign policy priorities as it is on Russia’s. And the situation in that region will never become a fight to crown the next global superpower.

Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO. Preventing Ukraine from joining NATO is Putin’s top priority, but he also wishes to shut down any further NATO expansion. There are serious disagreements between member nations—best exemplified by Germany refusing to send weapons—about how to treat Ukraine due to differing attitudes toward Moscow. Getting heavily involved in Ukraine would distract NATO from its more challenging adversary: China.

Biden may not have any good options here. He doesn’t want to sit idly on the sidelines while Russia trounces Ukraine, but it would be irresponsible to go to war there, especially just after ending another war that spanned 20 years.

The post Don't Exaggerate What's at Stake in Ukraine appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r1tlh6
via IFTTT

Don’t Exaggerate What’s at Stake in Ukraine


sfphotosfive241048

Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border, though it claims it doesn’t intend to invade. The U.S. is sending weapons, layering on sanctions, and placing 8,500 troops on “high alert” for possible deployment to Eastern Europe. And last week President Joe Biden, facing criticism for his “weak” stance on the conflict, drew a line in the sand: “If any assembled Russian units move across the Ukrainian border, that is an invasion. Let there be no doubt if [Russian President Vladimir] Putin makes this choice, Russia will pay a heavy price.”

With a little less hubris and a little more realism, the escalation of the Ukraine affair could’ve at least been mitigated. But the foreign policy establishment seems to have forgotten how to do a cost-benefit analysis. The risks of this conflict simply outweigh Ukraine’s importance to U.S. foreign policy.

Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) wants “the sorts of sanctions that we use to bring Iran to the table.” But Russia controls a significant portion of global energy markets—nearly 40 percent of Europe’s gas imports—so permitting Iran-like measures against it would have disastrous effects. Economic sanctions on Russia were futile in 2014 when it invaded Crimea, and there’s no reason to believe that they would provide a deterrent effect now. More often than not, U.S. sanctions hurt American economic interests without changing the target’s behavior in the slightest.

Meanwhile, American military aid worth more than $200 million has reached Ukraine. This weapons dump has been justified a few different ways, ranging from the idea that it will change Putin’s mind to the notion that it will give the Ukrainian military a real chance against potential invaders. In 2021, the U.S. sent $650 million worth of weapons and military equipment to Ukrainethe most since 2014—and it clearly didn’t deter Putin from surrounding Ukraine on three fronts. It’s hard to believe that sending even more equipment into Ukraine will do the trick.

Defending Ukraine has never been about Ukraine, Michael Brendan Dougherty argues in National Review, but about defending “liberal world order.” The chief argument of the Russia hawks, like former President of the World Peace Foundation Robert Rotberg, is that failing to protect Ukraine from Russia would mean the U.S. is dishonoring those who fought in World War II. That the U.S. would be putting its hard-earned “superpower” status at risk. This is an exaggeration of disastrous magnitude.

“The world is paying a high price for relying on a flawed theory of world politics,” writes Harvard University’s Stephen Walt in Foreign Affairs. Russia sees Ukraine as a strategic imperative. Ukraine will never be as high on America’s list of foreign policy priorities as it is on Russia’s. And the situation in that region will never become a fight to crown the next global superpower.

Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO. Preventing Ukraine from joining NATO is Putin’s top priority, but he also wishes to shut down any further NATO expansion. There are serious disagreements between member nations—best exemplified by Germany refusing to send weapons—about how to treat Ukraine due to differing attitudes toward Moscow. Getting heavily involved in Ukraine would distract NATO from its more challenging adversary: China.

Biden may not have any good options here. He doesn’t want to sit idly on the sidelines while Russia trounces Ukraine, but it would be irresponsible to go to war there, especially just after ending another war that spanned 20 years.

The post Don't Exaggerate What's at Stake in Ukraine appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r1tlh6
via IFTTT

“Nothing Personal, Pal”: Biden Phones Doocy After Calling Him “Stupid Son Of A Bitch”

“Nothing Personal, Pal”: Biden Phones Doocy After Calling Him “Stupid Son Of A Bitch”

Shortly after Joe Biden was caught on hot mic calling Fox News‘ Peter Doocy a “stupid son of a bitch” for asking a question  the US president called the reporter to “clear the air” following the incident.

Biden called Doocy “within about an hour” to tell him that the remark was “nothing personal,” before reportedly encouraging Doocy to continue asking tough questions.

I made sure to tell him [Biden] that I’m always going to try to ask something different than what everybody else is asking and he said ‘you’ve got to,’” Doocy told Fox News anchor Sean Hannity last night. “And that is the quote from the president, so I will keep doing it.”

When Hannity asked if Biden actually apologized, Doocy said “He did clear the air and I appreciate it,” adding “We had a nice call.”

He–that’s not an answer. Did he apologize? That doesn’t sound like an apology,” Hannity responded.

He said, ‘it’s nothing personal, pal,” Doocy said. “I told him that I appreciated him reaching out. Hey, Sean, the world is on the brink of, like, World War III. With all the stuff going on, I appreciate that the president took a couple minutes out this evening while he was still at the desk to give me a call and clear the air, but I don’t need anybody to apologize to me.”

Watch:

Doocy said the call was “enough” and that the two can “move forward” from the incident.

(h/t Daily Caller)

As we noted yesterday, Monday’s outburst follows another hot-mic moment last week, when Biden was caught muttering “what a stupid question,” after Fox News‘ Jacqui Heinrich asked him “Why are you waiting on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to make the first move, sir?” in regards to Ukarine.

Which followed a September incident in which he said that the Indian press is “better behaved” than US reporters in regards to questions.

We can’t help but wonder if the press corps misses Trump yet.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/25/2022 – 10:31

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33Qeptt Tyler Durden

L.A. Schools Will Require Non-Cloth Masks (Even for Sports) and Vaccination Next Year


dreamstime_m_215889110

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is about to get even stricter with its COVID-19 mitigation requirements: The country’s second-largest public school district will force students to wear non-cloth masks that have a nose wire, even while they are outside or playing sports.

L.A. is also slated to add a vaccination requirement for all students, which will take effect January 1, 2023.

The district’s mask policy was updated on its website late last week. It states that  “masking will be required at all times, indoors and outdoors. It is required that all students wear well-fitting, non-cloth masks with a nose wire.” Staff will have to wear surgical grade masks.

The policy includes no exceptions—and no acknowledgment that masks have proven to be disruptive to various educational, social, and physical activities. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that masks could make it more difficult for young children to learn how to read. Several months ago, the CDC quietly revised its masking guidance and encouraged schools to let these students wear cloth masks, or even transparent masks.

Many other students find it difficult to exercise and participate in sports while wearing masks. It makes little sense to require young people to keep masking up under these circumstances, when outside the school setting, there is practically zero expectation that people wear masks while exercising outdoors, even in highly COVID-19 cautious cities. Students are virtually alone in that their relevant authorities require vigorous, constant masking.

Even American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten realizes that it can be difficult to understand what a person wearing a mask is saying, which is why she removed her mask in order to be heard at a conference in November.

Perhaps there are circumstances where students might have difficulty hearing their teachers or classmates. Reason‘s Lenore Skenazy recently interviewed a seventh grade health teacher about the toll that pandemic restriction have taken on her students: One of the main issues was that masks inhibited communication between the kids.

But non-cloth masks are not the only burden coming to L.A. schools: The district also has tentative plans to implement a vaccine mandate beginning next year after previously delaying its implementation in the face of widespread resistance. Legislation proposed by state Sen. Richard Pan (D–Sacramento) would require students throughout the state to get vaccinated. His bill expands upon a previous mandate and eliminates “personal belief” exemptions.

“Legislators have the ability to pass laws to make our communities safe, including increasing vaccination rates to keep schools open and safe,” he said in a statement.

Young people, however, are already by and large safe from the worst effects of COVID-19: severe disease and death. Getting vaccinated is the right choice for many students, but other families might have reasonable concerns in some cases.

Mandating that all students get the vaccine effectively takes this choice away from families, since the alternative—permanent remote education—is not acceptable for many kids. That’s really what the public education system, in California and elsewhere, is doing: Eliminating choice. The government has decided, contrary to practical considerations and the wishes of many parents, that students must be vaxxed and masked.

The proper solution is school choice: Parents who do not agree with these policies should be able take whatever public funding is budgeted for their kids and invest in an educational option that aligns with their needs. For some families, that could even be a school setting that follows stricter COVID-19 mitigation policies. But the decision should belong to families, not the government.

This week happens to be National School Choice Week, but the public education system’s utter failure to handle the COVID-19 pandemic in a manner that allows kids to actually attend school has provided a two-year-long example of why this policy change is desperately needed. If parents want to vaccinate their kids, they should do it. If they want to send their kids to schools that require masks, they should do that as well. But the millions of parents who want to make a different choice have rights, too.

The post L.A. Schools Will Require Non-Cloth Masks (Even for Sports) and Vaccination Next Year appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Who Bought The Dip: Retail Puked In The Morning, Panic Bought In The Afternoon

Who Bought The Dip: Retail Puked In The Morning, Panic Bought In The Afternoon

In a hurried attempt to explain the dynamics behind yesterday’s market plunge, Bloomberg rushed out an article just after the market closed on Monday, titled “Retail Traders Bailed on the Market Right Before Stocks Rebounded” and which cited data from JPM retail flow tracking quant Peng Cheng noting that in “a spasm of panicked selling early Monday, retail investors offloaded a net $1.36 billion worth of stock by noon, most of it in the first hour.” Adding that “the retail morning exodus was a stark about-face from recent sessions, when die-hard day traders snapped up a record $12 billion of equities during the two weeks through last Tuesday”, Bloomberg’s conclusion was the the early puke was at least partially facilitated by retail capitulation.

Setting side that retail flows are minuscule in the grand scheme of things (CTA flows are measured in the tens of billions, buybacks are around $5 billion or more each day), Bloomberg’s assessment was correct, but incomplete, because Bloomberg used JPM data tracking just the first half of the trading day. Had it waited just a few more hours, it would have gotten the full picture, which is very meaningful because as JPM shows, what happened in the afternoon was a mirror image of the retail puke in the morning.

In a note published early on Tuesday morning, JPM’s Peng Cheng answers the question of “who bought the dip on Monday” and writes that the order flow on Monday showed a significant reversal around mid day: “while retail traders sold heavily in the morning, and the net selling peaked at -$1.5B around 12:30PM. In the afternoon, however, they turned aggressive buyers, and bought close to $1.3B between 12:30PM and 4:00PM.”

All in all, the retail order imbalance ended the day at -$252MM, “a relatively modest number considering the intraday volatility.”

The directional bias on the remaining order flow (i.e. order flow which is not classified as retail) showed a similar trend. Net selling peaked at -$5B at around 12:30PM. The reversal in the afternoon was even more dramatic, and a total of $10.8B was bought by non-retail investors between 12:30PM and 4:00PM. Non-retail order imbalance ended the day at +$5.8B.

For those wondering what retail bought and sold on Monday, here is a summary of the names with the highest/lowest retail order imbalance.

Of course, any attempts at pointing the finger at retail investors as being decisive in either sparking the dump or the reversal are laughable – at best, what retail traders do is merely chase the market momentum and they did precisely that yesterday. For the complete answer who was behind yesterday’s dramatic intraday reversal, please read our article overnight “Thank This Mystery Put Seller For Today’s Historic Market Reversal.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 01/25/2022 – 10:14

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33SFxrP Tyler Durden