The Colorado and Ohio model programs that train teachers to defeat active shooters

For many years there has been debate about allowing teachers to be armed to protect students. This post describes an established training program for teachers who choose to do so in compliance with school rules. The program is FASTER—short for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response. Introduced in Ohio, FASTER could be adopted by every state and school, at no cost to taxpayers, and at considerable saving of lives.

FASTER was created in Ohio in December 2012, following the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School. FASTER Ohio’s website, FASTER Saves Lives, is the best resource for information about the program. FASTER Colorado was founded by Laura Carno; it has been adopted as a supported program of the Independence Institute, the Denver think tank where I work. Pilot programs for FASTER have begun in Utah and Arizona.

In the last decade, FASTER has trained thousands of teachers and other school staff in emergency medicine and emergency armed defense.

FASTER training is voluntary. No teacher or staffer should be forced to carry a firearm. For teachers and staff who want training, FASTER offers 26 hours over three days.

Almost all FASTER participants already have been issued a concealed handgun carry permit. The permits authorize concealed carry almost everywhere in one’s home state; they also authorize concealed handgun carry in many other states (because of interstate reciprocity, like with drivers’ licenses).

FASTER teaches specific skills for school protection. Legally, schools are said to act in loco parentis—in place of parents. Parents defend their children. Therefore, teachers defend their students. That’s what FASTER participants think, and FASTER prepares them to do so.

FASTER graduates learn the medical and defensive skills relevant to stopping a school shooter from taking lives. FASTER instructors are law enforcement trainers. They teach FASTER classes two of the skills they teach law enforcement officers: treating gunshot wounds and defeating active shooters.

Part of FASTER training is a very specific subset of emergency medicine: how to keep a gunshot wound victim alive while waiting for an ambulance to arrive.

The other major component of FASTER is close-quarters combat against active shooters. FASTER teaches the same skills and techniques that law enforcement officers are taught.

To graduate from FASTER, one must exceed the marksmanship criteria required in one’s state for certified law enforcement officers—such as Colorado’s Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). The three days of FASTER training make graduates well-prepared against school shooters; the classes do not prepare graduates to perform unrelated medical or law enforcement functions, such as dealing with heart attacks or conducting traffic stops.

FASTER charges tuition to cover expenses, but scholarships are available for employees of any school district that cannot afford tuition.

A school shooting you probably haven’t heard about, unless you live in Colorado, took place on May 7, 2019, at the STEM High School in Highlands Ranch. When two armed criminals invaded a classroom, student Kendrick Castillo rushed them. His heroism allowed all other students to escape, but Kendrick was fatally shot. Kendrick’s parents, John and Maria Castillo, speak to FASTER classes and explain the necessity of armed staff. This May, they held a fundraiser for FASTER Colorado, in honor of Kendrick.

There has never been a problem of any FASTER teacher causing an accidental discharge, or having a gun taken by student. FASTER training rigorously teaches weapons safety and retention.

FASTER Colorado executive director Laura Carno explained FASTER on the Jesse Watters show last week. More information about FASTER is available in Lauro Carno’s article for The Hill, and in a New York Daily News article she coauthored with me, Arming teachers can protect kids.

FASTER is not the only good idea about preventing or thwarting school shootings. Implementing FASTER does not prevent consideration of any other school safety idea.

According to a recent poll of likely general election voters by The Trafalgar Group, 57.5% believe that preventing trained teachers from carrying firearms in schools makes schools more dangerous; 30.8% disagreed. Democrats felt the same way as the general public, although by a smaller margin: 48.2% to 41.3%. People aged 18-24 were the most supportive of armed teachers, with 62% for and 21% against.

So far, FASTER has a perfect record of prevention and a zero record of negative side-effects. School officials, politicians, or anti-gun activists who prevent willing, well-trained staff from protecting students are refusing to prioritize student safety.

The post The Colorado and Ohio model programs that train teachers to defeat active shooters appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/RdAZ9xY
via IFTTT

The Colorado and Ohio model programs that train teachers to defeat active shooters

For many years there has been debate about allowing teachers to be armed to protect students. This post describes an established training program for teachers who choose to do so in compliance with school rules. The program is FASTER—short for Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response. Introduced in Ohio, FASTER could be adopted by every state and school, at no cost to taxpayers, and at considerable saving of lives.

FASTER was created in Ohio in December 2012, following the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School. FASTER Ohio’s website, FASTER Saves Lives, is the best resource for information about the program. FASTER Colorado was founded by Laura Carno; it has been adopted as a supported program of the Independence Institute, the Denver think tank where I work. Pilot programs for FASTER have begun in Utah and Arizona.

In the last decade, FASTER has trained thousands of teachers and other school staff in emergency medicine and emergency armed defense.

FASTER training is voluntary. No teacher or staffer should be forced to carry a firearm. For teachers and staff who want training, FASTER offers 26 hours over three days.

Almost all FASTER participants already have been issued a concealed handgun carry permit. The permits authorize concealed carry almost everywhere in one’s home state; they also authorize concealed handgun carry in many other states (because of interstate reciprocity, like with drivers’ licenses).

FASTER teaches specific skills for school protection. Legally, schools are said to act in loco parentis—in place of parents. Parents defend their children. Therefore, teachers defend their students. That’s what FASTER participants think, and FASTER prepares them to do so.

FASTER graduates learn the medical and defensive skills relevant to stopping a school shooter from taking lives. FASTER instructors are law enforcement trainers. They teach FASTER classes two of the skills they teach law enforcement officers: treating gunshot wounds and defeating active shooters.

Part of FASTER training is a very specific subset of emergency medicine: how to keep a gunshot wound victim alive while waiting for an ambulance to arrive.

The other major component of FASTER is close-quarters combat against active shooters. FASTER teaches the same skills and techniques that law enforcement officers are taught.

To graduate from FASTER, one must exceed the marksmanship criteria required in one’s state for certified law enforcement officers—such as Colorado’s Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). The three days of FASTER training make graduates well-prepared against school shooters; the classes do not prepare graduates to perform unrelated medical or law enforcement functions, such as dealing with heart attacks or conducting traffic stops.

FASTER charges tuition to cover expenses, but scholarships are available for employees of any school district that cannot afford tuition.

A school shooting you probably haven’t heard about, unless you live in Colorado, took place on May 7, 2019, at the STEM High School in Highlands Ranch. When two armed criminals invaded a classroom, student Kendrick Castillo rushed them. His heroism allowed all other students to escape, but Kendrick was fatally shot. Kendrick’s parents, John and Maria Castillo, speak to FASTER classes and explain the necessity of armed staff. This May, they held a fundraiser for FASTER Colorado, in honor of Kendrick.

There has never been a problem of any FASTER teacher causing an accidental discharge, or having a gun taken by student. FASTER training rigorously teaches weapons safety and retention.

FASTER Colorado executive director Laura Carno explained FASTER on the Jesse Watters show last week. More information about FASTER is available in Lauro Carno’s article for The Hill, and in a New York Daily News article she coauthored with me, Arming teachers can protect kids.

FASTER is not the only good idea about preventing or thwarting school shootings. Implementing FASTER does not prevent consideration of any other school safety idea.

According to a recent poll of likely general election voters by The Trafalgar Group, 57.5% believe that preventing trained teachers from carrying firearms in schools makes schools more dangerous; 30.8% disagreed. Democrats felt the same way as the general public, although by a smaller margin: 48.2% to 41.3%. People aged 18-24 were the most supportive of armed teachers, with 62% for and 21% against.

So far, FASTER has a perfect record of prevention and a zero record of negative side-effects. School officials, politicians, or anti-gun activists who prevent willing, well-trained staff from protecting students are refusing to prioritize student safety.

The post The Colorado and Ohio model programs that train teachers to defeat active shooters appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/RdAZ9xY
via IFTTT

Enochian Biosciences Tanks 40%, Hindenburg Highlights Co-Founder’s Arrest, Alleged “Lifetime Of Lies”

Enochian Biosciences Tanks 40%, Hindenburg Highlights Co-Founder’s Arrest, Alleged “Lifetime Of Lies”

Shares of Enochian Biosciences are down more than 20% in the pre-market session after research firm Hindenburg Research released a scathing report on the company and its co-founder called “Miracle Cures and Murder For Hire: How A Spoon-Bending Turkish Magician Built A $600 Million Nasdaq-Listed Scam Based On A Lifetime Of Lies“. 

In the report, Hindenburg notes that the company’s co-founder, “scientific founder”, “inventor”, and largest shareholder, Serhat Gumrukcu, was arrested by Federal authorities over allegations that he conspired in a plot to murder a Vermont father of six.

“The victim, Gregory Davis, was murdered on January 6th, 2018, just 19 days before Gumrukcu was scheduled to appear in court to defend himself against felony fraud allegations related to a 2016 deal with Davis. Federal prosecutors argued that the prospective merger deal that eventually resulted in Enochian going public served as a key motive for the murder,” the report said.

Hindenburg characterized Enochian as “a biotech company with an entirely preclinical pipeline of claimed miracle cures, vaccines and treatments for HIV, Influenza, Hepatitis, Cancer, and COVID-19” and noted that while the company “claimed last week that Gumrukcu ‘has had no formal role in the Company’ and that the incident was ‘completely unrelated to the Company’, Enochian’s own disclosures indicate that the company and its pipeline are completely dependent on Gumrukcu.”

“Every product Enochian is investigating appears to have been licensed to it by Gumrukcu-controlled or affiliated entities or are otherwise based on his research,” the report says. It also alleges that the co-founder’s arrest “is simply the most recent in a string of alleged crimes by Gumrukcu.

The report also alleges that Enochian knew of the founder’s criminal history, stating: “Our research indicates that Enochian executives knew about Gumrukcu’s criminal history. Mark Dybul, CEO of Enochian, wrote a glowing letter of recommendation to a Turkish criminal court on behalf of Gumrukcu.”

“Dybul served as a HIV research fellow at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under director Dr. Anthony Fauci in the late 1990s,” his Georgetown bio says. The same bio says “He went on to lead President George W. Bush’s International Prevention of Mother and Child HIV initiative for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and in 2006 was named U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator”. 

Dybul and Gates

And that key executives who had relationships with people like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates supported the now-indicted co-founder:

Invoking his close friendship and mentee relationship with Dr. Anthony Fauci and his relationship with Bill Gates, Dybul called Gumrukcu a “rare genius” who had come up with platforms to cure HIV, hepatitis B, all strains of influenza, Zika, dengue fever, and COVID. Dybul also wrote that the now-accused murderer was “deeply compassionate, empathetic, and approachable”, providing his “strongest recommendation”.

In a phone interview, Chairman Rene Sindlev admitted to us “I knew that he had been charged for 14 (felony) counts” but moved forward with the deal and expanded the relationship anyway.

In the years since, Enochian has awarded lucrative cash consulting and licensing contracts to entities controlled by Gumrukcu and his husband. Enochian executives have repeatedly failed to disclose Gumrukcu’s criminal activity to shareholders.

The report also alleges that Gumrukcu has faked his medical credentials and that the company’s former CFO claimed he was fired for asking about “serious financial improprieties” and large payments to Gumrukcu.

“With its founder and main source of scientific discoveries jailed on murder-for-hire allegations, this cash-burning company without peer-reviewed research and no genuine clinical prospects is now a “catch me if you can” story that we believe has finally reached the end-phase,” wrote Hindenburg.

Enochian Biosciences commented last week on the arrest of Gumrukcu, stating: 

The Board of Directors of Enochian BioSciences Inc. met today and expressed unanimous and strong affirmation of the current position of the Company, the Management and the promising advancement of the Research and Development pipeline.

The strong affirmation of the Company by the Board follows the unexpected and shocking press release by the Department of Justice that Dr. Serhat Gumrukçu, an inventor and co-founder of the Company, has been arrested and charged with serious crimes (link to release) that are reported to have occurred prior to the merger which created the Company of today. The Board reviewed what is known and concluded without reservation that there is no link between the criminal charges and any actions of the Company.

Earlier this year, we reported that Hindenburg had tipped off regulators to an alleged Ponzi scheme, which resulted in a shootout taking place between the FBI and an alleged perpetrator in Las Vegas. 

You can read Hindenburg’s full report here. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/01/2022 – 13:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/XRBdZ3o Tyler Durden

The US Oil Boycott Of Russia Will Push The Eurozone Into A Recession

The US Oil Boycott Of Russia Will Push The Eurozone Into A Recession

Excerpted from Maartje Wijffelaars, Elwin de Groot and Erik-Jan van Harn of Rabobank (full note available to ZH professional subscribers in the usual place).

Summary

  • On Tuesday night EU leaders agreed to ban all Russian seaborne oil imports

  • The ban, amid already high inflation and intense supply chain pressure, will push the Eurozone into a recession; this confirms our views expressed earlier this year

  • We expect the Eurozone economy to enter a recession by the end 2022/early 2023

  • Helped by carry over effects we still expect the Eurozone economy to grow by 2.2% in 2022, yet to contract with 0.1% in 2023

  • The ban will not lead to lasting energy shortages, but it will take time before Russian oil imports are replaced and oil prices will almost certainly trend higher

  • Our forecast is subject to quite some uncertainty, especially when it comes to the timing and depth of the recession. But, importantly, a grind down is in the works, with neither the ECB nor governments in the position to prevent that

EU leaders agree to ban seaborne oil imports

On Tuesday night, EU leaders agreed to ban all Russian seaborne oil imports. The sixth sanction package, including the details, still needs to be officially signed off, but based on earlier statements, import of Russian crude oil via seaborne shipments is set to be barred from the end of this year. The ban on seaborne import of petroleum products should then become effective about two months later. A “temporary” exception is being made for pipeline imports, to accommodate concerns over energy security for Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. When taking into account that Germany and Poland have said to cut Russian oil imports regardless of the exemption, the current agreement effectively means that about 90% of crude oil imports from Russia would be phased out by the end of the year- which represents around one quarter of total annual crude oil imports in the EU in recent years. It has not yet been agreed how long the exclusion of pipeline oil will last. Importantly, the package will also foresee in a provision to limit re-exports of Russian crude arriving via pipelines and petroleum products based on Russian crude oil.

Eurozone economy to shrink due to energy crisis

The oil boycott pushes us to downgrade our forecast. We had already highlighted this risk in previous research notes. We expect the Eurozone to enter a recession at the end of this year (Figure 1). Combined with carry over effects from the strong second half of 2021 this means that the economy is still set to grow in 2022, yet to contract in 2023. We have pencilled in growth of 2.2% in 2022 and -0.1% in 2023 -compared to, respectively, 2.9% and 1.5% in our previous forecast. Recently we had already lifted our inflation outlook to 7.5% this year and 3.6% next year, based on our expectation of a Russian oil embargo.

Oil embargo will fuel non-Russian oil prices

In our view, the Russian oil embargo will not lead to large lasting energy shortages. Yet adjustments are likely to take time and it will certainly fuel prices of both crude oil and refined petroleum products. In fact, this morning prices of both crude oil and refined petroleum products such as diesel already pushed higher (Figure 3). It is the price of refined petroleum products that is being felt most by households and hauliers and that price has in fact already seen much sharper increases than crude oil since Russia’s  invasion. Driving factors of the so-called crack spread so far have been capacity constraints at refineries worldwide and less imports from Russia. For now, lockdowns in China will continue to cap the price of crude oil, but once China’s lockdowns are lifted, we envisage that the price of crude oil could peak at over $170 a barrel – as can be read in the oil ban scenario analyses we have conducted earlier.

Recession hits once reopening boost fades

In the first quarter of the year the Eurozone economy still managed to grow, with 0.3% q/q – revised upwards from 0.2% q/q. We also expect the growth figure to hold just above the zero- mark in the current quarter, on the back of (i) the grand reopening of the economy, (ii) businesses still working their ways through backlogs, (iii) rather strong labour markets in many Member States, and (iv) excess savings that allow households to absorb part of the higher prices regime.

Moving on to the third quarter, tourism activity is likely to benefit from the seemingly unstoppable drive of many to go on a holiday. Yet it will be ever more difficult for the economy to continue to post positive growth figures, as the boost of reopening fades amid very high inflation and equipment shortages. In our view, government support, already being ramped up across the block, will alleviate some inflation pressure and this should support economic growth by several decimal points. But it will not be able to prevent a downturn. Indeed, we are dealing with a supply shock induced crisis and you simply cannot solve a supply shock by ramping up demand. In fact, broad scale support might even accomplish the opposite, as it could support demand for which there is too limited supply.

Meanwhile, we currently assume China to continue its zero-covid policy, with alternating lockdowns continuing to put pressure on global supply chains. In our projections, we incorporate that it will take until the final quarter of the year for supply chain pressures caused by China to soften materially. We note, however, that China’s reopening -even when gradual- will also feed into higher prices for energy commodities and metals as Chinese demand for these commodities rises.

Supply chain disruptions and rising input prices hurt production

From a supply side perspective, input and equipment shortages are likely to continue to hamper industrial production over the coming quarters, as will increased input prices to the extent that they cannot be fully passed on to customers. In past months, production of energy intensive products in the EU, such as fertilizers, paper, and construction materials, has already been cut back due to elevated energy prices. Meanwhile, in surveys, businesses report lengthening delivery times and record equipment shortages (Figure 4). Important sources of the supply chain disruptions are lockdowns in China and the war in Ukraine. We expect input deliveries from China to continue to be hampered for the better part of the year, while we also don’t envisage the end of the war or a reduction in energy price -quite the opposite in fact when it comes to the price of oil, as explained.

On a positive note, the price of natural gas has come down over the past weeks and is almost back at its pre-war level, which should exercise some downward pressure on energy price inflation and support energy intensive production in the Eurozone. That said, it remains very high in historical context and has the potential to trend higher again.

Inflation and uncertainty hurt demand

From a demand side perspective, we expect the sharp and persisting price rises and growing uncertainty (Figure 5) to slowly ‘kill’ households’ ability and willingness to consume. Even though extra savings at European bank accounts accumulated during the pandemic (some 5% of annual GDP) will help to absorb the higher prices, a contraction in consumption is all but a given in our view. Both the magnitude of the inflation and the fact that savings are unequally distributed among households -with a decumulation of savings among low-income households- feed into this view. We foresee consumer spending to contract for several quarters, starting in the third quarter of this year. It usually takes time for higher inflation and uncertainty to translate into lower consumption growth, although the magnitude of both could well speed things up little when compared to history. We also believe that higher input costs and increased pessimism over the outlook will eventually lower the ability and willingness of businesses to invest, create jobs and raise wages.

In addition, over time, increasing financing cost are also expected to bite. Although the ECB still hasn’t raised rates so far, we expect it to start a tightening cycle in July, taking its deposit facility rate back to +0.25% by the end of the year. Market developments since the beginning of the year have already led to a considerable tightening of financial conditions; risk-free government bond yields, term and inflation risk premiums as well as corporate risk premiums have contributed to this. Whilst it could be argued that rates – both at the short and at the long end of the maturity spectrum – have not kept up with actual inflation rates, the fact that the bulk of the rise in inflation is due to a deterioration in the terms of trade, implies that one cannot compare these one for one. Indeed, the marked rise in long-term bond yields even when corrected for higher inflation breakeven rates since end-April underscores the higher interest rate environment. Together with the ongoing uncertainty over the outlook, this is also leading to a tightening of bank credit conditions, in terms of higher borrowing costs as well as a tightening in loan conditions.

As such, whilst higher inflation and supply shortages remain the key drivers of the economic slowdown, the tightening of financial conditions is likely to contribute to an ‘acceleration’ of the economic slowdown as time progresses.

Labor demand to contract

Over the coming months, when demand cools and pessimism among businesses increases, we will likely first witness a reduction in outstanding vacancies. An actual contraction of hours worked will then follow further down the line. To what extent this will lead to layoffs and higher unemployment is rather uncertain, however. Short-time work schemes introduced during the pandemic will very likely limit official employment destruction and the rise in unemployment – and hence income losses. Still, we believe that economic growth and unemployment are not fully disconnected, which is why we project unemployment to increase from 7.2% this year to 7.5% in 2023 and 7.8% in 2024 -compared to 8.6% at the pandemic peak. Meanwhile we project wages to grow by 2.5% on average this year and 3% next year. This clearly is an improvement from the growth of 1.5% in collective wage agreements last year, but is largely insufficient to keep up with inflation. Hence real wages, are set to shrink big time, underscoring our view of contracting consumption further down the line.

Risks to forecast are balanced

We are finding ourselves in uncertain times, yet again. Forecasting a recession, and the timing thereof, is fraught with risks. Whilst the direction of travel is clear to us, the depth of the crisis is less obvious. Indeed, the relationship between inflation, uncertainty and GDP growth is not set in stone -it could either be more or less intense than we currently foresee. Other important sources of uncertainty are the timing and impact of China’s reopening, and of government support in the Eurozone.

Finally, we currently only see it as a tail risk that the EU stops importing Russian gas in the short term or that Russia suddenly fully stops exporting gas to the EU on its own account. Admittedly, Russia has already stopped delivering gas to several smaller customers including Finland and particular providers in Germany and the Netherlands. Yet it would be a real financial blow for itself if  it were to fully cut off large countries such as Italy and Germany, for example. Still, more unforeseen things have happened over the past months and both EU sanctions and Russian countermeasures are clearly a moving target. As such we keep a close eye on developments. In any case, while the recent stop in gas flows is likely to cause some price effect already in the countries hit, the consequences of a sudden full stop in Russian gas inflows in the EU would be much larger.

All in all, then, we regard the risks to our forecast rather balanced. Importantly, a grind down is in the works, with neither the ECB nor governments in the position to prevent that.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/01/2022 – 13:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/JdNDc16 Tyler Durden

Biden Says Fighting Inflation Is His Top Economic Priority. His Antitrust Policy Would Make Inflation Worse.


Joe Biden pulling a mask below his face

To hear President Joe Biden tell it, “tackling inflation” is his “top economic priority.” In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal yesterday, Biden outlined a three-point plan to “ transition from rapid recovery to stable, steady growth” by “[bringing] inflation down.” 

Yet as Reason‘s Eric Boehm noted, Biden’s own policies, particularly the $2 trillion partisan spending bill Biden and congressional Democrats pushed through at the start of Biden’s presidency, contributed to the current inflationary environment, pumping massive stimulus into the economy in an explicit bid to run the economy “hot”—despite clear warnings, even from left-leaning economists aligned with the Democratic Party, that doing so would produce harmful levels of inflation.

Indeed, even as Biden promises to whip inflation now, his administration is continuing to pursue policies more likely than not to make inflation worse despite cautions from within the Democratic establishment. In particular, his administration is pressing forward with aggressive antitrust enforcement against large companies like Amazon that would drive upward pressure on prices. 

On the same day that Biden’s inflation op-ed appeared, Bloomberg News reported that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had renewed an antitrust investigation into Amazon, focusing specifically on the company’s acquisition of movie producer MGM Studios. That investigation is proceeding under an FTC led by Lina Khan, a Biden appointee who in a 2017 paper for the Yale Law Journal made a case for expanded antitrust action against the online retailer, arguing that the standard approach was deficient. Bloomberg News reports that Khan “has taken a personal interest in the probe.”  

Biden has encouraged Khan’s zeal, and his advisers have argued in the past that more aggressive antitrust policy against large corporations can be a tool for fighting inflation. But it’s hard to see this as much more than a political crutch for a flailing administration: When the price of gas began to go up, Biden urged the FTC to pursue investigations of supposedly anticompetitive oil and gas companies. When the price of beef rose, Biden urged antitrust probes into the meatpacking industry. 

In December, Biden advisers admitted to The New York Times that the administration’s antitrust push hadn’t initially been devised as an inflation-fighting tool. Biden’s initial $2 trillion spending bill, the American Rescue Plan (ARP), was best understood as a grab-bag of preexisting Democratic economic priorities ill-suited to the problems of early 2021. Similarly, Biden’s antitrust push is an old partisan agenda item that has nothing to do with the problem at hand, yet has been suspiciously retrofitted into a supposed solution to current issues. 

And like the American Rescue Plan, Biden’s antitrust push is, if anything, likely to make inflation worse. Some of the most prescient warnings about the size and design of the ARP came from Larry Summers, a Harvard economist and one of former President Barack Obama’s top economic advisers.

Summers is now warning that Biden’s approach to antitrust will have similar results. 

Khan’s approach to antitrust is focused on discarding what has long been the legal test for antitrust actions: whether a merger enhances consumer welfare. Instead, progressive antitrust activists in the Khan mold have focused more on scale—or bigness—itself, often under the justification that limiting corporate size promotes competition with smaller firms. 

But in a recent Twitter thread, Summers argued that this was exactly backward: “Policies that attack bigness can easily be inflationary if they prevent the exploitation of economies of scale or limit superstar firms,” he wrote. “Likewise, policy focused on protecting competitors or communities or limiting layoffs are likely to raise costs & prices.” Another way of thinking about this is that antitrust efforts that target bigness alone end up decreasing corporate efficiency since mergers and acquisitions can allow for more streamlined production processes. Reducing efficiency, in turn, drives up prices, contributing to the inflation that Biden says he’s determined to fight. 

In some ways, this is not surprising: Giving up on the consumer welfare standard in some sense means giving up on the idea that lower prices for consumers should be a focus. But it’s telling that the Biden administration has doubled down on its antitrust policy agenda even as prices have climbed. Nothing says “fighting inflation is my top economic priority” like the continued pursuit of policies almost certain to make inflation worse. 

The post Biden Says Fighting Inflation Is His Top Economic Priority. His Antitrust Policy Would Make Inflation Worse. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ryZmNCw
via IFTTT

Appellate Court Reverses Child Custody Decision That Was “Based on [a] Decade-Old Sexual Assault Allegation”

From Young v. Benoit, decided yesterday by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, joined by Judges Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins:

Mother and Father dated for several months in 2010 and 2011. They had sex, often unprotected, and Mother got pregnant. Their relationship ended before the child, Jack, was born in October 2011. Two months later, Father petitioned the family court to establish paternity, child custody, parenting time and child support….

Mother and Father resolved all issues [in 2012] under a “Joint Custody Agreement and Parenting Plan.” Both parents were represented by counsel, and both signed the agreement. In relevant part, the agreement provided that “[t]he parties have taken into consideration the best interest of the minor child as required under A.R.S. § 25-403,” “[n]either parent is influenced by duress or coercion in entering into this Agreement,” “FATHER and MOTHER can sustain an ongoing commitment to the child,” and “[t]here has been no significant domestic violence that would preclude joint legal custody in this matter.”

The court [gave the parties joint legal custody but] … award[ed] Mother final decision-making authority on important decisions and award[ed] Father parenting time every other weekend…. The court also found that Mother and Father had “mutually agreed to proceed by consent,” that “no duress or coercion [was] involved in the negotiations,” and that “each party underst[ood] that by virtue of this agreement, they are waiving their right to trial.” Neither Father nor Mother appealed from the 2012 Decree….

Almost two and a half years later, Mother petitioned to modify the 2012 Decree, requesting sole legal decision-making and that Father’s parenting time be supervised. [The court … denied Mother’s petition to modify but granted Father’s request for joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time (“2016 Decree”).] …

About three years later, in November 2019, Mother petitioned the family court to modify the 2016 Decree. This time, she requested an order granting her sole legal decision-making and suspending Father’s parenting time.

Mother’s petition focused on one month, November 2019, alleging an assortment of “substantial and continuing changes in circumstances,” including that Father pressed on Jack’s belly after an appendectomy, forced Jack to engage in physical activity and did not give him pain medication. According to the petition, Jack told Mother that Father hit and kicked him, called him names like “stupid face,” did not feed him and made him sleep in the bathroom. Mother’s petition did not allege any past or present sexual abuse….

The family court appointed [an] advisor and licensed social worker … to investigate the claims and report her findings. The … advisor reviewed many documents and interviewed both parents, eight-year-old Jack, his therapist and Mother’s therapist. The … advisor later released a written report in January 2021, recommending that Mother’s petition be denied. The … advisor concluded “there is insufficient information to find that Father has abused or neglected [Jack] or that restrictions should be placed on his parenting time.”

When interviewed by the … advisor in 2020, Mother alleged she was sexually abused by Father in 2010, and Father responded to the allegation. According to [the] advisor’s report:

Mother alleged that Father sexually assaulted her, which resulted in the conception of the child. Father explained that he was taking diazepam for anxiety, and it impacted his sexual performance. When they were having sex, Mother complained that her back was hurting, but Father was close to orgasming and did not immediately stop. Mother pushed Father off of her. He noted that they had sex numerous times afterwards.

The … advisor added that Mother had reported Father to law enforcement for alleged sexual abuse of Jack in 2015, before she first moved to modify. After an investigation, however, the police department and the Department of Child Safety determined the accusations were unsubstantiated. Jack also accused Father of serious abuse and neglect in 2019, before Mother moved for the second modification. But again, the police and DCS investigated and determined the claims were unsubstantiated. Indeed, the DCS investigator said, “there was no evidence of abuse and neglect,” and Jack’s “disclosures did not seem credible.” …

The court held an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from Mother, maternal grandmother and the … advisor. Father represented himself. When the … advisor took the stand, the court asked her a series of questions about “an issue that has been weighing on me since I reviewed your report,” which led to the following exchange:

Court: You would agree with me that it is accurate that before, even before Mother filed her current petition, there is an allegation that she made that the child in this case was conceived by way of sexual assault, correct?

Witness: Correct.

Court: Would you agree that in your interview with Father, Father—while not using those words, in essence, admitted to a sexual assault?

Witness: Yes.

Father then tried to cross-examine the … advisor, but the court warned him about the “potential criminal ramifications” of his statements, which “may be used against [him] in court in a criminal prosecution.” After this warning, Father stopped his questioning and sat down.

In March 2021, the court granted Mother’s petition and more …. The court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making authority and terminated Father’s parenting time. It found “a substantial and continuing change does exist because Father admitted to the [… advisor] that he committed a sexual assault against Mother, and the child is fearful to spend unsupervised time with Father.”

On the best-interest factors, the court stressed that “Father sexually assaulted [Mother] during [their] relationship [in 2010],” which “Father admitted.” The court described the incident as follows:

Mother had told [Father] to stop and that she was in pain during what began as a consensual sexual encounter. Father further stated that he intentionally did not cease the activity despite Mother’s withdrawal of her consent to same because he was close to having an orgasm. In fact, Mother credibly reported, it was this non-consensual sexual act that led to the conception of the child.

Based on that incident, the court found that Father should have no parenting time, stressing:

No woman should be forced into or ordered to maintain a relationship with her sexual abuser. Furthermore, it is contrary to a child’s best interests to have a relationship with his mother’s sexual assailant. That, combined with Father’s emotional and physical abuse of the child warrant a cessation of Father’s parenting time with the child.

The court also accepted Jack’s testimony that Father had tortured him and “he does not feel safe around Father.” Based on this same evidence, the court also found that Father had “engaged in acts of domestic violence against Mother and the child,” triggering a presumption that it was not in Jack’s best interest for Father to have sole or joint decision-making authority and concluding that Father did not rebut the presumption. The court also increased Father’s child support payments and found that he owed over $6,000 in past-due support….

The Court of Appeals reversed:

Arizona courts apply a two-step inquiry to determine whether a custody decree should be modified. The court must first “ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” {This prong is rooted in the principle of res judicata, and parents who seek modification must show “the change justifies departing from the principles of res judicata underlying the order currently in place.”} If the court finds a change of circumstances, it will then decide whether the proposed modification would be in the child’s best interest. Absent contrary evidence, we presume that “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents” is in a child’s best interest….

As its first “substantial and continuing change,” the court found that “Father admitted to the [… advisor] that he committed a sexual assault against Mother.” That was error for two reasons.

First, the alleged assault occurred in early 2011—almost two years before Mother agreed to joint custody as ordered by the 2012 Decree, five years before the 2016 Decree, and ten years before the 2021 Decree. Our supreme court has cautioned that the “power to modify [a custody] decree is to be exercised only when cogent reasons are shown,” and those “reasons must constitute facts or conditions unknown at the time of the original decree, or occurring subsequent to the decree.” …

Second, Mother thus waived her right to modify custody based on the earlier 2010 incident. Mother had every chance to present evidence and argument of Father’s alleged abuse in 2012, but she entered an agreement after Jack’s birth to share joint legal custody with Father. The court then entered the 2012 Decree for joint legal custody, finding it was in Jack’s best interest for the parents “to have joint legal custody.” The 2012 Decree also confirmed that Mother and Father “testif[ied] that they understand this agreement and believe it is to be in the best interests of the minor children at this time, that no one has threatened, promised or coerced them in any way to get them to reach the agreement, and the terms are fair and equitable.” Neither Father nor Mother appealed from the 2012 Decree. The family court erroneously found a change in circumstances based on the decade-old sexual assault allegation….

The court’s second reason for finding “a substantial and continuing change” was Jack’s fear of “spend[ing] unsupervised time with Father.” That was error, too.

A child must be of “suitable age and maturity” for the court to consider the child’s “wishes [over] legal decision-making and parenting time.” … [T]he record reflects:

  • Jack’s therapist described Jack as “oppositional and manipulative” and “in a loyalty bind between his parents.”
  • Jack often struggled to distinguish reality from fiction, “report[ing] visual and auditory hallucinations,” and was deemed unbelievable by a DCS investigator who could see no reason to separate Jack from his Father.
  • Jack accused Father of serious abuse and neglect in 2019, but police and DCS closed the investigation as unsubstantiated, finding that Father was “truthful when he denied abuse and neglect,” and finding “no evidence of abuse or neglect.”
  • Jack was eight years old when he shared his wishes.

It was error for the family court to find that Jack’s wishes qualified as a change in circumstances. As a result, we need not reach the best-interests prong for modification.

The post Appellate Court Reverses Child Custody Decision That Was "Based on [a] Decade-Old Sexual Assault Allegation" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/2gJOl8D
via IFTTT

Biden Says Fighting Inflation Is His Top Economic Priority. His Antitrust Policy Would Make Inflation Worse.


Joe Biden pulling a mask below his face

To hear President Joe Biden tell it, “tackling inflation” is his “top economic priority.” In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal yesterday, Biden outlined a three-point plan to “ transition from rapid recovery to stable, steady growth” by “[bringing] inflation down.” 

Yet as Reason‘s Eric Boehm noted, Biden’s own policies, particularly the $2 trillion partisan spending bill Biden and congressional Democrats pushed through at the start of Biden’s presidency, contributed to the current inflationary environment, pumping massive stimulus into the economy in an explicit bid to run the economy “hot”—despite clear warnings, even from left-leaning economists aligned with the Democratic Party, that doing so would produce harmful levels of inflation.

Indeed, even as Biden promises to whip inflation now, his administration is continuing to pursue policies more likely than not to make inflation worse despite cautions from within the Democratic establishment. In particular, his administration is pressing forward with aggressive antitrust enforcement against large companies like Amazon that would drive upward pressure on prices. 

On the same day that Biden’s inflation op-ed appeared, Bloomberg News reported that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had renewed an antitrust investigation into Amazon, focusing specifically on the company’s acquisition of movie producer MGM Studios. That investigation is proceeding under an FTC led by Lina Khan, a Biden appointee who in a 2017 paper for the Yale Law Journal made a case for expanded antitrust action against the online retailer, arguing that the standard approach was deficient. Bloomberg News reports that Khan “has taken a personal interest in the probe.”  

Biden has encouraged Khan’s zeal, and his advisers have argued in the past that more aggressive antitrust policy against large corporations can be a tool for fighting inflation. But it’s hard to see this as much more than a political crutch for a flailing administration: When the price of gas began to go up, Biden urged the FTC to pursue investigations of supposedly anticompetitive oil and gas companies. When the price of beef rose, Biden urged antitrust probes into the meatpacking industry. 

In December, Biden advisers admitted to The New York Times that the administration’s antitrust push hadn’t initially been devised as an inflation-fighting tool. Biden’s initial $2 trillion spending bill, the American Rescue Plan (ARP), was best understood as a grab-bag of preexisting Democratic economic priorities ill-suited to the problems of early 2021. Similarly, Biden’s antitrust push is an old partisan agenda item that has nothing to do with the problem at hand, yet has been suspiciously retrofitted into a supposed solution to current issues. 

And like the American Rescue Plan, Biden’s antitrust push is, if anything, likely to make inflation worse. Some of the most prescient warnings about the size and design of the ARP came from Larry Summers, a Harvard economist and one of former President Barack Obama’s top economic advisers.

Summers is now warning that Biden’s approach to antitrust will have similar results. 

Khan’s approach to antitrust is focused on discarding what has long been the legal test for antitrust actions: whether a merger enhances consumer welfare. Instead, progressive antitrust activists in the Khan mold have focused more on scale—or bigness—itself, often under the justification that limiting corporate size promotes competition with smaller firms. 

But in a recent Twitter thread, Summers argued that this was exactly backward: “Policies that attack bigness can easily be inflationary if they prevent the exploitation of economies of scale or limit superstar firms,” he wrote. “Likewise, policy focused on protecting competitors or communities or limiting layoffs are likely to raise costs & prices.” Another way of thinking about this is that antitrust efforts that target bigness alone end up decreasing corporate efficiency since mergers and acquisitions can allow for more streamlined production processes. Reducing efficiency, in turn, drives up prices, contributing to the inflation that Biden says he’s determined to fight. 

In some ways, this is not surprising: Giving up on the consumer welfare standard in some sense means giving up on the idea that lower prices for consumers should be a focus. But it’s telling that the Biden administration has doubled down on its antitrust policy agenda even as prices have climbed. Nothing says “fighting inflation is my top economic priority” like the continued pursuit of policies almost certain to make inflation worse. 

The post Biden Says Fighting Inflation Is His Top Economic Priority. His Antitrust Policy Would Make Inflation Worse. appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/ryZmNCw
via IFTTT

Apple Shifts Ipad Production Out Of China For First Time 

Apple Shifts Ipad Production Out Of China For First Time 

Even though the Shanghai government announced plans to lift COVID restrictions on Wednesday and reopen the city after two months of lockdowns, Apple has decided to diversify some of its product supply chains out of China.

Nikkia Asia reports that some iPad production will be moved out of Shanghai and surrounding areas to Vietnam for the first time to safeguard against any future supply chain disruptions caused by Beijing’s strict COVID restrictions. 

Apple was already planning future iPad production lines in Vietnam. One of the top iPad assemblers, China’s BYD, assisted the world’s most valuable tech company in building production lines in Vietnam, with series production beginning in small numbers in the near term. 

Apple has already shifted AirPods earbud production to the Southeast Asian country. The iPad would be the second major production line as the company diversifies out of China. 

Besides diversifying its China-centric supply chain, the company has requested suppliers of components, such as semiconductor chips and mechanical and electronics parts based around Shanghai and surrounding regions, to quickly build inventory to mitigate supply chain disruptions for the upcoming release of the new iPhone. 

In particular, Apple is asking suppliers outside of the lockdown-affected areas to help build up a couple of months’ worth of component supplies to ensure supply continuity over the next few months. The requests apply to all of Apple’s product lines — iPhones, iPads, AirPods and MacBooks — sources said.

Ideally, the company hopes these suppliers can prepare enough additional components to fully offset the amount made by those in Shanghai and nearby provinces such as Jiangsu, where the risk of supply chain disruption is higher, according to sources.

“For example, component supplier X has a 40% share of Apple’s business in Jiangsu Province, which is a risky region of supply chain disruption, and supplier Y in another city accounts for the remaining 60% share,” one of the people with direct knowledge of the matter said. “Apple would want supplier Y to build enough additional components to match supplier X’s 40% share in the coming months in case production in Jiangsu is shut down again.”

It would be risky for any tech supplier to fully comply with Apple’s request, considering there are signs of slowing demand for consumer electronics amid looming inflation and rising energy costs, sources said. If Apple does not end up using the extra components, the suppliers could be left holding the bag.

“Those additional stocks prepared for Apple could become a heavy burden for suppliers if the production of other suppliers isn’t disrupted by lockdowns again,” another supply chain executive told Nikkei Asia. The executive added that most suppliers would agree to build some additional stocks as a buffer, but they will “definitely not” increase supplies enough to fully offset their rivals’ shares.

Nikkei Asia reported in early April that semiconductor shortages were threatening the production of some MacBooks and iPads. 

Now it appears Apple is working hard to reduce its supply chain risks; as Goldman Sachs’ equity analyst Allen Chang points out, as Shanghai reopens, “we remain cautious on smartphone/consumer electronics supply chains.” 

Most sources told Nikkei Asia that manufacturing capacity in Shanghai could take at least a couple of months to return to normal levels.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/01/2022 – 13:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ENYBvQ2 Tyler Durden

Appellate Court Reverses Child Custody Decision That Was “Based on [a] Decade-Old Sexual Assault Allegation”

From Young v. Benoit, decided yesterday by the Arizona Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig, joined by Judges Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins:

Mother and Father dated for several months in 2010 and 2011. They had sex, often unprotected, and Mother got pregnant. Their relationship ended before the child, Jack, was born in October 2011. Two months later, Father petitioned the family court to establish paternity, child custody, parenting time and child support….

Mother and Father resolved all issues [in 2012] under a “Joint Custody Agreement and Parenting Plan.” Both parents were represented by counsel, and both signed the agreement. In relevant part, the agreement provided that “[t]he parties have taken into consideration the best interest of the minor child as required under A.R.S. § 25-403,” “[n]either parent is influenced by duress or coercion in entering into this Agreement,” “FATHER and MOTHER can sustain an ongoing commitment to the child,” and “[t]here has been no significant domestic violence that would preclude joint legal custody in this matter.”

The court [gave the parties joint legal custody but] … award[ed] Mother final decision-making authority on important decisions and award[ed] Father parenting time every other weekend…. The court also found that Mother and Father had “mutually agreed to proceed by consent,” that “no duress or coercion [was] involved in the negotiations,” and that “each party underst[ood] that by virtue of this agreement, they are waiving their right to trial.” Neither Father nor Mother appealed from the 2012 Decree….

Almost two and a half years later, Mother petitioned to modify the 2012 Decree, requesting sole legal decision-making and that Father’s parenting time be supervised. [The court … denied Mother’s petition to modify but granted Father’s request for joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time (“2016 Decree”).] …

About three years later, in November 2019, Mother petitioned the family court to modify the 2016 Decree. This time, she requested an order granting her sole legal decision-making and suspending Father’s parenting time.

Mother’s petition focused on one month, November 2019, alleging an assortment of “substantial and continuing changes in circumstances,” including that Father pressed on Jack’s belly after an appendectomy, forced Jack to engage in physical activity and did not give him pain medication. According to the petition, Jack told Mother that Father hit and kicked him, called him names like “stupid face,” did not feed him and made him sleep in the bathroom. Mother’s petition did not allege any past or present sexual abuse….

The family court appointed [an] advisor and licensed social worker … to investigate the claims and report her findings. The … advisor reviewed many documents and interviewed both parents, eight-year-old Jack, his therapist and Mother’s therapist. The … advisor later released a written report in January 2021, recommending that Mother’s petition be denied. The … advisor concluded “there is insufficient information to find that Father has abused or neglected [Jack] or that restrictions should be placed on his parenting time.”

When interviewed by the … advisor in 2020, Mother alleged she was sexually abused by Father in 2010, and Father responded to the allegation. According to [the] advisor’s report:

Mother alleged that Father sexually assaulted her, which resulted in the conception of the child. Father explained that he was taking diazepam for anxiety, and it impacted his sexual performance. When they were having sex, Mother complained that her back was hurting, but Father was close to orgasming and did not immediately stop. Mother pushed Father off of her. He noted that they had sex numerous times afterwards.

The … advisor added that Mother had reported Father to law enforcement for alleged sexual abuse of Jack in 2015, before she first moved to modify. After an investigation, however, the police department and the Department of Child Safety determined the accusations were unsubstantiated. Jack also accused Father of serious abuse and neglect in 2019, before Mother moved for the second modification. But again, the police and DCS investigated and determined the claims were unsubstantiated. Indeed, the DCS investigator said, “there was no evidence of abuse and neglect,” and Jack’s “disclosures did not seem credible.” …

The court held an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from Mother, maternal grandmother and the … advisor. Father represented himself. When the … advisor took the stand, the court asked her a series of questions about “an issue that has been weighing on me since I reviewed your report,” which led to the following exchange:

Court: You would agree with me that it is accurate that before, even before Mother filed her current petition, there is an allegation that she made that the child in this case was conceived by way of sexual assault, correct?

Witness: Correct.

Court: Would you agree that in your interview with Father, Father—while not using those words, in essence, admitted to a sexual assault?

Witness: Yes.

Father then tried to cross-examine the … advisor, but the court warned him about the “potential criminal ramifications” of his statements, which “may be used against [him] in court in a criminal prosecution.” After this warning, Father stopped his questioning and sat down.

In March 2021, the court granted Mother’s petition and more …. The court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making authority and terminated Father’s parenting time. It found “a substantial and continuing change does exist because Father admitted to the [… advisor] that he committed a sexual assault against Mother, and the child is fearful to spend unsupervised time with Father.”

On the best-interest factors, the court stressed that “Father sexually assaulted [Mother] during [their] relationship [in 2010],” which “Father admitted.” The court described the incident as follows:

Mother had told [Father] to stop and that she was in pain during what began as a consensual sexual encounter. Father further stated that he intentionally did not cease the activity despite Mother’s withdrawal of her consent to same because he was close to having an orgasm. In fact, Mother credibly reported, it was this non-consensual sexual act that led to the conception of the child.

Based on that incident, the court found that Father should have no parenting time, stressing:

No woman should be forced into or ordered to maintain a relationship with her sexual abuser. Furthermore, it is contrary to a child’s best interests to have a relationship with his mother’s sexual assailant. That, combined with Father’s emotional and physical abuse of the child warrant a cessation of Father’s parenting time with the child.

The court also accepted Jack’s testimony that Father had tortured him and “he does not feel safe around Father.” Based on this same evidence, the court also found that Father had “engaged in acts of domestic violence against Mother and the child,” triggering a presumption that it was not in Jack’s best interest for Father to have sole or joint decision-making authority and concluding that Father did not rebut the presumption. The court also increased Father’s child support payments and found that he owed over $6,000 in past-due support….

The Court of Appeals reversed:

Arizona courts apply a two-step inquiry to determine whether a custody decree should be modified. The court must first “ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” {This prong is rooted in the principle of res judicata, and parents who seek modification must show “the change justifies departing from the principles of res judicata underlying the order currently in place.”} If the court finds a change of circumstances, it will then decide whether the proposed modification would be in the child’s best interest. Absent contrary evidence, we presume that “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents” is in a child’s best interest….

As its first “substantial and continuing change,” the court found that “Father admitted to the [… advisor] that he committed a sexual assault against Mother.” That was error for two reasons.

First, the alleged assault occurred in early 2011—almost two years before Mother agreed to joint custody as ordered by the 2012 Decree, five years before the 2016 Decree, and ten years before the 2021 Decree. Our supreme court has cautioned that the “power to modify [a custody] decree is to be exercised only when cogent reasons are shown,” and those “reasons must constitute facts or conditions unknown at the time of the original decree, or occurring subsequent to the decree.” …

Second, Mother thus waived her right to modify custody based on the earlier 2010 incident. Mother had every chance to present evidence and argument of Father’s alleged abuse in 2012, but she entered an agreement after Jack’s birth to share joint legal custody with Father. The court then entered the 2012 Decree for joint legal custody, finding it was in Jack’s best interest for the parents “to have joint legal custody.” The 2012 Decree also confirmed that Mother and Father “testif[ied] that they understand this agreement and believe it is to be in the best interests of the minor children at this time, that no one has threatened, promised or coerced them in any way to get them to reach the agreement, and the terms are fair and equitable.” Neither Father nor Mother appealed from the 2012 Decree. The family court erroneously found a change in circumstances based on the decade-old sexual assault allegation….

The court’s second reason for finding “a substantial and continuing change” was Jack’s fear of “spend[ing] unsupervised time with Father.” That was error, too.

A child must be of “suitable age and maturity” for the court to consider the child’s “wishes [over] legal decision-making and parenting time.” … [T]he record reflects:

  • Jack’s therapist described Jack as “oppositional and manipulative” and “in a loyalty bind between his parents.”
  • Jack often struggled to distinguish reality from fiction, “report[ing] visual and auditory hallucinations,” and was deemed unbelievable by a DCS investigator who could see no reason to separate Jack from his Father.
  • Jack accused Father of serious abuse and neglect in 2019, but police and DCS closed the investigation as unsubstantiated, finding that Father was “truthful when he denied abuse and neglect,” and finding “no evidence of abuse or neglect.”
  • Jack was eight years old when he shared his wishes.

It was error for the family court to find that Jack’s wishes qualified as a change in circumstances. As a result, we need not reach the best-interests prong for modification.

The post Appellate Court Reverses Child Custody Decision That Was "Based on [a] Decade-Old Sexual Assault Allegation" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/2gJOl8D
via IFTTT

Stockman: Inflationary Pressure Is Worse Than They Say

Stockman: Inflationary Pressure Is Worse Than They Say

Authored by David Stockman via The Brownstone Institute,

We are apparently back in the spend-your-way-to-prosperity mode.

Last week Wall Street greeted the “strong” April PCE number with a spree of dip-buying, but you have to wonder just how long households can keep reaching into their cookie jars in order to spend what they are not earning.

According to the Commerce Department, the abysmal 4.4% personal savings rate posted for April was the lowest level since August 2008, and we know what happened next!

Its also damn obvious from the chart that the triple whammy of the Covid-Lockdowns, the stimmy bacchanalia and red hot acceleration of global inflation and supply chain breakdowns has sent the standard economic numbers into a tailspin.  After all, when the savings rate goes from an out-of-this-world 34% to a rock bottom 4% in just 24 months, you are not dealing with a standard economic cycle.

Instead, what you have is uncharted waters in every sense of the term. So more than ever, it is essential to pick through the statistical noise in order to identify the true fundamentals at work.

Personal Savings As A Percent Of Disposable Personal Income, August 2008-April 2022

For our money, that investigation starts with the obvious truth that when you are drawing-down your savings rate you are spending more than you earn. And since November 2020, that’s exactly what has  been happening.

Household wages and salary compensation (purple line) is up by 14.8% in nominal terms but personal consumption expenditures have risen by 21% more. That is, April PCE (brown line) was 17.9% above what was already a Trump “stimmy” bloated level in November 2020.

Wage And Salary Disbursements Versus Personal Consumption Expenditures, November 2020 to April 2022

Moreover, these nominal numbers do not tell even half the story. When you wring out the inflation, what you get is some pretty midget numbers. That is, real PCE has been growing at only a 2.56%annual rate since the February 2020 pre-Covid peak—-$6 trillion of stimmies not withstanding.

The reason is no mystery: Inflation-adjusted wage and salary incomes are are up by only two-thirds that level at a 1.66% per annum rate. So to keep the spending game going, households are breaking into their piggy banks.

Change In Inflation-Adjusted PCE Versus Wage And Salary Income, February 2020-April 2022

So, no, we don’t think there is anything “strong” about household spending.

What is actually strong is the rate at which inflation has been eating into real purchasing power. Thus, what last week’s spending and income report also showed was that the headline PCE deflator continues to rise, posting at 6.27% on a Y/Y basis, the highest gain since January 1982.

That Y/Y gain compares to the 4.44% rate posted last October and the 3.58% Y/Y rate recorded last April. So that’s acceleration with a vengeance.

In fact, the PCE deflator first crossed the Fed’s sacred 2.00% inflation target in March 2021 and has essentially tripled since then.

Y/Y Change In PCE Deflator, 1982-2022

Still, the more revealing trend in the April spending and income report was the continued decline of the government transfer payments rate. After peaking at an otherworldly $8.05 trillion annualized rate owing to the Biden Stimmy in March 2021, transfer payments have come back to earth, posting at well less than half that level, $3.83 trillion, in April.

Consequently, further PCE growth will be dependent upon wage and salary income gains, which gains are currently being outrun by inflation.

Moreover, the apparent “normalization” of transfer payments shown in the chart below is not exactly what it appears to be. In December 2019, before the Covid and Stimmy perturbances knocked the numbers into a cocked hat, annualized government transfer payments stood at $3.11 trillion.

The gain during the 29 months since then, therefore, computes to a sizzling 9.31% annualized growth rate. Yet here we are with the consumer digging deep into savings because even $3.83 trillion of free stuff is proving insufficient to fund the household shopping machine.

Annualized Rate Of Government Transfer Payment, March 2021 to April 2022

Of course, the Wall Street stock peddlers espied good news on the inflation front, claiming that the tiny hook on the right-hand margin of the chart below means that the Fed has already won the battle against inflation and that after the next two scheduled 50 basis point rate increases it will be in a position to “pause” its anti-inflation campaign in September.

Talk about lame rationalization. It just so happens that the 4.91% Y/Y increase posted in April for the PCE deflator excluding food and energy is a trivial 39 basis points below the February figure, but that’s not even the real point.

The fact is, there is a virulent food, energy and commodities inflation worldwide and there is no end in sight. So what counts is the total cost of living index, not one that excludes what is now approaching $5 per gallon gasoline and the highest grocery inflation in a generation.

Even then, the February to April postings for the PCE deflator excluding foods and energy were the highest increase since September 1983, which hardly amounts to a victory over inflation.

Y/Y Change in PCE Deflator Excluding Food And Energy, 2012-2022

For want of doubt, consider recent postings for the 16% trimmed mean CPI. As we have often explained, if you want to remove the short-term volatility from the monthly index, do not pretend that food and energy don’t count, but instead take out the highest 8% and lowest 8% of inflation basket items each month.

That results in different exclusions each month on both the high and low extremes, thereby smoothing the index without falsely lowering the index reading when food and energy items are running high.

As shown below, the Y/Y read-out of the 16% trimmed mean CPI continues to accelerate.

Y/Y % Change:

  • April 2020: 2.16%;

  • April 2021: 2.45%;

  • October 2021: 4.12%;

  • January 2022: 5.42%;

  • April 2022: 6.16%;

Y/Y Trimmed Mean CPI, January 2019-April 2022

In fact, the April print was the highest reading ever recorded since this version of the CPI was initiated in December 1983!

Indeed, it’s not even a close call. The highest Y/Y rate during the oil price blow-off in mid-2008 was only 3.63% and during the first Gulf War crisis it topped out at 5.09%.

So when it comes to the ballyhooed Fed “pause” in September, fuggedaboutit!

The underlying inflationary momentum as shown by the 16% trimmed mean CPI is higher than it has ever been—including during the runaway inflation of the 1970s.

Y/Y Change In 16% Trimmed Mean CPI, 1983-2022

There are numerous reasons to expect no slowdown in the core inflation trend any time soon, but surely the lagging nature of the BLS’ rental components is a flashing red light.

As shown below, nationwide median rents in the 50 largest markets have risen from $1,475 per month in April 2019 to $1,827 per month in April 2022. That’s a 24% gain, but so far the CPI rental index is up by only 10% during the same period, owing to the extensive lags built into its methodology.

The most authoritative private market rent index is up nearly two-and-one-half times more than the CPI rental component during the last three years.

But eventually the CPI will catch up to market realities, and especially to the fact that the April 2022 Y/Y gain in the realtor.com index was 16.7% compared to the 4.8% Y/Y reading reported by the CPI.

The fact is, 32% of the weight in the CPI consists of direct rental costs and the OER (owner’s equivalent rent) sub-index, which tracks rental market trends. So we have one-third of the CPI heading much higher, regardless of what happens to food and energy.

And when you look at so-called “core” inflation alone, the rental components weight is more than 40% of the CPI and 25% of the PCE deflator excluding food and energy.

In a word, the Fed won’t have any excuse to “pause” its anti-inflation campaign owing to temporary dips in the core index. Even the latter is totally unlikely to happen in a material and sustained manner.

Median Rents, realtor.com, April 2019-April 2022

Another factor to consider is that food inflation is more inflationary than it used to be. What we mean is that the food-way-from-home sub-index has far more weight in the CPI than it did 30-40 years ago. That’s because the share of food purchased at restaurants and other food service establishments has skyrocketed.

As shown in the chart below, during Q1 1992, monthly food expenditures at restaurants amounted to just $17 billion or 61% of the $28 billion monthly spend at grocery stores. By contrast, during Q1 2022 the monthly spend at restaurants was $82 billion or 119% of the $69 billion spend at grocery stores.

Stated differently, during the past 30-years restaurant spending rose at a 5.4% rate per annum—far above the 3.1% annualized gain for grocery stores.

This huge reversal in where the food dollar is spent is important.That’s because under current circumstances restaurant food prices are at the heart of the low-end labor shortage, where hourly wages are now soaring, thereby adding further to the soaring food costs embodied in the restaurant tab.

US Monthly Food Spend: Restaurants Versus Grocery Stores, 1992-2022

As to the labor cost element of restaurant pricing, the chart below leaves little to the imagination. Since February 2020, nominal hourly wage rates in the leisure and hospitality sector are up by 24%.When adjusted for inflation, this wage spike is the highest in history going back to the 1960s.

Inflation-Adjusted Y/Y Change In Hourly Wage Rates for Leisure & Hospitality, 1965-2022

As for the other main ingredient of restaurant costs, the global food price index also tells you all you need to know. At the 160.2 level posted for April, it now stands 58% above it February 2020 level. There is no prior two year period that even comes close to that rate of increase—even during the mid-2008 commodity price blow-off the two-year gain was just 45%.

What this means, of course, is that the food inflation coming down the pipeline of producer and consumer prices still has a huge head of steam. So as the “runaway inflation” issue takes front-and- center in the fall Congressional campaigns, the Fed won’t have any political leeway to pause, either.

Global Food Price Index, 2019-2022

Finally, the inflationary gales coming in from the global commodity markets and manufactured goods supply chains show no signs of abating. Even when you set food and energy aside, the producer price index for finished goods excluding these two items was up by 8.6% in April—meaning that several months from now those globally-sourced finished goods pressures will be showing up in the CPI on top of surging food, energy and shelter costs.

Needless to say, April’s gain for this PPI sub-index was the highest since June 1981, meaning that the Fed is hostage to the inflation fight whether it wants to be or not.

Yes, there is nothing like a Paul Volcker within a country-mile of the Eccles Building today, but that doesn’t matter. The last thing these financial overlords want is to have their vaunted “independence” challenged by hopped-up politicians with a fresh electoral mandate.

Y/Y Change In  Producer Price Index For Finished Goods Excluding Food And Energy, 1981-2022

Of course, the Fed’s involuntary anti-inflation policy will soon lead to a recession, but that’s now unavoidable. The die has already be cast.

Of all people, even the single-greatest bubble-rider of our times, Elon Musk, can see it coming. That leaves only the 12 dolts on the FOMC to catch-up to reality along with their shills and megaphones on bubblevision:

(Musk) was queried as to whether or not he thought a recession was on its way and told a Twitter user: “Yes, but this is actually a good thing. It has been raining money on fools for too long.”

“Some bankruptcies need to happen. Also, all the Covid stay-at-home stuff has tricked people into thinking that you don’t actually need to work hard,” he continued.

He said he thought a recession would last 12 to 18 months and, channeling his inner Milton Friedman, said: “Companies that are inherently negative cash flow (ie value destroyers) need to die, so that they stop consuming resources.”

You can call it ironic that Musk’s company would have likely been wiped out in a recession a couple of years ago, but for now the Tesla founder seems to have far more of a clue about economics than those in government and at the Fed.

Compare that clarity to this doozy from the minutes of the last Fed meeting. It’s surely wins the Oscar in the “you don’t say” category

 (some participants)…….noted that a restrictive stance of policy may well become appropriate,” the minutes said.

Mr. Powell further signaled resolve to slow price increases by suggesting that the unemployment rate, at 3.6% in April, might need to rise as the Fed slows demand. “There could be some pain involved,” he said last week.

Well, at least he got that right.

Even Pusillanimous Powell now knows that last week’s ballyhooed “pause” doesn’t really stand a chance.

*  *  *

Reposted from the author’s page.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 06/01/2022 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/QZP60As Tyler Durden