Month: August 2023

Wagner Plane ‘Crash’ Whodunnit & Is Prigozhin Really Dead? 

Wagner Plane ‘Crash’ Whodunnit & Is Prigozhin Really Dead? 

Update(1324ET): The assessment out of the US is changing fast, or rather anonymous US officials can’t get their story straight. The latest via news wires:

  • US OFFICIAL SPEAKS ABOUT PRIGOZHIN PLANE CRASH
  • US DOESN’T THINK PRIGOZHIN JET DOWNED BY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE
  • EXPLOSION LIKELY BROUGHT DOWN PLANE BELIEVED TO CARRY PRIGOZHIN

* * *

President Putin has vowed that the criminal investigation into the widely reported death of Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin will be pursued to completion. Prigozhin is believed to have gone down with nine others, including top Wagner commander Dmitry Utki, in a plane crash outside Moscow on Wednesday which was caused either by an anti-aircraft missile or possibly midflight bombing.

Putin attended a concert as the news broke yesterday evening, even as headlines shocked the world and also saw a flood of confused and angry statements coming from Wagner social media channels. But Putin’s motorcade was later in the night seen speeding back to the Kremlin, likely where he was briefed on the plane ‘crash’. 

Though there are reports from official Russian sources that Prigozhin’s body has been positively identified, there’s still much that remains murky and unknown. Area residents and eyewitnesses reported hearing one or two loud bangs in the sky before the Embraer Legacy 600 (EMBR3.SA) executive aircraft plummeted into the Tver region north of Moscow. The private jet had been en route to St. Petersburg. Villagers saw the fall from the sky, after which “everything was on fire,” as cited in Reuters.

The only known details released thus far are from Russian federal aviation authorities:

Russia’s Emergency Situation Ministry said all 10 people on board died. The federal aviation agency published a manifest of 7 passengers and 3 crew. Alongside Priogzhin, the manifest said his top military commander Dmitry Utkin and other senior Wagner figures were on board.

There was “no indication that there was anything wrong with this aircraft,” prior to the rapid descent at the end of the flight, Ian Petchenik of Flightradar24 said. He told Reuters the erratic climb in altitude could have been as the crew were “wrestling” with whatever problem they had encountered mid-air.

US officials have told Reuters on Thursday they assess it to have been a surface-to-air missile which originated inside Russia, according to fresh news wires:

  • US THINKS MISSILE FROM RUSSIA LIKELY SHOT PRIGOZHIN PLANE: RTRS
  • EXCLUSIVE-U.S. BELIEVES SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE ORIGINATING INSIDE RUSSIA LIKELY SHOT DOWN PLANE PRESUMED TO BE CARRYING PRIGOZHIN, U.S. OFFICIALS TELL RTRS

Another scenario being considered is whether it was a mid-air bombing or terrorist act, or possible covert operation sponsored by a hostile foreign intelligence agency, or the unlikely scenario of Ukrainian intelligence (unlikely given the sophistication and difficulty).

Memorials have popped up in Russian cities, especially St. Petersburg, home to Wagner HQ, via AFP

If it indeed was the result of Russian anti-air defenses, then it surely points to either Putin or the top military chain of command bent on getting revenge, coming precisely two months since the start of the June 23-24 mutiny which left a dozen or more Russian soldiers dead.

The now apparently deceased 62-year-old Prigozhin had many powerful friends and enemies, but some analysts are questioning why Putin would choose to dispatch him in such dramatic fashion. The prevailing wisdom is saying it was a ‘message’ to elites and any challengers to Putin’s rule or decision-making, or direct revenge for the prior rebellion and humiliating blow to Kremlin/military power.

But below is an alternate opinion and speculation…

Journalist and geopolitical commentator James Porrazzo writes on the extreme risks Putin faces if he ordered the assassination:

I am of the opinion President Putin would not use this kind of cowardly means (shooting down a passenger jet) if this turned out to have been an assassination of Prigozhin and others. This would be potentially disastrous for the war effort and for Russian public opinion, especially in professional military circles and on the Right.

Murdering the second or first most charismatic Russian leader, with a following of at least 100,000 experienced military veterans spread across the Russian Federation, in addition to tens of millions or more normal Russians, not to mention those still active in Wagner, would be borderline insanity.

Arresting him, like Strelkov was, would be the course of action I would suspect if the issues between Putin and Prigozhin were so severe.

Already, there’s talk of a new Wagner ‘march on Moscow’ as mercenary fighters voice their rage at Kremlin and defense ministry authorities. Their founder and chief “better be alive” – Wagner Telegram channels have declared.

And then there’s the lingering question of the second plane owned by Wagner and Prigozhin which was observed flying in Russian airspace in a nearby vicinity close in time to the aerial disaster.

There’s also this to consider:

However, Keir Giles, from the London-based think tank Chatham House, warned: ‘It’s been announced that a passenger by the name of Yevgeny Prigozhin was on board – but it is also known that multiple individuals have changed their name to Yevgeny Prigozhin, as part of his efforts to obfuscate his travels.’

The same analyst added: “Let’s not be surprised if he pops up shortly in a new video from Africa.”

Alive and well in Africa?

* * *

The below is a compilation of perspectives from US defense insiders (and thus representing largely establishment Washington thinking on the question), speculating on what may or may not have happened concerning Prigozhin’s fate, compiled by Academy Securities [emphasis ZH]:

“If true (and if Prigozhin was on board), the dramatic effect of the shoot down was not just a surprise but was also expected. Why it took so long is remarkable to anyone in national security spheres of influence. The way it was done demonstrates Putin’s ruthless control of Russia. The key now is how the Russian military folds the Wagner Group into its global operations. Putin is not about to just send them home. He needs their experience and capabilities to win in Ukraine and extend his global influence and operations. He knows who the Wagner leaders are that did not support the coup and he will leverage their leadership and experience along with Wagner’s battle-hardened soldiers.” – General Robert Walsh

“This is not surprising if it is a killing (and I believe that it is). I believe that the plane’s manifest carried other Wagner senior leadership. This returns full control of the Ukraine war to the Russian Federation Armed Forces. I don’t believe that it affects the military operations in a meaningful way. Wagner will likely become more aligned with the Russian Army in their efforts globally (and if they are re-deployed to the “Special Operation” in Ukraine). The leadership for Wagner will be carefully selected based on loyalty.” – General Frank Kearney

“The only surprise is that Prigozhin lasted this long after his failed coup. The experience of the Wagner Group will be exploited immediately by the Russian Federation forces. The celebrity of Prigozhin was a distraction. Look for his former subordinate leadership to be less visible and subsequently, more difficult to read in terms of next steps. More significantly, Putin just made his next strategic move in solidifying his hold on power. A month ago, the Russian military was stalled in Ukraine, Putin tolerated a direct threat to his control, and the world was poised to watch the Ukrainian military crush Russian forces in their much-anticipated counteroffensive. Today, the counteroffensive appears stuck, Russia’s military is not being forced out of its defensive positions, and Putin retains a firm grip on power. It’s not all quiet on the eastern front.” – General Spider Marks

“This looks like a “higher” altitude version of the “epidemic of Russian oligarchs falling out of windows”. This brings the recent count to eight. In 2017, USA Today published a list of 38 Russian officials and figures who died under suspicious circumstances. Clearly, this is a highly visible message to the rest of the oligarchs that Putin is still in charge, and those who challenge him will pay the price. Through that lens, I would expect that Generals Popov and Surovikin are packing a “go bag” just in case. This presents a great opportunity for the U.S. and other nations to start new efforts regarding relationship building in Africa. This incident also presents a very clear characterization of Russian leadership and “syndicate” rule. The incentive for senior military officers to do anything but push the gas pedal down on a failing strategy has evaporated. The risk of escalation (a desperate Putin, egged on by Medvedev) may bring the tactical use of nuclear weapons closer. It remains to be seen if the American and European foreign policy arms can use these examples as “character witnesses” for current Russian governance and what an Africa controlled by Putin would look like.” – General Michael Groen

“While we all wondered why Putin hadn’t eliminate Prigozhin sooner, it goes to the adage that “he who controls the OPTEMPO gets to strike at a time and place of his choosing”. Perhaps a happy Gerasimov and Shoigu may have been given “weapons free” to eliminate their rival. This eliminates any future challenges and brings Wagner under the complete control of Putin and his designated successor. I don’t see an impact on their operations in Africa unless the U.S. acts to message the risks of dealing with the likes of Putin (and that often falls on deaf ears). Wagner can be rebranded as desired without any dissenting voices, whether that be in Belarus, Africa, Ukraine, or any other theater. This is Russian housekeeping, and I would not see any changes to Putin’s overall strategy. He’s still watching the U.S. elections. This is just part of doing business in Russia. Prigozhin overplayed his hand, and it just took some time for Putin to rectify the situation. I’d be watching open-source reporting and for the IC to monitor SIGINT closely for reflections and attribution (don’t count out the Ukrainians). However, I am also hearing that there may have been two planes and they missed their target, so we will have to look for official confirmation.” – General Robert Ashley

Meanwhile this prior Putin interview has resurfaced and is making the rounds…

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 13:24

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Ad6Kroq Tyler Durden

Federal Judge: “Public Interest” Requires That Restrictions on “Medical Misinformation” Not Be Enjoined

In Kennedy v. Google, decided yesterday by Judge Trina Thompson (N.D. Cal.), plaintiff sued Google and YouTube claiming that they violated his First Amendment rights by removing videos in which he speaks about vaccines, and seeking a temporary restraining order:

On March 3, 2023, Kennedy spoke at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics. The speech centered around Kennedy’s concerns about the merger of corporate and state power as related to the number of vaccines children take. He also spoke about his environmental and legal work fighting corporate polluters. On or about the same day, Manchester Public Television posted a video of the speech and YouTube removed it…. Plaintiff alleges that YouTube [also] removed … [the video] “RFK on Joe Rogan – Pfizer COVID Vaccine Trial.” …

The court rejected Kennedy’s First Amendment claim against Google, reasoning (correctly and unremarkably, I think) that Google isn’t the government and thus isn’t bound by the First Amendment, and any government interaction with Google urging it to remove certain speech about vaccines wasn’t enough to make Google into a government actor.

But the court then went through the other preliminary injunction factors, and said the following (among other things):

Even if Plaintiff could establish that a Google was a state actor attributing its conduct to that of the governments, the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment are not unencumbered by any restrictions:

[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). “The Ninth Circuit has consistently recognized the significant public interest in upholding First Amendment principles.” However, there is also a strong public interest in protecting the community from an international public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic…. The coronavirus still poses a health risk to certain individuals, and it would not serve the public interest to let medical misinformation proliferate on YouTube.

That strikes me as remarkable. It suggests either that

  1. “medical misinformation” is constitutionally unprotected, period (since the Chaplinsky quote is about speech that the Court saw as permissibly subject even to criminal punishment), or that
  2. even if a speaker has a solid First Amendment argument—e.g., if the speaker is suing a city to prevent it from blocking his speech in the park, or suing the Postal Service to prevent it from blocking his mailings—a court could refuse to issue a preliminary injunction when it concludes the speech contains “medical misinformation” (or, presumably, is harmful in other ways).

I think both options would be mistaken. I discuss here the general prohibition on punishing false statements about science and medicine generally (setting aside particular situations such as fraudulent commercial advertising, or bad advice by a doctor to a patient). And if I’m right that the speech is constitutionally protected against governmental restriction, I don’t think that the judge can still allow the restriction to continue for supposedly harmful (but constitutionally protected) speech when the restriction would have to be enjoined as to other speech.

Again, I think the bottom-line result was correct, because there’s no First Amendment violation here by Google and YouTube: They are private entities, and there likely isn’t sufficient entanglement between them and the government to make them government actors in this situation. But the court’s reasoning, which is that the injunction should have been denied “Even if Plaintiff could establish that … Google was a state actor,” strikes me as mistaken.

Here, by the way, is Google’s and YouTube’s explanation for the removal:

In March 2023, Google removed a video of Kennedy speaking at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics (NHIOP), in which he “recount[ed] his suspicions regarding the expanded regime of childhood vaccines he suggests are linked to increased cases of autism in children.” And in June 2023, Google removed a video in which Kennedy discussed the “Pfizer COVID Vaccine Trial” with podcast host Joe Rogan that included “claims about COVID19 vaccinations that contradict[ed] expert consensus.” In each instance, Google “reviewed [the] content carefully, and … confirmed that it violate[d] [Google’s] … policy.” Google continues to allow other speeches and appearances by Kennedy to remain on YouTube.

UPDATE: My coblogger Sam Bray has a somewhat different perspective on this:

Here are the three relevant principles:

  1. Protect speech, because equity follows the law. (Cardozo said “equity follows the law, but neither slavishly nor always,” but that’s not the main form of the maxim.) That would suggest not considering harmfulness.
  2. The judge dispensing equity wants to make sure he or she does not become an instrument of injustice. This includes consideration of the conduct of the parties. Let’s vary the facts a little, and say that the speaker wants a preliminary injunction about a video taken down by a state actor, and the video is protected speech but also seriously misleading. A court could say I’m not going to give you an injunction, because I think you’re coming into equity with unclean hands—you have your damage remedy, but to give you an injunction would make the court implicit in your unjust scheme, etc.
  3. In late-modern injunction tests there is explicit consideration of the public interest, but that’s usually mediated through legal forms: e.g., the First Amendment expresses the public interest. But one could always vary that (pressing national security case, etc.).

The way I would put all this together is that I wouldn’t say the harmfulness of the speech should prohibit the injunction, but I might consider it for other aspects of the drafting (e.g., two-week delay before it goes into effect, scope). But if it could be shown that this was a matter of unclean hands for the plaintiff, then all bets are off and it’s fine in equity to deny or limit the injunction, even if he has a constitutional right to have unclean hands.

The post Federal Judge: "Public Interest" Requires That Restrictions on "Medical Misinformation" Not Be Enjoined appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/Cj0Dg6T
via IFTTT

“Big Parma Is Putting Microchips in People”

Spotted online. The BusinessInsider story is real, though it (and the original Wall Street Journal article) notes that the chips are being put into the outside labels that are unlikely to actually be eaten, though apparently they have to be food-safe just in case.

The post "Big Parma Is Putting Microchips in People" appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Horror: Those Who Disobeyed Barricades Survived Maui Fires

Horror: Those Who Disobeyed Barricades Survived Maui Fires

A disturbing report has emerged following the Maui fires which killed at least 114 and left up to 1,100 residents – many of whom are suspected to be children – unaccounted for.

Historic Waiola Church in Lahaina burns (Matthew Thayer / Maui News)

According to AP, Lahaina residents who disobeyed government road barricades survived the fires, while many who heeded orders to turn around died in their cars and homes with no way out. Now, officials are facing public outrage over why the emergency sirens weren’t set off and why they prevented people from fleeing to safety.

So – no siren, no water, and barricades.

Early on as the fires spread, over 30 power poles were downed alongside the Honoapiilani Highway, located at the southern part of Lahaina. Officials then blocked the Lahaina Bypass Road, preventing law-abiding citizens from fleeing to the southern part of the island. The ones who made it disobeyed.

Man walks through fire damage in Lahaina, Hawaii (Tiffany Kidder Winn)

During a press conference, Maui Police Chief John Pelletier (formerly police chief in Las Vegas during the deadliest mass-shooting in US history) told reporters that officers never stopped residents from fleeing the area, however AP says that residents were turned away and discouraged from disobeying the barricade.

And car after car was turned back toward the rapidly spreading wildfire by a barricade blocking access to Highway 30.

One family swerved around the barricade and was safe in a nearby town 48 minutes later, another drove their 4-wheel-drive car down a dirt road to escape. One man took an dirt road uphill, climbing above the fire and watching as Lahaina burned. He later picked his way through the flames, smoke and rubble to pull survivors to safety.

But dozens of others found themselves caught in a hellscape, their cars jammed together on a narrow road, surrounded by flames on three sides and the rocky ocean waves on the fourth. Some died in their cars, while others tried to run for safety. -AP

One couple, Nate Baird and Courtney Stapleton, told the outlet that they had loaded up the car with their two sons, Baird’s mother and a dog to escape the flames. After driving south, they swerved past cones and escaped to a neighboring town.

“Nobody realized how little time we really had,” said Baird. “Like even us being from the heart of the fire, we did not comprehend. Like we literally had minutes and one wrong turn. We would all be dead right now.“

According to Baird, if they had 10 more minutes they could have saved children who were left home alone in their neighborhood.

“The kids just don’t have a filter. So their son ran up and was just telling our son, you know, ‘This kid is dead. This kid is dead.’ And it’s like, all my son’s friends that they come to our house every day,” he said. “And their parents were at work, and they were home alone. And nobody had a warning. Nobody, nobody, nobody knew.”

Meanwhile, Maui Mayor Richard Bissen has been dodging questions he knows the answers to.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 13:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/8BrWkhl Tyler Durden

Next Hurricane Could Shut-In 40% Of Gulf Of Mexico Production

Next Hurricane Could Shut-In 40% Of Gulf Of Mexico Production

By Alex Kimani of OilPrice.com

The volume of natural gas flowing to LNG giant Cheniere Energy’s Corpus Christi export plant in Texas was on track to decline nearly 30% on Wednesday, a day after Tropical Storm Harold hit South Texas. According to Refinitiv data, gas volumes flowing to Corpus were on track to drop to about 1.5 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) on Wednesday from 2.1 bcfd previously.

At full capacity, the three liquefaction trains at the Corpus Christi LNG export plant are capable of chilling  2.4 bcfd of natural gas into LNG, enough to supply 12 million U.S. homes.

Although officials at Cheniere have declined to comment on plant operations, a  report by Enverus Intelligence Research (EIR), a subsidiary of Enverus, has provided estimates that should a hurricane hit the Gulf of Mexico, ~40% of oil and gas production would be shut in and take seven days to recover in a mid-impact case estimates while a high-impact case would shut in as much as 90% of production and take 16 days to recover. 

Although Tropical Storm Hilary has been gradually weakening, it continues to flood parts of Mexico, California and the Southwest U.S.

In more positive news, Cheniere has struck a deal with Germany’s BASF SE to supply the chemical giant with 0.8 million tonnes per annum (mtpa) of LNG to the chemicals giant. The BASF deal is one of several long-term supply deals Cheniere has signed so far this year. 

Back in June, Cheniere signed a long-term LNG sale and purchase agreement with China’s ENN Energy Holdings. Under terms of the deal, ENN will purchase ~1.8M metric tons/year of LNG on a free-on-board basis at Henry Hub prices for a 20-year term, with deliveries to commence mid-2026 ramping up to 0.9 million tonne per annum (mtpa) in 2027. Cheniere has also entered another LNG sale and purchase agreement with Norway’s Equinor ASA that will see the Norwegian national oil company purchase 1.75M metric tons/year of LNG on a free-on-board basis for a purchase price indexed to the Henry Hub price, for a 15-year term.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/TH4D5ga Tyler Durden

Jim Jordan Launches Probe Into Atlanta Prosecutor In Trump-Georgia Case

Jim Jordan Launches Probe Into Atlanta Prosecutor In Trump-Georgia Case

Five days after a Georgia state Senator demanded a special emergency legislative session to investigate Fulton County DA Fani Willis over ‘weaponization of our justice system’ against former President Donald Trump, House Republicans have launched an investigation into Willis.

On Thursday, Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee sent Willis a letter demanding documents and information, including whether her office had been communicating with Biden DOJ grand inquisitor Jack Smith, the federal special counsel prosecuting Trump over alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

“Your indictment and prosecution implicate substantial federal interests, and the circumstances surrounding your actions raise serious concerns about whether they are politically motivated,” reads the letter from Jordan (R-OH) to Willis.

“The indictment appears to be an attempt to use state criminal law to regulate the conduct of federal officers acting in their official capacities.”

In addition to asking for communications with Smith, Jordan asked for documents related to the DA office’s use of federal funds, and her communications with any officials in the federal executive branch.

Jordan asked Willis to provide the information by Sept. 7.

Trump is due to surrender at an Atlanta jail on Thursday evening to be booked in the case. Eighteen other people, including lawyers who promoted false claims about the 2020 election, also were indicted in the case.

The lion’s share of Jordan’s letter is dedicated to justifying why a congressional committee has the right to demand information about a state criminal investigation. –CNBC

While the House Judiciary Committee is typically limited to oversight concerning federal courts and federal officials, Jordan claims that Willis’ case falls under his committee’s purview because it concerns the actions of former federal officials.

Earlier this year, Jordan’s committee demanded similar information from Manhattan “Soros” DA Alvin Bragg, who has charged Trump with falsifying business records related to his porn start hush-money payoff.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 12:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/73iVunS Tyler Durden

The Problem Isn’t A Housing Shortage, It’s The Concentration Of Ownership By The Wealthy

The Problem Isn’t A Housing Shortage, It’s The Concentration Of Ownership By The Wealthy

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

This concentration of housing ownership by the wealthy is the direct result of Federal Reserve and federal policies that benefit the wealthy.

We’re told that sky-high rents and home prices are the result of a shortage of housing. The solution is simple: build more housing.

This sounds obvious, but the reality is the problem isn’t a shortage, it’s the concentration of housing ownership in the top 10%, the same 10% who own the majority of other income-producing assets like stocks and bonds.

The problem is the wealthy are hoarding housing as just another income-producing asset to accumulate because the central bank / economic-financial policies of the past few decades have favored capital over labor and the already-wealthy who bought assets when they were cheap.

The trillions of dollars in new credit have been asymmetrically distributed: the most creditworthy with the highest incomes and collateral are the top 10%, so they scooped up most of the credit. Since real estate is so heavily dependent on credit (20% down and 80% borrowed, not like stocks and bonds), this massive influx of low-cost credit led to the top 10% accumulating investment housing.

In other words, the asymmetric distribution of credit concentrated ownership of housing in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. The wealthy entered bidding wars for “surplus housing” with other wealthy, a bidding process based largely on who had access to the lowest-cost credit and whose existing wealth had ballooned up more in the central bank-generated Everything Bubble.

Those without existing credit-bubble-collateral or the free money issued by the Bank of Mom and Dad couldn’t compete.

Given these asymmetries in credit, collateral and family wealth, there was no way the wealthy wouldn’t end up with the lion’s share of “surplus housing,” just as they ended up owning the lion’s share of stocks, bonds, precious metals, cryptocurrencies, artwork, etc.

There are many sources of housing-hoarding. One is inheritance. The parents move into assisted living or pass on, and since the family was wealthy enough to help the kids buy their own homes at an early age, the parent’s home is “surplus capital” that stays in the family.

Another is corporate buying of rental properties. Steadily rising rents (see last chart below) make rental housing a low-risk, attractive investment, so corporations tapped their credit lines or the corporate bond market to snap up tens of thousands of rental homes. Since corporate costs of capital and management are lower than those available to households, corporations can afford to be less price sensitive. Individual buyers could be outbid by corporations.

A third source is the recent “investment craze” for short-term vacation rentals (STVR) as the wealthy heard stories of other wealthy people getting $10,000 a month from homes that fetched $2,000 a month as long-term rentals.

This differential unleashed a tsunami of home purchases by the wealthy seeking to maximize their gains on cheap credit and “excess capital” stagnating in their accounts earning near-zero interest.

In classic fashion, this land-rush frenzy to capture the outsized profits from STVR gobbled up all the housing inventory, creating credit-induced scarcity. Also in classic fashion, wealthy bidders began basing their bids not on $3,000 a month via long-term rental income, but $12,000 a month (in peak season) income from price-insensitive tourists via STVR.

The deluge of “revenge spending” unleashed after the pandemic lockdowns ended supercharged the greed and acquisition of housing for short-term vacation rentals. $12,000 a month was now chump-change; the price jumped to $15,000, and soon enough, this was a “bargain” that needed another boost higher.

Those desperate for vacations regardless of cost were the perfect customer base for rampant price-gouging, a.k.a. “maximizing return on investment.”

The true scale of this land-rush by the wealthy into STVRs is difficult to assess for various reasons. To get preferential mortgage and property tax rates, some new owners may have claimed residency or listed the new purchase as a second home. The only way to accurately assess the true scale is to tote up STVR licenses in locales that require STVR owners to obtain permits and pay annual registration fees.

Consider the facts displayed below. The current housing bubble arose as a direct result of the flood of stimulus issued by the Federal Reserve and Treasury post-pandemic.

Note the massive spike in investment purchases that resulted.

The third chart shows that the US population rose by 4 million 2019-2023 while housing expanded by 5 million units. Um, OK, where is the scarcity when housing per capita (per person) is at record highs?

The fourth chart shows that the prime home-buying cohort (ages 25-54) has flatlined since 2008, along with the number employed and thus able to obtain and pay a mortgage.

What skyrocketed wasn’t the number of employed home buyers–what skyrocketed was credit and central bank / government stimulus: the Fed balance sheet and holdings of mortgage-backed securities skyrocketed (fifth chart), directly goosing housing via lowering mortgage rates, and federal deficit spending.

The wealthy are hoarding housing because the system has incentivized dumping “excess capital and credit” into housing. This concentration of housing ownership in the wealthy is the direct result of Federal Reserve and federal policies that benefit the wealthy.

As longtime correspondent Suzanne S. put it: “I’m not sure we have a housing crisis as much as an ownership crisis.”

*  *  *

My new book is now available at a 10% discount ($8.95 ebook, $18 print): Self-Reliance in the 21st Century. Read the first chapter for free (PDF)

Become a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 12:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/SJP6Gfu Tyler Durden

Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Bootleggers, Baptists, and Ballots


Comp 2 (0-00-00-00) | Illustration: Lex Villena; pic studio

Arkansas has some of the strangest liquor laws in the country—or at least the most politically contentious.

Unlike a lot of other places, the state allows counties to hold referendums to decide whether they will allow the retail sale of alcohol. That is, whether they will be “wet” or “dry.” And when those elections take place, it’s often existing liquor stores—the very businesses that earn money by selling booze—that campaign the hardest to keep county-level prohibition going.

And they often have a powerful, but unexpected ally: churches.

In the fourth episode of Why We Can’t Have Nice Things, a new podcast series from Reason, we take a deep dive into the political dynamics that drive Arkansas’ local alcohol legalization elections. Jeremy Horpedahl, an economist at the University of Central Arkansas, says public choice theory explains why special interests that might have very little in common sometimes team up to push protectionist regulations.

“What’s especially powerful about this coalition is that you have the liquor stores which can provide the money to prevent legalization of alcohol sales,” he says, “and the churches, which can provide the moral argument the public face of the campaign to keep these things, keep the rules, how they are.”

Chris Swonger, CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, says that arguments about morality are often used as cover when one faction or another wants regulations to boost their own competitive interests.

Once you know what to look for, there are “bootleggers” and “baptists” to be found just about everywhere.

 

Further reading for this week’s episode:

“Bootleggers and Baptists: The Education of a Regulatory Economist,” by Bruce Yandle

“Bootleggers, Baptists, and Ballots: Coalitions in Arkansas’ Alcohol-Legalization Elections,” by Jeremy Horpedahl

Check out the full range of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” phenomenon at Reason.com.

Find out which states allow spirits to be shipped directly to consumers’ homes at ShipMySpirits.org, a project of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.

Written by Eric Boehm; produced and edited by Hunt Beaty; mixing by Ian Keyser; fact checking by Katherine Sypher

The post <em>Why We Can't Have Nice Things</em>: Bootleggers, Baptists, and Ballots appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/FJPyAp8
via IFTTT

Seventh Circuit Upholds Products Liability Claim Against Specialized Ammunition Manufacturer

From Hakim v. Safariland, Inc., decided Monday in an opinion by Judge John Lee, joined by Chief Judge Diane Sykes and Judge Joel Flaum:

David Hakim, a SWAT officer …, accidentally got shot by a colleague during a training exercise. The offending projectile was a “breaching” shotgun round manufactured by Safariland, LLC. Breaching rounds assist law enforcement officers in breaking down doors by disabling hinges and other attachments on doorframes. When used as intended, they disintegrate harmlessly on impact with a metal attachment mechanism. But here, Hakim’s fellow officer missed the metal door hinge he was shooting at. The round struck wood, remained live, and ultimately hit Hakim in the spine. Hakim’s thirteen-month recovery from his injury required multiple surgeries, and to this day he experiences pain so severe that he has trouble sleeping….

Hakim [sued, claiming] … that Safariland had failed to provide adequate warning that its rounds do not disintegrate if they strike wood instead of metal. A jury … awarded Hakim $7.5 million on his failure-to-warn claim….

The court upheld the verdict, and rejected Safariland’s claims that its warnings were adequate:

Safariland acknowledges that none of its product literature specifically warns that breaching rounds that hit wood do not disintegrate. But it argues that this danger was implied in its literature. For instance, Safariland notes that the documents advise shooting the rounds directly at metal attachment mechanisms, rather than attempting to “shear” those mechanisms off a door, to “minimize the risk of the projectile[s] causing serious injury or death.” But other statements in the literature seem to indicate that the rounds will disintegrate on contact with wood. For instance, the literature states that breaching rounds “disintegrate[] into a fine powder” upon contact with a “hard surface.” A reasonable consumer certainly could interpret the term “hard surface” to include wood.

Adding to the confusion is Safariland’s product catalog. The catalog features the breaching rounds on a page labeled “less lethal” and states that the rounds “[d]isintegrate[] on contact” and are “[s]afe to use at close distances.” A reasonable jury could interpret these statements as conveying the false impression that the breaching rounds are not particularly harmful, even when misfired….

This is quite consistent with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which preempts products liability claims “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.” And the PLCAA also expressly excludes lawsuits stemming from “a defect in design or manufacture of the product,” when “the discharge of the product was [not] caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense”; that appears to include failure-to-warn claims, see Adames v. Sheahan (Ill. 2009).

And it’s quite consistent with the way other products are treated. Here’s an excerpt from Torts and Guns, a Journal of Tort Law article by the late leading tort scholar Stephen Sugarman (Berkeley Law) (paywall-free version here):

When Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders squabbled during their 2015-16 election campaigns over the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), they were talking past each other, misleading their listeners, and failing to understand what this statute pre-empting some state tort claims against the gun industry was actually about. Many critics of PLCAA argue that gun makers and sellers should be liable just like those in the auto, pharmaceutical drug, and tobacco industries. Yet, it is very rare for defendants in those industries to be successfully sued in tort for the sort of conduct that gun control advocates would like to hold the gun industry liable….

Take the motor vehicle accident problem. It is well understood that car companies make vehicles intended to be sold to ordinary drivers that are capable of going more than 100 miles per hour even though that is well more than the maximum road speed allowed. Surely the car companies know that some owners regularly drive faster than, say, 75 miles per hour and cause accidents because of their speeding. Product liability law today generally requires product makers to take into account foreseeable product misuse.

Does this make cars involved in very high speed crashes defectively designed? Although there is something appealing about this idea, I don’t see successful cases being brought on this theory, and given the record so far I’d be surprised if they were successful.

Next, I imagine that in today’s high-tech world motor vehicles could be engineered so that (perhaps absent an emergency) they could not be driven faster than the posted speed limit on the road on which they are currently travelling (and I assume that self-driving cars currently have and will continue to have this feature). Does the failure to include this speed-control function in all of today’s new motor vehicles make them defective so that the manufacturer would be liable in tort to victims of drivers whose speeding (at any speed) causes accidents? This too is an appealing idea, but I don’t see such cases.

In the same vein, surely by now all new cars could be sold with breathalyzer type testers included (often called ignition interlock devices) so that a driver with too high a breath-alcohol reading would be unable to start the car. These devices are now frequently required of those convicted of “driving under the influence.” Does this make all cars without such devices defective products? Including such devices in all vehicles this could go a long way towards preventing drunk driving by those who have yet to be caught and convicted. Again, there is something attractive about this idea, and yet, I don’t see successful cases based on this theory.

In short, if failure to preclude expected abuse by drivers, even when feasible, does not currently seem to lead to auto company tort liability, it is difficult to see why it would readily do so for gun makers.

Car companies sell vehicles to car rental companies who in turn rent them to the public. If a would-be renter staggers to the counter obviously drunk or high, it would be irresponsible to turn the keys over to such a customer even if he had a reservation. If a company did that, and the driver then had an accident based on drunk driving, the common law would probably impose liability on the car rental agency for negligent entrustment. [The PLCAA likewise has an exception allowing liability in negligent entrustment cases. -EV]

But if the car rental company knew that a clearly sober customer with a valid license had a recent DUI conviction and provided her with the keys that probably would not be negligent entrustment. So, if that customer then stopped at a bar outside the airport parking lot, drank a few shots and then crashed her car into someone, the car rental company would probably not be liable. [The PLCAA would allow liability if a gun seller knew that a buyer had a criminal conviction that disqualified the buyer from buying the gun under federal or state law. -EV] Moreover, if Hertz learns that certain of its franchise locations are renting cars that are disproportionately in accidents, would Hertz be liable for any future accidents for failure to cease providing that franchise with cars to rent? I don’t think so.

The post Seventh Circuit Upholds Products Liability Claim Against Specialized Ammunition Manufacturer appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Despite Weak Global Data, We Have Stagflation… We Also Have Leninist Policy Shocks

Despite Weak Global Data, We Have Stagflation… We Also Have Leninist Policy Shocks

By Michael Every of Rabobank

“Just One Damned Thing After Another”

History, some say, is “Just one damned thing after another.” So is most financial markets coverage, just with post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Yet serious historians look for patterns; Marxists see it as pre-written; and Leninists want to speed it up with bullets. In markets there are also serious thinkers looking for patterns; and Marxists; and even Leninists.

Take the death of Wagner mercenary leader Prigozhin, whose plane just ‘crashed’ in Russia. Even market analysts see the Leninist pattern there.

If only they could apply the same analytical rigour more broadly though.

In “just one damned thing after another” terms, yesterday saw appalling PMI data. UK manufacturing printed 42.5 and services 48.7, Europe 43.7 and 48.3 (with Germany worse), and the US 47.0 and 51.0. Yet the surveys also showed signs of inflation picking up again – so stagflation. The result: US 2-year yields -8bp to 4.97% and 10s -13bp to 4.20%, UK 2s -17bp to 4.97% and 10s -18bp to 4.47%, and German 2s -13bp to 2.96% and 10s -12bp to 2.51%; stocks closed up; the dollar DXY index spiked then slipped; oil dropped, then bounced; and gold and bitcoin rose. In market ‘ergo-ing’, the single worst take I saw was ‘people bought bonds because stagflation fears are rising’. But in stagflation bonds are the last place you want to be! Either the central bank raises rates, yet it does nothing; or they don’t raise rates and you get financial repression.

Those data were just what central banks didn’t want to see ahead of Jackson Hole, where the message is still likely to be ‘Higher For Longer’ under the umbrella of “Structural change”.

They will need to show new thinking that grasps economic history.

Relatedly, the BRICS just met in South Africa, as Prigozhin was taken out in the ‘R’, the ‘I’ landed a moon rover for a budget less than a bad Hollywood movie about the same, and President Biden cancelled an upcoming trip to BRICS applicant Indonesia, once again abandoning ASEAN as a foreign policy priority. Indeed, the BRICS meeting was frustrated with the US and G7, as those obsessed with microaggressions are blind to their macro transgressions.

Xi Jinping’s speech noted:

“Changes in the world, in our times and in history are unfolding in ways like never before, bringing human society to a critical juncture. Should we pursue cooperation and integration, or just succumb to division and confrontation? Should we work together to maintain peace and stability, or just sleepwalk into the abyss of a new Cold War? Should we embrace prosperity, openness and inclusiveness, or allow hegemonic and bullying acts to throw us into depression? Should we deepen mutual trust through exchanges and mutual learning, or allow hubris and prejudice to blind conscience? The course of history will be shaped by the choices we make.”

And I was told it was all about when we get rate cuts!

A lot of states now want to join BRICS: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Morocco, Nigeria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, UAE, Venezuela, and Vietnam. That runs like the Welsh village with the longest place name in the world. This unpronounceable group has a GDP larger than the G7. However, as I warned 18 months ago, just looking at the world map and adding up populations and GDPs does not make a functioning ‘New World Order’.

As a parallel, if you ‘add’ a gorilla to a great white shark, you don’t get the king of the sea AND the jungle without a lot of evolution – you just get digestion.

In BRICS+, China is larger than all other members combined, and it exports ever-more value-added goods to them while only importing raw commodities from them.

Yet the BRICS+ want to industrialize, not just sell raw materials to rich countries, as to the G7. Something doesn’t add up.

Also note there was no BRICS+ launch of a promised common currency backed by gold or crypto, just the sensible goal of more development lending in their own currencies.

Which, by the way, the G7 should also be embracing at Jackson Hole if they have a brain, even if it’s bad for inflation near term.

Yet if it’s hard to create a new global system, it’s easier to destroy one. If BRICS+ trade invoicing shifts from the dollar to local FX bilateral barter, and then goods flows shift too, it will mean a gradual global 1930’s-style fragmentation of supply chains and capital flows, exacerbated by tech and clearing systems schisms.

One key way the West can push back against this trend is via higher rates offering a decent rate of return on the US dollar, or Euro, etc. Capital can be hoovered out of rival political blocks with higher rates. Commodity prices can be pushed lower, or at least capped. We don’t talk about this, focusing instead on data now apparently screaming for rate cuts despite stagflation, but it’s true, and it’s clearly working.

Of course, Wall Street hates it. Then again, it also hates dedollarization and being shut out of the BRICS+. Zoltan Pozsar thinks the US fears dedollarisation because, as quoted in the Financial Times, “The West dreamed of the BRICS as a lapdog, that they would accumulate dollars and recycle them into Treasuries, but instead of that they are renegotiating how things are done.” What he means is Wall Street, not the West. After all, post a serious economic bump, the US economy would do fine in a more fragmented world because it has all it needs – Wall Street wouldn’t.

Zoltan’s new ‘Ex Uno Plures’ –Latin for ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’– offers 50% Fed liquidity and 50% on new ‘dollar-rival’ views. Yet the only Fed plumbing we need to know about is which acronym will be used to fund the Pentagon while rates stay high – again let’s see what Jackson Hole might say; and on the ‘gorilla-shark’ side, Hand-of-Godley Michael Pettis just pointed out that Zoltan misunderstands how the global balance of payments works, saving me doing it again.

Frankly, Zoltan could just have listened to both Donald Trump and the Republican Party presidential debate, where there was universal agreement that the US doesn’t want to keep receiving recycled dollars via larger trade deficits, and wants mercantilism and/or industrial policy instead. (Alongside rather too much talk about washing machines and shower head pressure.)

In short, despite weak global data, we have stagflation, which rate cuts would make worse. Moreover, we also have Leninist policy shocks for markets to deal with.

In response, former Goldman CEO Hank Paulson just wrote an open letter to Xi and Biden (‘A deep crisis in China would pose a choice for two leading powers’) that basically begs for a policy U-turn to him bail out:

“The decisions that Chinese and US leaders make in the months ahead could have enormous implications – for the global economy, global security, business and the future of the US-China competition.

First, China… Whether we are witnessing a short-term blip or the beginning of the country’s long-term stagnation will ultimately depend on choices Beijing’s leadership makes…. It could continue on the path of greater Communist Party involvement in business and the allocation of economic resources, limiting access to economic data and arbitrarily enforcing vague legislation such as the national security law. Or it could pivot, making necessary changes to place more reliance on markets and the private sector, competition, and openness.

The choice it makes matters greatly for the security of the world. A failed or low-growth economy has the potential to heighten geopolitical tensions if China opts to stoke nationalism and blames outside forces for its domestic challenges. If nationalist fervour results, the US-China relationship could further spiral toward conflict.

The test for US policymakers will be whether we lose confidence in our own system by continuing to attempt to beat China at its own game – or whether we trust in the economic principles that have made our economy and our companies leaders in the world… Once and for all, China’s economic challenges should put to rest the belief that to compete, Washington should adopt more statist economic and industrial policies. Instead, US policymakers need to do more to reduce our national debt and address our looming fiscal crisis, which is the primary threat to our economic and national security. And we need to resist the impulse to adopt more top-down, bureaucracy-implemented approaches and avoid populist bullying of private businesses.

For the sake of global growth, geopolitical security and our continued prosperity, we should hope China pivots toward policies that encourage competition and openness.

And, here at home, we should remember that our national security depends upon our economic strength and stay focused on what has made our country strong.”

To summarise, “A Greenspan Put for the Greenspan Putz, puh-lease” as Paulson expects China and the US to both cut taxes, cut state spending, cut rates, and cut regulation.

Do you think this is what we are going to hear from Beijing? Rate cuts aside, as George Magnus just put it, “Such moves do not sit comfortably with the Leninist hew of Xi’s China, which is now crossing a river where the stones are too deep to feel.”

Do you think this is what we are going to hear from Jackson Hole either? Will we really see a U-turn from the speech Lagarde gave earlier this year about the fusion of fiscal and monetary policy, of national security with economic security, and of the importance of the supply side in terms of PRODUCTION, just because of a weak set of PMI data? Will Powell throw everyone a big juicy bone?

Maybe, because as Paulson shows, the ‘smartest guys in the room’ are staggeringly ignorant of how the world actually works. However, that he had to write the op-ed at all shows the pattern of history has now changed, and so will that of central banks, and then markets.

In short, the odds of a rates policy pivot are very low – even if the PMI readings are too.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/24/2023 – 11:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2bTnPxi Tyler Durden