Author: admin

Is Obama’s Broken Health Insurance Promise a Matter of Fact or Opinion?

The other day Matt Welch

argued that the insurance cancellations triggered by Obamacare
represent “a gut-check moment for the mostly left-of-center
journalists who have made such a show these past few years of
dropping false equivalence and calling out political bullshit at
the source.” So far The New York Times has risen to
the challenge pretty well. A few days ago, reporters Jonathan
Weisman and Robert Pear matter-of-factly
stated that cancellation letters received by people who buy
their medical coverage on the individual market “directly
contradict Mr. Obama’s oft-repeated reassurances that if people
like the insurance they have, they will be able to keep it.”
Meanwhile, in an article published the same day, Reed
Abelson perceived a
“debate” about “whether President Obama misled Americans when he
said that people who like their health plans may keep them.”
Apparently Abelson no longer considers that proposition
controversial. In today’s paper, he and Katie Thomas
write:

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law by Mr. Obama in
2010. Since then he has assured Americans: “If you like your
insurance plan you will keep it. No one will be able to take that
away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the
future.”

But it is happening.

Furthermore, Abelson and Thomas say “insurance companies are
canceling millions of individual plans that fail to meet minimum
standards,” up from the “hundreds of thousands” estimated by
Weisman and Pear on Tuesday. In other words, according to the
Times, it is indisputable that Obama broke his
promise and that millions of Americans are bearing the
consequences.

That seems clearly accurate to me, but yesterday Obama
implicitly
argued that it’s not:

If you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable
Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you’re able to
keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office. That was
part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if
insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans,
what we said under the law is you’ve got to replace them with
quality, comprehensive coverage—because that, too, was a central
premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very
beginning. 

Note that “substandard” means “below the standard I have set,”
which is another way of saying that you may like your health plan
but
the president does not. Still, Obama is not claiming that his
personal distaste for your health insurance choices is enough to
void his guarantee. Instead he is retroactively adding a caveat to
his promise: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan—provided
it is exactly the same as the coverage you had before the law took
effect. If any of the terms have changed, all bets are off.

It will be illuminating to see whether the
Times and other news outlets dignify this
Clintonesque evasion by presenting it as a plausible alternative to
the view that Obama has not delivered what he said he would. As
Welch observed, “You can subject the policy and politics of
Obamacare to truth-scans, or you can carry water for the president.
You cannot do both, at least without a laugh track.”

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/is-obamas-broken-health-insurance-promis
via IFTTT

Is Obama's Broken Health Insurance Promise a Matter of Fact or Opinion?

The other day Matt Welch

argued that the insurance cancellations triggered by Obamacare
represent “a gut-check moment for the mostly left-of-center
journalists who have made such a show these past few years of
dropping false equivalence and calling out political bullshit at
the source.” So far The New York Times has risen to
the challenge pretty well. A few days ago, reporters Jonathan
Weisman and Robert Pear matter-of-factly
stated that cancellation letters received by people who buy
their medical coverage on the individual market “directly
contradict Mr. Obama’s oft-repeated reassurances that if people
like the insurance they have, they will be able to keep it.”
Meanwhile, in an article published the same day, Reed
Abelson perceived a
“debate” about “whether President Obama misled Americans when he
said that people who like their health plans may keep them.”
Apparently Abelson no longer considers that proposition
controversial. In today’s paper, he and Katie Thomas
write:

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law by Mr. Obama in
2010. Since then he has assured Americans: “If you like your
insurance plan you will keep it. No one will be able to take that
away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the
future.”

But it is happening.

Furthermore, Abelson and Thomas say “insurance companies are
canceling millions of individual plans that fail to meet minimum
standards,” up from the “hundreds of thousands” estimated by
Weisman and Pear on Tuesday. In other words, according to the
Times, it is indisputable that Obama broke his
promise and that millions of Americans are bearing the
consequences.

That seems clearly accurate to me, but yesterday Obama
implicitly
argued that it’s not:

If you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable
Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you’re able to
keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office. That was
part of the promise we made. But ever since the law was passed, if
insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans,
what we said under the law is you’ve got to replace them with
quality, comprehensive coverage—because that, too, was a central
premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very
beginning. 

Note that “substandard” means “below the standard I have set,”
which is another way of saying that you may like your health plan
but
the president does not. Still, Obama is not claiming that his
personal distaste for your health insurance choices is enough to
void his guarantee. Instead he is retroactively adding a caveat to
his promise: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan—provided
it is exactly the same as the coverage you had before the law took
effect. If any of the terms have changed, all bets are off.

It will be illuminating to see whether the
Times and other news outlets dignify this
Clintonesque evasion by presenting it as a plausible alternative to
the view that Obama has not delivered what he said he would. As
Welch observed, “You can subject the policy and politics of
Obamacare to truth-scans, or you can carry water for the president.
You cannot do both, at least without a laugh track.”

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/is-obamas-broken-health-insurance-promis
via IFTTT

LAX Shooting Update: One TSA Agent Killed, Shooting Suspect Is Off-Duty TSA Agent

At least one TSA agent has been shot dead, while the suspect is aid to be an off-dute TSA agent. Going TSAish? Regardless, just like that, the second wave in Obama’s great anti-gun campaign is about to be launched:


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/yYkP9akAA1g/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Goldman's Stolper Opines On The EUR, Says ECB Rate Cut Is A Buying Opportunity

After briefly becoming the strongest currency in the world for 2013, yesterday’s stunning inflation report out of the Eurozone has not only left the massively overblown European recovery story in tatters (but… but… those soaring PMIs, oh wait, John Paulson is investing in Greece – the “recovery” is indeed over), has sent the sellside penguins scrambling with the new conviction that the ECB now has no choice but to lower rates once again, either in November or in December. So with everyone confused, we were hoping that that perpetual contrarian bellwether Tom Stolper, who just came out with a report, may have some insight. And sure enough, while the long-term EUR bull admits that “the ECB could move the EUR/USD cross by about 5 big figures by cutting the refi rate by 25bp” and that “it is quite possible that we will see EUR/$ drop further towards 1.33”, he concludes that “an ECB rate cut could turn out to be a buying opportunity to go long the EUR.” And now we know: because what Stolper tells his few remaining muppets to buy, Goldman is selling: if and when the ECB cuts rates, do what Goldman does, not what is says: sell everything.

From Goldman’s Tom Stolper

Should the ECB respond to a strong Euro?

On a trade-weighted basis, the EUR is the strongest currency globally – Earlier this week the EUR was briefly the strongest currency globally in 2013. On our GS Trade-Weighted Indices, it peaked at +5.9% year-to-date, outperforming by a whisker the CNY at 5.7%, with the Dollar remaining far behind at +2.0%. Apart from the fact that this has surprised consensus expectations for 2013, it is also becoming a headache for the ECB. At every post-meeting press conference President Draghi faces a number of questions about the exchange rate. In addition, our GSDEER fair value framework implies that the EUR is now overvalued by about 14% against the Dollar and by about 5% on a trade-weighted basis.

The Euro area’s current account position stands in contrast to the EUR valuation signals – Most FX valuation models, including Purchasing Power Parity, are ultimately trade arbitrage models. If goods are substantially cheaper in one country than another, the chances are that people will buy more of the cheaper goods and the resulting demand for the currency in the producer country will help correct the undervaluation. A strong currency over-valuation signal therefore often coincides with a trade deficit and a subsequent correction, as we have seen in EM deficit countries recently. In the Euro area that is not the case. Despite overvaluation, the Euro area currently is not running a current account deficit; in fact, it has the largest surplus ever at about 2.5% of GDP (Germany’s is 7% of German GDP). Even vis-à-vis the US, where the EUR is overvalued by 14%, the bilateral Euro area trade surplus currently stands at historical record highs. The opposing current account and valuation signals considerably complicate the case for a weaker EUR.

Euro weakness would theoretically deepen imbalances – Of course, one of the reasons why the Euro area current account surplus has been growing has been slowing domestic demand depressing imports. Using a weaker Euro to substitute domestic demand would support growth but likely increase the imbalances. At least theoretically, the currency depreciation would raise the trade surplus even further. From a G-20 point of view this would be a very controversial policy (even if officially aimed at inflation alone). Already the US is criticising the German government for not stimulating domestic demand more, and the idea of pushing the EUR lower to help growth is met with scepticism in Asia.

An uncertain impact on growth from FX depreciation – Given the frequent calls to depreciate the Euro to boost Euro area growth and raise inflation, we take a quick look at the likely empirical impact. On the growth side we can extract the likely effect of EUR depreciation from the work of our Euro area colleagues in 2009. They estimated trade elasticities for the Euro area and calculated different scenarios for real TWI moves. Relative to a baseline forecast, a permanent real effective depreciation of 10% would raise GDP growth in the first year by 0.4% to 0.5% and in the second year by 0.2%. This is broadly in line with other estimates of trade elasticities but it is also important that the range of estimates varies considerably across a large number of empirical studies. Some authors fail to find evidence of the critical assumption that depreciation leads to an improvement in net trade (technically known as the Marshall Lerner condition). Some recent studies (see, for example, http://www.feb.ugent.be/FinEco/gert_files/research/JMCB_FP.pdf) emphasise that exchange rates, net exports and growth are all endogenous and that the nature of shocks will ultimately determine if depreciation coincides with accelerating growth. All said, it is likely that a weaker exchange rate will help growth but the impact is probably weaker and more uncertain than most observers believe. Similarly, the impact on core inflation of exchange rate moves is also difficult to quantify.

How much extra growth for an ECB rate cut? – We estimate that the ECB could move the EUR/USD cross by about 5 big figures by cutting the refi rate by 25bp. We discussed this in more detail in a Daily this week, where we also cautioned that this estimate is unlikely to be more than a guide to the order of magnitude of the response. Historically, a 5-big-figure drop in the EUR corresponds to about a 3% decline in the trade-weighted exchange rate. To calculate the impact on growth, we can use the estimates of our European colleagues. Assuming that this drop is permanent, it would boost Euro area growth by a bit more than 0.1 percentage points in the first year and by a touch more than 0.05 percentage points in the second. It could well be less if the EUR rebounds after the initial decline.

A substantial EUR depreciation to boost growth meaningfully – In order to see a more meaningful impact on growth, for example via a 10% decline in the real TWI, the EUR would have to drop to levels last observed in mid-2012, before the ECB announced the OMT. And again, the EUR would have to stay at those lower levels to get the full growth benefit. To get such a large EUR depreciation the ECB would have to pull many more stops than just a 25bp cut in the refi rate. In addition, the ECB would have to overcome what looks like an underlying appreciation trend. We find evidence of such a trend in our econometric work and it would be consistent with the strong balance of payment position. Our estimates currently suggest that the Euro drifts higher – all else equal – by about 1 big figure per month currently.

Tough FX policy choices in the Euro area – To summarise the challenges for FX policymakers in the Euro area, bringing the Euro down may not help as much as hoped for: it may increase political frictions, deepen macro imbalances and it is difficult to achieve in a meaningful way in any case. As the US Treasury suggests in its semi-annual report, boosting demand in Germany would be a far more effective policy to support growth in the Euro area. Given all these issues, we would be surprised if the ECB made the exchange rate the primary motivation for a policy move.

An ECB cut is possible… – To be sure, there may be other, mainly domestic, reasons to cut policy rates in the Euro area, including the surprisingly low inflation print this week. Demand remains weak in the Euro area and monetary conditions have tightened in recent months, partly linked to the global bond sell-off. In particular, if the disinflation trend persists in the ne
xt reading our Euro area economists think a December cut is becoming a close call. And even a cut at the policy meeting next week cannot be ruled out. In turn, such a cut – or the increased likelihood of such a cut – would still have a EUR-negative implication, as discussed above, even though it is already partly being priced by rate and FX markets. On that basis, it is quite possible that we will see EUR/$ drop further towards 1.33.

…but could turn out to be a buying opportunity – However, we are of the view that a rate cut would not be the beginning of a larger attempt to manage the currency weaker. In that respect, an ECB rate cut could turn out to be a buying opportunity to go long the EUR. Our view would change if markets started to price a much more hawkish Fed and the prospect of a genuinely widening interest rate differential with the US. But even then, one would have to factor in the EUR-supportive balance of payment flows.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/if1zhVOd858/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Goldman’s Stolper Opines On The EUR, Says ECB Rate Cut Is A Buying Opportunity

After briefly becoming the strongest currency in the world for 2013, yesterday’s stunning inflation report out of the Eurozone has not only left the massively overblown European recovery story in tatters (but… but… those soaring PMIs, oh wait, John Paulson is investing in Greece – the “recovery” is indeed over), has sent the sellside penguins scrambling with the new conviction that the ECB now has no choice but to lower rates once again, either in November or in December. So with everyone confused, we were hoping that that perpetual contrarian bellwether Tom Stolper, who just came out with a report, may have some insight. And sure enough, while the long-term EUR bull admits that “the ECB could move the EUR/USD cross by about 5 big figures by cutting the refi rate by 25bp” and that “it is quite possible that we will see EUR/$ drop further towards 1.33”, he concludes that “an ECB rate cut could turn out to be a buying opportunity to go long the EUR.” And now we know: because what Stolper tells his few remaining muppets to buy, Goldman is selling: if and when the ECB cuts rates, do what Goldman does, not what is says: sell everything.

From Goldman’s Tom Stolper

Should the ECB respond to a strong Euro?

On a trade-weighted basis, the EUR is the strongest currency globally – Earlier this week the EUR was briefly the strongest currency globally in 2013. On our GS Trade-Weighted Indices, it peaked at +5.9% year-to-date, outperforming by a whisker the CNY at 5.7%, with the Dollar remaining far behind at +2.0%. Apart from the fact that this has surprised consensus expectations for 2013, it is also becoming a headache for the ECB. At every post-meeting press conference President Draghi faces a number of questions about the exchange rate. In addition, our GSDEER fair value framework implies that the EUR is now overvalued by about 14% against the Dollar and by about 5% on a trade-weighted basis.

The Euro area’s current account position stands in contrast to the EUR valuation signals – Most FX valuation models, including Purchasing Power Parity, are ultimately trade arbitrage models. If goods are substantially cheaper in one country than another, the chances are that people will buy more of the cheaper goods and the resulting demand for the currency in the producer country will help correct the undervaluation. A strong currency over-valuation signal therefore often coincides with a trade deficit and a subsequent correction, as we have seen in EM deficit countries recently. In the Euro area that is not the case. Despite overvaluation, the Euro area currently is not running a current account deficit; in fact, it has the largest surplus ever at about 2.5% of GDP (Germany’s is 7% of German GDP). Even vis-à-vis the US, where the EUR is overvalued by 14%, the bilateral Euro area trade surplus currently stands at historical record highs. The opposing current account and valuation signals considerably complicate the case for a weaker EUR.

Euro weakness would theoretically deepen imbalances – Of course, one of the reasons why the Euro area current account surplus has been growing has been slowing domestic demand depressing imports. Using a weaker Euro to substitute domestic demand would support growth but likely increase the imbalances. At least theoretically, the currency depreciation would raise the trade surplus even further. From a G-20 point of view this would be a very controversial policy (even if officially aimed at inflation alone). Already the US is criticising the German government for not stimulating domestic demand more, and the idea of pushing the EUR lower to help growth is met with scepticism in Asia.

An uncertain impact on growth from FX depreciation – Given the frequent calls to depreciate the Euro to boost Euro area growth and raise inflation, we take a quick look at the likely empirical impact. On the growth side we can extract the likely effect of EUR depreciation from the work of our Euro area colleagues in 2009. They estimated trade elasticities for the Euro area and calculated different scenarios for real TWI moves. Relative to a baseline forecast, a permanent real effective depreciation of 10% would raise GDP growth in the first year by 0.4% to 0.5% and in the second year by 0.2%. This is broadly in line with other estimates of trade elasticities but it is also important that the range of estimates varies considerably across a large number of empirical studies. Some authors fail to find evidence of the critical assumption that depreciation leads to an improvement in net trade (technically known as the Marshall Lerner condition). Some recent studies (see, for example, http://www.feb.ugent.be/FinEco/gert_files/research/JMCB_FP.pdf) emphasise that exchange rates, net exports and growth are all endogenous and that the nature of shocks will ultimately determine if depreciation coincides with accelerating growth. All said, it is likely that a weaker exchange rate will help growth but the impact is probably weaker and more uncertain than most observers believe. Similarly, the impact on core inflation of exchange rate moves is also difficult to quantify.

How much extra growth for an ECB rate cut? – We estimate that the ECB could move the EUR/USD cross by about 5 big figures by cutting the refi rate by 25bp. We discussed this in more detail in a Daily this week, where we also cautioned that this estimate is unlikely to be more than a guide to the order of magnitude of the response. Historically, a 5-big-figure drop in the EUR corresponds to about a 3% decline in the trade-weighted exchange rate. To calculate the impact on growth, we can use the estimates of our European colleagues. Assuming that this drop is permanent, it would boost Euro area growth by a bit more than 0.1 percentage points in the first year and by a touch more than 0.05 percentage points in the second. It could well be less if the EUR rebounds after the initial decline.

A substantial EUR depreciation to boost growth meaningfully – In order to see a more meaningful impact on growth, for example via a 10% decline in the real TWI, the EUR would have to drop to levels last observed in mid-2012, before the ECB announced the OMT. And again, the EUR would have to stay at those lower levels to get the full growth benefit. To get such a large EUR depreciation the ECB would have to pull many more stops than just a 25bp cut in the refi rate. In addition, the ECB would have to overcome what looks like an underlying appreciation trend. We find evidence of such a trend in our econometric work and it would be consistent with the strong balance of payment position. Our estimates currently suggest that the Euro drifts higher – all else equal – by about 1 big figure per month currently.

Tough FX policy choices in the Euro area – To summarise the challenges for FX policymakers in the Euro area, bringing the Euro down may not help as much as hoped for: it may increase political frictions, deepen macro imbalances and it is difficult to achieve in a meaningful way in any case. As the US Treasury suggests in its semi-annual report, boosting demand in Germany would be a far more effective policy to support growth in the Euro area. Given all these issues, we would be surprised if the ECB made the exchange rate the primary motivation for a policy move.

An ECB cut is possible… – To be sure, there may be other, mainly domestic, reasons to cut policy rates in the Euro area, including the surprisingly low inflation print this week. Demand remains weak in the Euro area and monetary conditions have tightened in recent months, partly linked to the global bond sell-off. In particular, if the disinflation trend persists in the next reading our Euro area economists think a December cut is becoming a close call. And even a cut at the policy meeting next week cannot be ruled out. In turn, such a cut – or the increased likelihood of such a cut – would still have a EUR-negative implication, as discussed above, even though it is already partly being priced by rate and FX markets. On that basis, it is quite possible that we will see EUR/$ drop further towards 1.33.

…but could turn out to be a buying opportunity – However, we are of the view that a rate cut would not be the beginning of a larger attempt to manage the currency weaker. In that respect, an ECB rate cut could turn out to be a buying opportunity to go long the EUR. Our view would change if markets started to price a much more hawkish Fed and the prospect of a genuinely widening interest rate differential with the US. But even then, one would have to factor in the EUR-supportive balance of payment flows.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/if1zhVOd858/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Ronald Bailey Argues Deploying Current Renewables is Akin to Driving a Model T

Model TBack in 2008, Al Gore urged America “to
commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable
energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years,” a goal
that he pronounced “achievable, affordable and
transformative.” His plan was possible, he explained, because
the price of the technologies needed to produce no-carbon
electricity—solar, wind, and geothermal—were falling dramatically.
Was Gore right five years ago? And are the folks at Greenpeace,
Friends of the Earth, and Climate Solutions right now that the
no-carbon energy technologies needed to replace fossil fuels are
readily available and ready to go? Not really, concludes a new
report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Looking at the current state of the art, Reason Science
Correspondent Ronald Bailey writes that deploying current renewable
energy technologies would be akin to forcing everybody to drive
Model T Fords.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/ronald-bailey-argues-deploying-current-r
via IFTTT

New Book Reveals Obama Aides Wanted Clinton To Replace Biden as VP

According to
the new book
Double Down by Mark Halperin and
John Heilemann, some of Obama’s aides were keen to have Hillary
Clinton replace Joe Biden as vice president in late 2011. 

From
ABC News:

On Election Night 2012 after clinching a second term, President
Obama hailed Joe Biden as “the best vice president anybody could
ever hope for.”

But a new account of the year leading up to the election,
detailed in the book “Double Down,” reveals that many of Obama’s
closest aides weren’t always as convinced.

In late 2011, several top Obama campaign officials secretly
considered a VP swap for Hillary Rodham Clinton, convening
focus-groups and commissioning opinion polls to determine whether
the president could get a boost among voters.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/new-book-reveals-obama-aides-wanted-cli
via IFTTT

TSA Agent Reported Shot at Los Angeles Airport [UPDATED]

Breaking, few details available now, but
this from Los Angeles Times:

A Transportation Security Administration agent and a suspect
were wounded in a shooting at Los Angeles International
Airport on Friday morning, sources told the Los Angeles
Times.

Law enforcement officers were flooding the airport, authorities
said, and terminals 2 and 3 were evacuated….

TV footage showed dozens of offficers swarming the airport.
Images also showed a law enforcement officer being treated by
paramedics. He appeared to be alert. Another officer had a bloody
hand. 

UPDATE: Second suspect reported in custody, one
shooter shot in leg,
via L.A. Weekly:

Police have confirmed the shooting. The suspect has apparently
been apprehended, according to news reports. CBS reported that he’s
been shot in the leg…..

CBS is now reporting that a second suspect is in custody
— and he was armed….

The FAA has reportedly grounded all flights to and from
LAX.

CBS reports that police are focused on a series of “multiple,
suspicious” packages — which, in light of how many packages are at
any airport on any given day, particularly one when people are
fleeing in panic — is going to be no easy investigation.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/tsa-agent-reported-shot-at-los-angeles-a
via IFTTT

NSA Spying Torpedoes American Business Dealings in Europe

Inspector ClouseauFrom the beginning of the NSA mass-surveillance scandal,
revelations that the U.S. spy agency was not only scooping up
international communications, but had
conscripted American companies into the effort have
opened doors for foreign firms. Tech companies in other
countries are relatively shielded from pressure by U.S. spooks
(whatever their relationships with spy agencies in their own
countries) and some American entrepreneurs, like Ladar Levison of Lavabit, actively urge
people to avoid U.S.-based services. Worse, though, the NSA’s
connection to some companies is giving European politicians cover
to discriminate against American businesses. Never mind that
Europeans do their own fair share of spying; they now have
legitimate concerns to raise about the security of data in the
hands of Apple, AT&T, Google, and other familiar names.

Reports Juergen Baetz of the
Associated Press:

BRUSSELS—The backlash in Europe over U.S. spying is threatening
an agreement that generates tens of billions of dollars in
trans-Atlantic business every year—and negotiations on another pact
worth many times more.

A growing number of European officials are calling for the
suspension of the “Safe Harbor” agreement that lets U.S. companies
process commercial and personal data—sales, emails, photos—from
customers in Europe. This little-known but vital deal allows more
than 4,200 American companies to do business in Europe, including
Internet giants like Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon.

Revelations of the extent of U.S. spying on its European allies
is also threatening to undermine one of President Barack Obama’s
top trans-Atlantic goals: a sweeping free-trade agreement that
would add an estimated $138 billion (100 billion euros) a year to
each economy’s gross domestic product.

The Safe Harbor agreement allows companies to move data around
their networks as needed. In its absence, data from Europeans might
have to be stored and processed only within the physical confines
of Europe—a huge expense and possibly insurmountable hurdle for
many companies. Many U.S. companies would effectively be unable to
operate in Europe if they were reachable by European law.

Some companies could explicitly be barred from expanding their
presence in Europe out of fears that they operate as pipelines to
the NSA. According to the Wall Street Journal‘s
Anton Troianovski:

AT&T Inc.’s ambitions to expand in Europe have run into
unexpected hurdles amid the growing outcry across the region over
surveillance by the National Security Agency. German and other
European officials said any attempt by AT&T to acquire a major
wireless operator would face intense scrutiny, given the company’s
work with the U.S. agency’s data-collection programs.

Resistance to such a deal, voiced by officials in interviews
across Europe, suggests the impact of the NSA affair could extend
beyond the diplomatic sphere and damage U.S. economic interests in
key markets. AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson has
signaled repeatedly in recent months that he is interested in
buying a mobile-network operator in Europe, highlighting the
potential for growth on the continent at a time when the U.S.
company faces headwinds at home.

Some of this resistance to American companies is legitimate;
Europeans are as outraged as Americans about the spying
scandal—quite possibly more so, given that continent’s long history
with authoritarian regimes and secret police. And some of these
moves are just opportunistic; the NSA has turned into a great
excuse for European politicians to openly favor well-connected
companie in their own countries at the expense of U.S. firms.

In a recent report
(PDF), the European Parliament called out Britain, France, Germany,
and Sweden for tapping directly into communications networks—though
it insisted “The capacities of Sweden, France and Germany (in terms
of budget and human resources) are low compared to the magnitude of
the operations launched by GCHQ and the NSA and cannot be
considered on the same scale”. Germany’s
BND worked closely with the NSA to facilitate spying, and
France’s
DGSE needed no encouragement to hoover up communications data,
though it apparently
aided the NSA, as did a counterpart agency in Spain. Britain’s

GCHQ is reported to have burrowed its way into Begian
telecommunications firms in the course of its extensive
cooperation with the NSA.

In other words, European government officials are shocked.
Shocked!

But, however cynical the response, by compromising the
independence of American firms, U.S. officials created a hell of a
justification for other countries to torpedo those companies and
favor their own.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/01/nsa-spying-torpedoes-american-business-d
via IFTTT

Shots Fired At LAX

Reports hitting the tape of a shooting at LAX terminal 3, and that an evacuation is underway.

More as we see it.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/rj3qPCksgnI/story01.htm Tyler Durden