There Is No Right To A Minimum Wage

There Is No Right To A Minimum Wage

Authored by Soham Patil via The Mises Institute,

One of the most popular economic fallacies of our time is the belief that the absence of a minimum wage would lead to limitless exploitation of employees in the economy. Minimum wage legislation prevents employees from being hired at pay rates below the mandated amount. Proponents of minimum wage laws claim that not having a minimum wage would lead to employees being paid very little for the amount of work they do. They also claim that everyone ought to be entitled to some standard of living and that minimum wages are instrumental in ensuring better conditions for everyone. Ultimately, arguments for minimum wage laws do not stand up to scrutiny.

The most important reason to oppose minimum wage laws is that they violate freedom of association and freedom of contract. It prevents two willing and able parties from coming to a voluntary contractual agreement if the wages are below the legally-mandated minimum. While minimum wage limits are often relatively low, their imposition entails that legislators believe some wages are too low and that they must take measures to prevent work being done for “exploitative wages.” Naturally, this means that some jobs will cease to exist since jobs that pay below the legally-mandated amount will no longer be worthwhile for the firms. As a result, minimum wage laws necessarily destroy some jobs in the economy.

Arguments for minimum wages rest on economic fallacies.

One of the most popular ones is that minimum wage laws prevent exploitation by setting a standard limit under which firms cannot go. A key, but mistaken, assumption in this line of thought is that without minimum wages firms would simply drive wage rates lower and lower and employees would have no choice other than to accept whatever they are given. This ignores the fact that all agreements require at least two consenting parties.

Hardly anyone would agree to work a job which pays nothing or pays a disproportionately low amount for the amount of effort and skill required.

Employees set the floor in negotiations as they would not work for too low an amount while firms set the ceiling as they wouldn’t pay exorbitant amounts which would cause them to be unprofitable. If the lack of minimum wage legislation allows firms to drive wage rates low, we must ask ourselves why certain jobs that pay much more than the minimum wage exist. Clearly there must be other factors that impact wages which would invalidate the talking point of limitless exploitation.

Employees also do not have the right to a minimum wage. Their work is only as valuable as what they can fetch on the free market. I might believe that the work I can do is worth a thousand dollars an hour, but if no firm is willing to offer me that much money, I don’t have an entitlement to it. The same is true at any wage rate, even the minimum wage rate. Many seem not to grasp this fact as advocates for a minimum wage often state that no work is worth lower than the minimum wage amount. This ignores the nature of work and that work itself does not have intrinsic value.

While minimum wage laws fail to deliver on their benefits, their consequences are more potent. Since minimum wage laws destroy some jobs, there exists a percentage of the workforce which would have had employment in the absence of these laws. Businesses are also forced to operate either on higher costs or with a lower workforce which either raises costs for consumers or leads to lower productivity. While the advocates of minimum wage legislation believe they operate from a higher ground of morality, their policies only hurt the ones whom they wish to help the most.

Repealing these laws can only lead to a better economy.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 17:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RN3etyK Tyler Durden

‘Simply Robbery’: Moscow To Retaliate After US Hands Ukraine $20BN Utilizing Russian Assets

‘Simply Robbery’: Moscow To Retaliate After US Hands Ukraine $20BN Utilizing Russian Assets

Russia on Wednesday blasted the US disbursing a $20 billion loan to Ukraine backed by frozen Russian assets as “theft” and “simply robbery” while vowing that retaliation will soon come.

On Tuesday, the Biden administration announced it disbursed the $20 billion loan for Ukraine, to eventually be paid back using interest earned on frozen Russian Central Bank assets, which has been a controversial plan long in preparation.

AFP/Getty Images

Washington said it issued the funds as part of the bigger total $50 billion loan being provided by the Group of Seven (G7) nations.

Russia’s foreign ministry on Wednesday further said the move “will not go answered”. It warned that it has “sufficient capacity and leverage to retaliate by seizing Western assets under its jurisdiction”.

In announcing the major action, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had described the following:

“These funds — paid for by the windfall proceeds earned from Russia’s own immobilized assets — will provide Ukraine a critical infusion of support as it defends its country against an unprovoked war of aggression.”

“The $50 billion collectively being provided by the G7 through this initiative will help ensure Ukraine has the resources it needs to sustain emergency services, hospitals, and other foundations of its brave resistance,” she added.

This is all part of Biden and NATO allies’ efforts to ‘Trump proof’ future aid and support to Ukraine for years to come. Trump is expected to ‘probably’ reduce US defense aid to Ukraine. Trump officials have warned that Kiev would see funding greatly reduced or even pulled if it is unwilling to engage Moscow seriously at the negotiating table.

A key rationale of Trump’s team in making the case for a necessary and quick winding down of the war is that the West must avoid nuclear confrontation or a WW3 scenario with Russia at all costs.

War-weary populations across Europe and the West are also in favor of peace, all recent polling shows, and Trump has been given a clear mandate by US voters to seek a diplomatic end to the war.

Zelensky has in response said: “What is needed are concrete, strong actions that will force him [Putin] to peace, not persuasion and attempts at appeasement, which he sees as a sign of weakness and uses to his advantage.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 17:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/s8GJPfT Tyler Durden

Trump Nominates Harmeet Dhillon To DOJ’s Civil Rights Division

Trump Nominates Harmeet Dhillon To DOJ’s Civil Rights Division

Authored by Melanie Sun and Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President-elect Donald Trump named attorney Harmeet Dhillon as assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice in a post on Truth Social on Dec. 9.

Harmeet Dhillon, an adviser to former President Donald Trump who is also a Republican delegate in California, attends the 2023 CAGOP convention of Anaheim, Calif., on Sept. 29, 2023. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

“Throughout her career, Harmeet has stood up consistently to protect our cherished Civil Liberties, including taking on Big Tech for censoring our Free Speech, representing Christians who were prevented from praying together during COVID, and suing corporations who use woke policies to discriminate against their workers,” Trump said.

“In her new role at the DOJ, Harmeet will be a tireless defender of our Constitutional Rights, and will enforce our Civil Rights and Election Laws fairly and firmly. Congratulations, Harmeet!”

The Department of Justice will be headed by U.S. Attorney General nominee Pam Bondi, pending confirmation by the Senate.

Dhillon has clerked in the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Dartmouth College and University of Virginia Law School graduate, who is a member of the Sikh religious community, thanked Trump for the nomination and her family for their support.

In a post on X, she said she is “extremely honored by President Trump’s nomination to assist with our nation’s civil rights agenda.”

“It has been my dream to be able to serve our great country, and I am so excited to be part of an incredible team of lawyers led by Pam Bondi. I cannot wait to get to work!” she wrote.

Dhillon’s appointment happened after Trump named another partner in her law firm, Dhillon Law Group, to a key position.

On Dec. 4, he announced he was selecting David Warrington as his White House counsel. Warrington replaced Trump’s previous pick for the position, William McGinley, who was moved into the role of counsel for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) commission.

Dhillon, a Republican National Committeewoman for California, previously contested then-Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel for that post. McDaniel, who ultimately won, stepped down earlier this year. Former North Carolina Republican Party Chair Michael Whatley received Trump’s endorsement and stepped into the role. Trump recently endorsed Whatley’s continuation as committee chair.

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dhillon filed numerous lawsuits challenging California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s measures, including his mask order.

Trump Names General Counsel of the OMB

In another post, Trump also announced that he was appointing Mark Paoletta to return to serve in the second Trump administration as General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Mark will work closely with our DOGE team to cut the size of our bloated Government bureaucracy, and root out wasteful and anti-American spending,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Paoletta, a partner at the Law Firm, Schaerr Jaffe, and a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, was part of the first Trump administration and an ally in advancing Trump’s American First agenda. Alongside then-OMB Director Russ Vought, who has also been asked by Trump to head the OMB again, Paoletta arranged federal funding to build Trump’s border wall facing Mexico.

“Mark is a conservative warrior who knows the ‘ins and outs’ of Government – He will help us, Make America Great Again!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

The president-elect also endorsed K.C. Crosbie for the next co-chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC).

The position became open after Lara Trump announced on Dec. 8 that she would be stepping down and was considering a possible Senate appointment in the incoming administration as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been named by Trump to be the next secretary of state.

Crosbie previously served as the RNC’s treasurer and the national committeewoman representing Kentucky.

“KC has been with me from the very beginning, helping real Republicans get elected across the Country, and would be a tremendous Co-Chair of the RNC! KC will work on continuing to ensure a highly functioning, fiscally responsible, and effective RNC that makes Election Integrity a highest priority,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 17:00

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

San Diego Sheriff ‘Will Not’ Comply With New ‘Super Sanctuary’ Protections For Illegals

San Diego Sheriff ‘Will Not’ Comply With New ‘Super Sanctuary’ Protections For Illegals

The San Diego County Sheriff’s office is refusing to comply with the County Board of Supervisors’ vote to turn the county into a “super” sanctuary by preventing local law enforcement from complying with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez

With the return of Trump to the White House, the board on Tuesday approved the measure in a 3-1 vote, prohibiting the use of its resources to help ICE, and limiting the use of its jails, county buildings and personnel in assisting federal immigration enforcement agents.

“San Diego County has always been a place where communities are valued, not divided and as a County Supervisor, I’m committed to leading a local government that promotes unity, equity, and justice for all, while upholding the law,” said County Chairwoman Nora Vargas, adding “We will not allow our local resources to be used for actions that separate families, harm community trust, or divert critical local resources away from addressing our most pressing challenges. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and our County will not be a tool for policies that hurt our residents.”

Not So Fast

In response, the San Diego County Sheriff says they will ignore the Board’s resolution.

“The Sheriff’s Office will not change its practices based on the Board resolution and policy that was passed at today’s meeting,” adding that “The Board of Supervisors does not set policy for the Sheriff’s Office.

“The Sheriff as an independently elected official, sets the policy for the Sheriff’s Office. California law prohibits the Board of Supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the Sheriff.”

Vargas doesn’t know what to do!

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 16:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/zWPh4Cq Tyler Durden

Progressivism & The Murder Of A Health Insurance CEO

Progressivism & The Murder Of A Health Insurance CEO

Authored by Connor O’Keeffe via The Mises Institute,

Last week, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot to death on a New York City sidewalk in what was clearly a thoroughly planned-out attack. Over the next few days, as authorities hunted for the killer, online progressives did not try hard to hide their delight that a millionaire health insurance executive like Thompson was killed.

Social media was flooded with posts and videos—with different ranges of subtlety—suggesting that Thompson, at the very least, did not deserve to be mourned because of all the health care his company has denied to poor and working people. Progressives framed the shooting as an act of self-defense on behalf of the working class. Before the alleged killer was caught Monday, they promised not to snitch if they saw the shooter themselves and fantasized about a working-class jury nullifying all charges, leading to other CEOs getting gunned down with impunity if they oversaw price increases.

The narrative that these online progressives clearly subscribe to and perpetuate is one where, in the United States, healthcare is a totally unfettered, unregulated industry; where – because of a total lack of government involvement – wealthy CEOs charge whatever prices they want and then refuse to provide customers what they already paid for without facing any bad consequences.

The characterization of healthcare and health insurance companies charging absurdly high prices while treating their customers terribly without the risk of losing them is spot on.

But the idea that what caused this was a lack of government involvement in the healthcare system is completely delusional.

And this delusion conveniently removes all the responsibility progressives bear for the nightmare that is the US healthcare system.

Today, healthcare is one of the most heavily government-regulated industries in the economy – right up there with the finance and energy sectors. Government agencies are involved in all parts of the process, from the research and production of drugs, the training and licensing of medical professionals, and the building of hospitals to the availability of health insurance, the makeup of insurance plans, and the complicated payment processes.

And that is nothing new. The US government has been intervening heavily in the healthcare industry for over a century. And no group has done more to bring this about than the progressives.

It really began, after all, during the Progressive Era, when the American Medical Association maneuvered its way into setting the official accreditation standards for the nation’s “unregulated” medical schools. The AMA wrote standards that excluded the medical approaches of their competitors, which forced half of the nation’s medical schools to close. The new shortage of trained doctors drove up the price of medical services—to the delight of the AMA and other government-recognized doctor’s groups—setting the familiar healthcare affordability crisis in motion.

Around the same time, progressives successfully pushed for strict restrictions on the production of drugs and, shortly afterward, to grant drug producers monopoly privileges.

After WWII, as healthcare grew more expensive, the government used the tax code to warp how Americans paid for healthcare. Under President Truman, the IRS made employer-provided health insurance tax deductible while continuing to tax other means of payment. It didn’t take long for employer plans to become the dominant arrangement and for health insurance to morph away from actual insurance into a general third-party payment system.

These government interventions restricting the supply of medical care and privileging insurance over other payment methods created a real affordability problem for many Americans. But the crisis didn’t really start until the 1960s when Congress passed two of the progressive’s favorite government programs—Medicare and Medicaid.

Initially, industry groups like the AMA opposed Medicare and Medicaid because they believed the government subsidies would deteriorate the quality of care. They were right about that, but what they clearly didn’t anticipate was how rich the programs would make them.

Anyone who’s taken even a single introductory economics class could tell you that prices will rise if supply decreases or demand increases. The government was already keeping the supply of medical services artificially low—leading to artificially high prices. Medicare and Medicaid left those shortages in place and poured a ton of tax dollars into the healthcare sector—significantly increasing demand. The result was an easily predictable explosion in the cost of healthcare.

Fewer and fewer people could afford healthcare at these rising prices, meaning more people required government assistance, which meant more demand, causing prices to grow faster and faster.

Meanwhile, private health “insurance” providers were also benefiting from the mounting crisis. In a free market, insurance serves as a means to trade risk. Insurance works well for accidents and calamities that are hard to predict individually but relatively easy to predict in bulk, like car accidents, house fires, and unexpected family deaths.

Health insurance providers were already being subsidized by all the taxes on competing means of payment, which allowed their plans to grow beyond the typical bounds of insurance and begin to cover easily-predictable occurrences like annual physicals. And, as the price of all of these services continued to shoot up, the costs of these routine procedures were becoming high enough to resemble the costs of emergencies—making consumers even more reliant on insurance.

With progressives cheering on, the political class used government intervention to create a healthcare system that behaves as if its sole purpose is to move as much money as possible into the pockets of healthcare providers, drug companies, hospitals, health-related federal agencies, and insurance providers.

But the party could not last forever. As the price of healthcare rose, the price of health insurance rose, too. Eventually, when insurance premiums grew too high, fewer employers or individual buyers were willing to buy insurance, and the flow of money into the healthcare system started to falter.

The data suggests that that tipping point was reached in the early 2000s. For the first time since the cycle began back in the 1960s, the number of people with health insurance began to fall each year.

Healthcare providers—who had seemingly assumed that the flow of money would never stop increasing—began to panic.

Then came Barack Obama.

Obama’s seminal legislative accomplishment—the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare—can best be understood as a ploy by healthcare providers and the government to keep the party going.

Obamacare required all fifty million uninsured Americans to obtain insurance, and it greatly expanded what these “insurance” companies covered. Demand for healthcare shot back up, and the vicious cycle started back up again—which is why the bill enjoyed so much support from big corporations all across the healthcare industry.

Before it was passed, economists were practically screaming that the Affordable Care Act would make care less affordable by raising premiums and healthcare prices while making shortages worse. Progressives dismissed such concerns as Reagan-era “free market fundamentalist” propaganda. But that is exactly what happened.

Now, the affordability crisis is worse than ever as prices reach historic levels. And, because Obamacare brought American healthcare much closer to a single-payer system, the demand for healthcare far exceeds the supply of healthcare – leading to deadly shortages.

There are literally not enough resources or available medical professionals to treat everyone who can pay for care. Also, the tax code and warped “insurance” market protect these providers from competition—making it almost impossible for people to switch to a different provider after their claims are unfairly denied. If it were simply greed, denying customers who already paid would be a feature in all industries. But it’s not. It requires the kind of policy protections progressives helped implement.

And on top of all that, despite paying all this money, Americans are quickly becoming one of the sickest populations on Earth.

This is one of the most pressing problems facing the country.

A problem that requires immediate, radical change to solve. But it also requires an accurate and precise diagnosis—something that, this week, progressives demonstrated they are incapable of making.

The American progressive movement is responsible for providing the political class the intellectual cover they needed to break the healthcare market and transform the entire system into a means to transfer wealth to people like Brian Thompson.

Now, they want to sit back, pretend like they’ve never gotten their way, that the government has never done anything with the healthcare market, and that these healthcare executives just popped up and started doing this all on their own—all so they can celebrate him being gunned down in the street. It’s disgusting.

Brian Thompson acted exactly like every economically literate person over the last fifty years has said health insurance CEOs would act if progressives got their way. If we’re ever going to see the end of this century-long nightmare, we need to start listening to the people who have gotten it right, not those who pretend they are blameless as they fantasize online about others starting a violent revolution.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 16:20

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

Despite Media Spin, Only 2 Out Of 10 Americans Support Hunter Biden Pardon

Despite Media Spin, Only 2 Out Of 10 Americans Support Hunter Biden Pardon

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

As Democratic politicians and pundits rush to defend President Joe Biden’s unethical pardon of his son, Hunter, the public is expressing overwhelming opposition to his abuse of office.

The latest poll, by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, found that only two out of ten Americans support the pardon despite weeks of media spin.

The poll shows that Biden is no longer even garnering a majority among Democrats. Only 38 percent sought the pardon.

As discussed in my New York Post column this week, there was an embarrassing moment recently at the White House when Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre claimed that a poll showed “64% of the American people agree with the pardon — 64% of the American people. So, we get a sense of where the American people are on this.”

That poll actually showed the majority of Americans opposed the pardon. Yet, it was 64 percent of Democrats who favored a president giving his own son a pardon.

It now turns out that that poll was likely wrong and that, even among Democrats, less than 40 percent support the pardon. Jean-Pierre is unlikely to use today’s press conference to highlight this poll, as she erroneously used the prior poll.

This has not stopped Democratic figures in Congress and the media fighting to excuse a grossly unethical and corrupt use of pardon authority.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate majority whip, even called it a “labor of love.”

Indeed, much of the corruption in Washington is a labor of love, from nepotism to influence peddling to corrupt pardons.

Indeed, faced with overwhelming opposition from the public to the Biden pardon, Democratic members are now “Prisoners of Love” in fighting to rationalize a blatantly unethical act.

This may or may not be a video of the choreographed response at the DNC with the members and media figures:

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 15:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/IQtsA9E Tyler Durden

Beijing Considering Yuan Devaluation In Response To Trump Tariffs

Beijing Considering Yuan Devaluation In Response To Trump Tariffs

Two days ago, when China reported another month of dismal import and export activity, with both missing estimates…

… we reminded readers that at a time when China is scrambling – and failing – to convince the world that it will unleash a historic fiscal and monetary stimulus (just not right now, and not tomorrow, but maybe some time next year so start buying Chinese stonks or something), it will also have to devalue the yuan if it hopes to actually kickstart its mercantlist economy.

Turns out we were right once again because just under a decade since China’s infamous 2015 yuan devaluation, Beijing is getting ready for round two.

According to Reuters, Beijing policymakers are mulling letting the yuan depreciate, possibly to around 7.5 per dollar, in response to the threat of a trade war with the US.

Letting the yuan , depreciate could make Chinese exports cheaper, blunting the impact of tariffs, and creating looser monetary settings in mainland China.

Reuters spoke to three people who have knowledge of the discussions about letting the yuan depreciate but requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

Following the news, which had been rumored both here and elsewhere in recent weeks, the China’s yuan slid the most in a week, while regional peers also slumped, with the New Zealand dollar falling to the weakest in more than two years, while the Australian dollar hit levels last seen in November last year.

Pressure on the yuan had intensified since the re-election of Donald Trump, who has threatened to impose tariffs on China and other countries, and many investors have already speculated Beijing will abandon its current policy of maintaining a stable currency to compensate for any impact this could have on its economy.

“There is a compelling logic embedded in these comments,” said Jane Foley, head of FX strategy at Rabobank in London. “China’s economy is already weak, inflation is low, and it will have to position itself for Trump tariffs.”

Of course, a yuan devaluation will carry huge costs. A rapid depreciation could lead to aggressive capital outflows, triggering even more currency declines, and a surge in bitcion similar to the one observed in 2016 when, in response to China’s 2015 devaluation, the crypto currency saw its first dramatic explosion higher and has never looked back. The downward spiral tends to dent appetite for China stocks and bonds, risks destabilizing financial markets and hurting growth, while sending gold and bitcoin to new all time highs.

On the other hand, it’s not like mercantilist China, whose economy was and remains entirely dependent on exports, has much of a chance. The world’s second largest economy has long been hammered by a prolonged property crisis and souring consumer sentiment. To rejuvenate growth, China earlier this week signaled bolder economic support next year, embracing a “moderately loose” monetary policy and pledging “more proactive” fiscal policy.

The yawning yield gap between Chinese sovereign bonds and Treasuries is also putting pressure on the yuan. China’s 10-year benchmark yield fell to a fresh record low this week, below 1.9%, amid bets on more interest-rate cuts from the PBOC.

Even before the Retuers report, strategists at BNP Paribas saw the yuan falling to 7.45 by the end of 2025, according to a note this week, while Nomura said this month the currency can drop to 7.6 in offshore trading by May. Similarly, JPMorgan expects the offshore yuan to weaken to 7.5 in the second quarter.

“For any macro trader, this is a case of when and by how much yuan weakens in the first half of next year — and not so much if,” said Viraj Patel, strategist at Vanda Research in London. “When Chinese authorities start ‘mulling’ things over, we all know what comes next.”

Still, economists including Karsten Junius, chief economist at Bank J Safra Sarasin, said that it was “too early” for China to step into the market to weaken the yuan before the US announces any trade restrictions.

The Reuters report also refocused trader attention on China’s daily reference rate for the managed currency — Beijing’s preferred tool to guide yuan expectations. That’s the gauge around which the yuan is allowed to trade in a 2% range.

The PBOC has consistently set the so-called fixing stronger than 7.2 since the US election, despite wild swings in the greenback and increasing predictions by analysts that the central bank would buckle. Allowing a breach risks sending a signal to traders that the PBOC is comfortable with further yuan weakness, while holding the line suggests it may dig in for a fight.

“A moderate depreciation is an increasingly likely scenario as long as the move is not excessive versus non-greenback currencies,” said Gary Ng, senior economist at Natixis. “However, the market should still be wary of sudden intervention if the move is too big within a short period of time.”

Khoon Goh, head of Asia Research at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, said that while authorities in Beijing may be open to allowing the yuan to be flexible, they may not want a premature over-reaction based on speculation.

This will not be the first time that policymakers face the question of whether to prioritize currency stability or boost exports. During the last China-US trade war under Trump’s first administration, Beijing allowed the yuan to weaken past the psychological milestone of 7 for the first time since the global financial crisis.

Of course, it all started in August 2015, when amid a collapse in exports, Beijing devalued the yuan in a shocking move to aid growth and reform its foreign-exchange market. That quickly backfired with capital outflows surging, prompting the central bank to burn through its reserves to stabilize the currency, and also sparked the first big move higher in bitcoin, as we observed at the time.

This time, Beijing would be mindful of creating too much weakness and volatility in the currency at a time when it wants to increase the yuan’s reserve status, said Foley at Rabobank. “The authorities would be looking for some equilibrium between these factors.”

And sure enough, news of a potentially weaker yuan triggered a knee-jerk risk-off reaction across markets, from FX to commodities. European stocks also fell in early trade, with energy and miners among the worst performers, although once the US tech bubble got running much of this initial skepticism was promptly forgotten. Oil prices trimmed gains as a depreciating yuan raises concerns about China’s ability to sustain crude demand that’s already weak, given the likely added cost of oil imports priced in dollars. Copper and gold also fell but have since recovered.  Meanwhile, the euro also dropped, indicating traders may be developing the Trump trade into a tariff-risk hedging trade. The dollar gained.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 15:25

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

Still ‘Stupid In America’

Still ‘Stupid In America’

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

America’s government-run school system is failing…

In a memorable April 1995 video, Apple founder Steve Jobs declared, “The unions are the worst thing that ever happened to education because it’s not a meritocracy. It turns into a bureaucracy, which is exactly what has happened. The teachers can’t teach, and administrators run the place, and nobody can be fired. It’s terrible….”

Then in January 2006, John Stossel’s eye-opening documentary, Stupid in America, was aired.

The investigative ABC show was billed as a nasty title for a program about public education, but some nasty things are going on in America’s public schools, and it’s about time we face up to it…The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from poorer countries that spend much less money on education, ranking behind not only Belgium but also Poland, the Czech Republic, and South Korea…This should come as no surprise if you remember that public education in the United States is a government monopoly. Don’t like your public school? Tough. The school is terrible? Tough. Your taxes fund that school regardless of whether it’s good or bad. That’s why government monopolies routinely fail their customers. Union-dominated monopolies are even worse.”

Sadly, since Jobs’ comments and Stossel’s documentary, public school performance has not improved.

The latest example of our descent is shown by the scores on the most recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), an assessment administered to 650,000 4th and 8th graders in 64 countries.

The 2023 test, the results of which were released on December 4, revealed that average U.S. math scores declined sharply between 2019 and 2023, falling 18 points for 4th graders and 27 points for 8th graders. Internationally, this puts the U.S., a purported world leader, at 22nd of 63 education systems for 4th-grade math and 20th of 45 education systems for 8th-grade math.

Additionally, average U.S. math scores for both 4th and 8th graders reverted to performance levels of 1995, the first year the TIMSS assessment was administered, meaning any progress made since Steve Jobs’ damning comments has been erased.

Peggy Carr, National Center for Education Statistics Commissioner, summed up the dreary results, asserting that the phenomenon is particularly troubling because the U.S. is an outlier compared to other countries. She added that among 29 education systems that participated in both the 2011 and 2019 iterations of TIMSS, the U.S. was the only one that saw widening score gaps between top- and bottom-scoring students in both subjects and both grade levels.

The TIMSS results are hardly unique. The 2022 NAEP, or “Nation’s Report Card,” showed that nationwide, 29% of the nation’s 8th graders are proficient in reading, while just 26% are proficient in math.

The NAEP in 2022 also disclosed that just 13% of 8th graders met proficiency standards for U.S. history, meaning they could explain major themes, periods, events, people, ideas, and turning points in the country’s history. Additionally, about 20% of students scored at or above the proficient level in civics. Both scores represent all-time lows on these two tests.

Sadly, many parents are fooled by their kids’ lack of knowledge as teachers frequently resort to grade inflation. In fact, a recent study from the Equitable Grading Project of about 33,000 middle school and high school grades found that almost 60% of students’ grades did not match their course knowledge according to standardized tests. The mismatches were highest among Black and Hispanic students and those from families who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

Those with a vested interest in government-run schools invariably blame underfunding for abysmal education results.

But reality tells a different story.

According to Just Facts, which is dedicated to researching verifiable data about public policy issues, the U.S. spent $1.2 trillion on education in 2022. The bulk of the outlay, $834 billion, went to elementary and secondary education, while $226 billion was disbursed to higher education, and $121 billion went to libraries and other forms of education.

This total breaks down to $8,993 for every household in the U.S., 4.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product, and 14% of the government’s current expenditures. It’s important to note that these figures don’t include land purchases for schools and other facilities, as well as some of the costs of durable items like buildings and computers. The unfunded liabilities of post-employment non-pension benefits (like health insurance) are also not included.

Just Facts also finds that “the average inflation-adjusted cost of private K–12 schools in the 2019–20 school year was $9,709 per student. In contrast, the cost for public schools was $17,013 per student—or 75% more than private schools.”

What can we do about this deplorable state of affairs?

“Dismantling the Department of Education won’t make any measurable difference in educational outcomes,” writes Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

“If you want real transformation, fight the elected school boards, defang the unions, and create alternatives to the ed schools.”

Petrill is correct, but more than anything, parents need to take charge. If your state has a private choice program, see if there is a school that is a better fit for your child. Or maybe there is a high-performing local charter school that does a better job than your zip code-mandated public school.

Another option for parents is to provide education for their kids in the same way they provide food, clothing, and shelter, and indeed, homeschooling rates continue to rise. Brian Ray, president of the National Home Education Research Institute, declares that there are currently about 3.2 million students educated at home in grades K-12 in the U.S. (roughly 6% of school-age children), compared to 2.5 million in spring 2019.

Ronald Reagan once famously quipped, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’”

Too many children are educationally shortchanged these days, and to turn things around, we must stop looking to the government—especially where its employees are unionized—for solutions.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 15:05

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

Roger Ver Claims US Targets Him For Bitcoin Advocacy, Not Taxes

Roger Ver Claims US Targets Him For Bitcoin Advocacy, Not Taxes

Authored by Josh O’Sullivan via CoinTelegraph.com,

Roger Ver, widely known as “Bitcoin Jesus” for his early promotion of cryptocurrency, is contesting charges made against him by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).

Ver, who renounced his US citizenship in 2014, was arrested in Spain in April. US authorities are seeking his extradition on charges including tax evasion, mail fraud and filing false tax returns.

Prosecutors claim Ver undervalued his assets and failed to report ownership of about 131,000 Bitcoin BTC$97,604. He denied the allegations in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Dec. 10.

“I wasn’t an American citizen or living in the US at the time these claims were made,” Ver said. He accused the US government of being “angry” not about taxes but about his “lack of obedience.”

Legal history

According to the DOJ, Ver failed to report significant capital gains from Bitcoin sales and underreported the value of two companies when he renounced his US citizenship in 2014. Prosecutors allege Ver concealed 131,000 BTC, worth nearly $240 million at the time of sale in 2017, leading to a $48 million tax shortfall.

Ver’s defense argues the allegations are outdated and stem from ambiguous cryptocurrency tax laws.

His legal team also contends that US prosecutors misused confidential communications and violated legal protections.

Political retaliation claims

In the interview with Carlson, Ver insisted that the charges don’t stem from tax charges but from his high-profile promotion of cryptocurrencies, which he believes threatens government control of money systems.

He also said that US intelligence agencies orchestrated a campaign to suppress BTC’s original goal of decentralization. 

The Bitcoin evangelist also linked his indictment to the recent publication of his book, which he claimed exposes government interference in the cryptocurrency industry.

Tax evasion charges dismissal

On Dec. 3, Ver moved to dismiss the US tax evasion charges by claiming the case was “unconstitutional” and arguing that the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) exit tax was “inscrutably vague.”

In the filing, he said that the charges relied on “provisions of the US tax laws” that were unclear about the “application to digital assets of the kind that underlie the charges.”

The IRS exit tax requires that US citizen pay all required taxes before renouncing their citizenship and removing themselves from the country’s taxation system.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 14:25

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

FBI Director Chris Wray Resigns

FBI Director Chris Wray Resigns

Before President-elect Donald Trump could say “You’re Fired!” – FBI Director Christopher Wray has resigned, and will leave his post at the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

Wray’s decision comes weeks after Trump nominated Kash Patel as his replacement. Patel, a fierce critic of the FBI, has said he would seek to shrink the agency’s power, close its Washington headquarters, fire its top ranks, and prosecute corrupt agents.

While Wray’s departure was always in the cards, the move comes two days after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote an 11-page letter to Wray asking him to step down, accusing him of mismanagement and “failure to take control of the FBI.”

“These failures are serious enough and their pattern widespread enough to have shattered my confidence in your leadership and the confidence and hope many others in Congress placed in you,” wrote Grassley.

As the Epoch Times notes further, in November 2022, Grassley published FBI documents showing that higher-ranking officials were sometimes penalized less severely than subordinates.

Wray had addressed this disparity, saying in a Bureau-wide email on Dec. 11, 2020, that the agency “has zero tolerance for any form of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct.”

On March 4, 2022, FBI Deputy Director Abbate warned all FBI employees: “Regardless of your rank and title, every one of us has the responsibility to treat everyone with dignity, respect, and professionalism. … Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.”

Grassley also mentioned in his letter his inquiry about the vetting of refugees from Afghanistan through the Operation Allies Welcome program. In February 2022, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported that the Department of Homeland Security had not cross-checked these evacuees against data from the Department of Defense.

As a result, 50 individuals who had been flagged as “potentially significant security concerns” by the National Ground Intelligence Center were allowed into the United States.

Requests to the FBI for further information were ignored, Grassley said.

Wray said “in a classified multi-agency briefing to congressional staff” that he was unsure of the location of other refugees who might pose a threat, Grassley wrote.

“I can’t sit here right now and tell you that we know where all are located at any given time,” Grassley quoted Wray as saying.

He pointed out that one potential terror threat had been foiled when the FBI arrested Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi on Oct. 7 of this year. Tawhedi was allegedly planning a terror attack to disrupt the U.S. election on Nov. 5.

Grassley also accused Wray and the FBI of exercising a double standard by refusing to investigate President Joe Biden’s or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information.

President-elect Donald Trump appointed Wray in 2017 after firing the previous director, James Comey. In a recent interview with “Meet the Press,” Trump expressed displeasure over Wray’s performance.

“He invaded my home,” Trump said, referring to the 2022 FBI raid on his Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.

Trump also cited Wray’s initial claim that his ear was struck by shrapnel instead of an assassin’s bullet, and waning public respect for the FBI as an institution.

“I can’t say I’m thrilled,” he said.

The president-elect has already named Kash Patel the new FBI director, indicating that Wray’s time at the post is nearly over. However, Grassley wants Wray and Abbate to step down sooner.

“For the good of the country, it’s time for you and your deputy to move on to the next chapter in your lives,” the letter says.

The agency told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement: “The FBI has repeatedly demonstrated our commitment to responding to Congressional oversight and being transparent with the American people.

“Director Wray and Deputy Director Abbate have taken strong actions toward achieving accountability in the areas mentioned in the letter and remain committed to sharing information about the continuously evolving threat environment facing our nation and the extraordinary work of the FBI.”

Tyler Durden
Wed, 12/11/2024 – 14:08

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/SW1Opxl Tyler Durden