How to Be an Adult 101: The New College Curriculum?

DepressionAs noted previously by Lenore Skenazy, one university is so concerned about its students’ increasingly fragile mental health conditions that it is prepared to offer something akin to remedial adult education—classes on how to cope with the stresses of adulthood, in other words.

I review the facts in a recent column for The Daily Beast:

Call it what you will—the university likes “resilience” education better—but the substance is the same: Too many university students seem to have missed out on vital conflict-resolution, de-stressing, and life-organizing techniques during their previous 12 years of schooling.

ECU is just one of many universities to struggle with, well, struggling students. Last year, Brown University’s student newspaper reported that the campus’s student protesters were suffering from panic attacks, suicidal thoughts, and failing grades because of the toll their activism was taking on them. Students at Oberlin College told The New Yorker that they were considering dropping out—they were fed up with the college’s inability to make accommodations for them due to mental anguish.

The college mental health crisis—if it can be called such—is closely related to the college free speech problem, since depressed students who claim trauma status are the ones most likely to call for institutional policies that place limits on free expression:

Make no mistake: Emotionally coddled, easily offended, mentally traumatized students aren’t just a danger to themselves—they are exerting an injurious influence on the overall campus climate. They are the ones calling for what psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes as “vindictive protectiveness,” or institutional policies designed to protect students from psychological harm.

These policies are well-known to readers: trigger warnings that require professors to consider whether they are teaching objectionable material; safe spaces that appear on campus whenever a visiting speaker expresses a controversial idea; speech codes that thwart students’ efforts to exercise their First Amendment rights; and “Bias Response Teams” that investigate members of campus for saying the wrong things, even inadvertently.

Read my column here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2cujQDG
via IFTTT

Xetra-Gold’s Responds To Deutsche Bank’s Failure To Deliver Physical Gold

In the latest stunning development involving a documented failure of a bank to deliver physical gold when demanded, yesterday we reported that according to German website godmode-trader.de, a client of the Xetra-Gold Exchange-Traded Commodity was told the fund’s designated sponsor, Deutsche Bank, would be unable to deliver the requested gold. This went against the promises made explicitly in the Xetra-Gold’s prospectus, which says that investors are entitled to the delivery of the certified amount of physical gold at any time, and adds that “since the introduction of Xetra-Gold in 2007, investors have exercised this right 900 times, with a total of 4.5 tons of gold delivered.”

As the article correctly concluded: anyone who wants to easily convert their Xetra-Gold holdings into physical gold – at least for clients of Deutsche Bank – can do so only by selling their shares, and then buying gold coins or bars directly elsewhere. Which leads the author to the logical question: what is the worth of the Xetra-Gold service, which certifies the right to redeem physical gold, if said delivery is no longer possible? In other words, what was supposedly an ETC which promised physical delivery upon demand, is nothing more than yet another “paper only” play.

We asked another, more nuanced question: is the inability to deliver physical gold an issue with Xetra-Gold, or with the company’s “designated sponsor“, Deutsche Bank, and if the latter is suddenly unable to satisfy even the smallest of delivery requests by retail clients, just how pervasive is the global physical gold shortage?

Our report has stirred a significant response, both at Deutsche Bank, and at Xetra-Gold, which today filed an official response, one which can be read in German on the following page.

What is notable is that instead of immediately refuting the story – as it should have done if there is no breach of prospectus covenants – and declaring that any and all physical gold demands have and will be satisfied, Xetra took a very circular approach to responding, one which in effect confirmed our concerns, that the issue was not so much with Xetra, but with the sponsor bank, in this case Deutsche Bank.

Furthermore, the author of the original godmode article, Oliver Baron, penned his own reaction in an article titled Deutsche Borse takes a stand. He writes that “yesterday’s article “Xetra-Gold: Nothing but a scrap of paper?” has struck nerves: Not only that GodmodeTrader was cited among others, at “Zero Hedge” a financial website influential on Wall Street, but also at Deutsche Bank and at Deutsche Borse, where the article has caused quite an internal stir, as Godmode traders was informed.”

He further writes that Deutsche Borse Commodities has released a fairly spongy formulated observation on the physical delivery of Xetra-Gold. The key phrases are:

“The Deutsche Borse Commodities GmbH points out that holders of Xetra-Gold shares can at any time exercise the right to delivery of securitized gold. Deliveries are made via a branch of a bank indicated by the investor. The requirement is that the branch offers this service because the delivery can take place only through the depository bank of the investor.”

As we reported yesterday, what made this particular “failure to deliver” notable is that the original client had asked for delivery via a Deutsche Bank branch, the same bank as the ETC’s sponsor, which is why, as we noted before, this appears to have been a problem involving not Xetra-Gold, as much as Deutsche Bank itself.

Baron agrees. As he writes, “in other words, it depends, according to Deutsche Borse Commodities, on the particular bank branch whether the physical delivery can be carried out.”

And, as we learned last night, it does appear that if the delivery is requested at a Deutsche Bank branch, the answer is no.

But this is where it gets even worse. As Baron adds, in a telephone conversation with the author, the Deutsche Borse Commodities exchange was unwilling to supply further information to Godmode traders whether physical delivery is generally feasible at most bank branches or not. And worst of all, “the exchange was unable to name any bank which is in a position to deliver physical gold without problems.

Baron’s conclusion: “the “right” for actual delivery at Xetra-Gold is theoretical: physical delivery is only possible if the respective bank branch also cooperates. Suspicious gold investors should consider Xetra-Gold as another form of paper gold and not as a physical gold investment.

Our take is slightly different: while we already know that physical delivery at Deutsche Bank appears to have been compromised, according to the Deutsche Borse Commodities response, the ability of any and every other bank in Germany to deliver gold is now likewise questionable. Which begs the question: where is all the physical gold?

via http://ift.tt/2c4S7Y0 Tyler Durden

The Secret Global Court – Why Corporate Criminals and Corrupt Politicians Desperately Want the TPP

Screen Shot 2016-09-01 at 12.58.16 PM

Obama needs to ensure he gets well compensated after leaving office for a job well done protecting, defending and further enriching the global oligarch class. This is precisely why he’s so adamant about passing the TPP during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress when he knows “representatives” who no longer face reelection can be coerced or bribed into voting for this monumental public betrayal.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) ins’t really a free trade deal, it’s a way for global oligarchs to consolidate, grow and protect their enormous wealth. The investor-state-dispute-settlement system (ISDS) is perhaps the most nefarious and objectionable aspect of the deal, with this shadowy court system being used to accomplish the following for the super rich and powerful:

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2bNAABP
via IFTTT

Smith & Wesson Forecasts Record Quarterly Revenue As Earnings Soar 93%

Moments ago, America’s legendary gun maker Smith & Wesson reported Q1 earnings which, not surprisingly, beat estimate on the top and bottom line, reporting EPS of $0.62, far above the $0.53 expected, and 93% higher compared to a year earlier, on revenue of $207.1 million, also a significant beat to the $198 million expected, not to mention a whopping 40% higher Y/Y.

A delighted James Debney, the CEO of SWHC, said, “We are very pleased with our first quarter results, which exceeded our financial guidance. We believe that higher revenue was driven by strong consumer demand as reflected in adjusted background checks from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as well as our own market share gains.  During the quarter, we announced the acquisition of Taylor Brands and Crimson Trace, two accretive acquisitions, making strong in-roads on our strategy to become a leader in the market for shooting, hunting, and rugged outdoor enthusiasts. These acquisitions, which further expand our presence in the markets for outdoor products and accessories, were completed early in the second quarter.  Based upon that timing, as well as our performance for the first quarter and our revised outlook for the remainder of fiscal 2017, we are raising our full year revenue and net income guidance.”

More importantly, SWHC just guided to what would be a new all time high in revenue, predicting a sasles range of $220-$230 for the coming quarter (compared to Wall Street estimates of $165.6 million) whose midpoint would make it the highest revenue quarter in company history. We are confident the company will easily surpass this internal guidance, especially thanks to the ongoing attempts by the president to implement gun control executive orders.

The stock, while not at its all time high which it hit earlier this year, appears tentative however, it if the tremendous topline growth in revenue, which has to be seen to be believed, continues we anticipate new all time highs very soon.

Spot the catalyst that unleashed SWHC’s unprecedented growth burst.

Yes, you are reading that chart correctly: Smith and Wessons sales are up 200% since Obama was elected.

And this of course: the number of FBI background checks, a direct proxy for gun sale in any given monthm which just hit an all time high for the month of May.

As with every other quarter when SWHC reports blowout numbers, we wonder if secretly Obama isn’t merely a very deeply planted agent for the NRA and gun lobby – if it wasn’t for his constant threats of enhanced gun control, it is doubtless that sales in the US would be order of magnitude lower.

 

via http://ift.tt/2bMEwRA Tyler Durden

Voters Terrified of Candidates, Explosion at SpaceX Testing, Hinckley Heading Home: P.M. Links

  • SpaceXToday’s “dog bites man” poll news: Voters are more scared of what the candidate they oppose might do as president than they are excited about the candidate they’re supporting.
  • An explosion on launch pad at a SpaceX testing in Florida destroyed a rocket and a satellite during a routine test. Nobody was injured.
  • John Hinckley Jr., failed Ronald Reagan assassin, will leave the psychiatric hospital and start living at his mother’s home in Williamsburg, Virginia, starting Sept. 10.
  • The White House is complaining that the Obama administration is not getting enough credit for its transparency and .. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I’m sorry … I just couldn’t finish this one.
  • Pennsylvania regulators have reinstated an $11 million fine against Uber for operating within the state without approval.
  • Apple CEO Tim Cook described the European Union’s attempt to force Ireland to make Apple pay more in taxes as “total political crap.” Unsurprisingly, leaders in German and France are supporting the EU. (guess where those taxes might go?)
  • Dallas Police Chief David Brown is retiring.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bWkx67
via IFTTT

Rick Perry Once Called Donald Trump “Cancer” but the Former Texas Gov Is a Tumor Himself

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who tried twice to run for president, is like a human ice-cream headache: Every time he shows up, your teeth start to hurt and you get a pain in your noggin that you can’t quite get rid of.

Back in the day (2011), he was the great Republican hope to beat Barack Obama before he demonstrated an inability to count to three. In the early days of the 2016 campaign season, he called eventual GOP nominee Donald Trump a “cancer on conservatism” before…endorsing the billionaire and showing up at rallies for him, including the Republican National Convention. Trump “is one of the most talented people who has ever run for the president I have ever seen,” the longest-serving governor in Texas history said when endorsing the billionaire developer back in May.

It is precisely this sort of flip-floppery among major political figures that is driving record levels of contempt for the major politicial parties and their nominees. It’s one thing to say that you disagree—even vehemently—with an intra-party opponent. It’s another to liken him to cancer and then essentially say, “Never mind.” Or, as Perry also did, say you’re open to being vice president for President Cancer.

And then there is this new spectacle that Perry is forcing on America:

I’m not one to stand on false ceremony and I think that “dignity” is vastly overrated, but would it kill politicians who want to be taken seriously not to act like complete attention whores all the time? Trust in authority is declining, which is generally a good thing. Voter identification with the Democrats and Republicans is at or near record lows, which is also generally a good thing. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump started the general election season as the least-approved major-party candidates of all time and their poll numbers continue to sink—again, generally a good thing. Yet there is a serious problem when trust and confidence in government and politicians hollows out:

The political scientists Philippe Aghion, Yann Algan, Pierre Cahuc and Andrei Shleifer wrote a paper titled “Regulation and Distrust.” Using data from the World Values Survey, the authors convincingly argue that “distrust influences not just regulation itself, but the demand for regulation.” They found that “distrust fuels support for government control over the economy. What is perhaps most interesting about this finding . . . is that distrust generates demand for regulation even when people realize that the government is corrupt and ineffective.”

That is most definitely not a good thing. And to the extent that politicians can stop their own clown-show antics, they really should, even if it means that Rick Perry doesn’t get to cut the rug on Dancing With The Stars or is pushed not to call opponents cancer and then embrace them in the interest of getting some small position in a Trump administration.

There’s a long line of criticism of libertarians that we’re fundamentally not serious about politics and policy (never mind the hundreds of thousands or even millions of words published in issues of Reason and at Reason.com over the years, not to mention by the Cato Institute, Foundation for Economic Education, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Mercatus Center, and other libertarian outfits). But it’s characters such as Rick Perry—and Anthony Weiner, of course, but also Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, with all their “appearance of impropriety” baggage—that have hollowed out belief in good government. While the GOP nominated a political novice whose reality-testing seems to be on the fritz and the Dems nominated a cabinet member who refused to use government-supplied email, the Libertarian Party nominated a centrist two-term governor for president. Bless its pointed little head. And God bless the USA. Because our political class is full of idiots and worse.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bNxUnw
via IFTTT

eVIXeration Rescues Stocks From Crude Carnage, Dismal Data, Auto Angst

Productivity worse… Consumer confidence worse… Manufacturing PMI worse…Construction Spending worse… ISM Manufacturing worse… Auto Sales worse… ISM New Orders worse… JPMorgan World PMI worse… (Mexico PMI better)

 

The last two days have seen the biggest disappointment in US macro data in weeks…(now at its weakest in 2 months)…

 

S&P tumbled to the lows of the Twilight Zone, and bounced…

 

Notably pushing VIX above 14.5 briefly, before crushing VIX all the way to its Lows of the day…what a farce!

 

S&P ended perfectly unch… everything else panic bid to green…

 

Once again the laste day ramp desperately tried to maintain the dream, pushing S&P, Dow, Nasdaq green on the week…

 

Chatter of a big buy program lifted the indices to VWAP around lunchtime (briefly tagging unch for some indices)…not the overnight ramp after China PMI proved everything was awesome (before China's other PMI said it was not)

 

Aside from Energy (which plunged on crude's collapse), Financials were today's biggest loser  – worst day in 3 weeks…until the panic bid into the close – look at XLE (Energy!!)

 

Treasury yields were a wild ride today – bonds sold off overnight into the macro data this morning but once it was all a disaster, bonds ripped back – ending the day with yields down around 2bps…

 

The USD Index ripped into the data – exuberantly anticipating a Fed rate hike – then dumped after the shitty data hit… (worst day for USD in 2 weeks) Notice cable rallied hard after a big beat in UK PMI…(and Yen rallied afteer the US data disappointed)

 

While copper slipped lower (less stimulus hope from China), and crude crashed, PMs rallied as the USD sank (gold's best day in 2 weeks, Silver's best day in 3 weeks)

 

Crude was the biggest headline maker on the day… tumbling to 3-week lows… down 15% from recent highs…

 

After the last few days' hits, gold bounced hard off its 100-day moving average…

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/2bFVbG7 Tyler Durden

Why Trump Can Still Win

Submitted by Conrad Black via Strategic-Culture.org,

The dust has settled since the conventions and Mrs. Clinton appears to have settled into a lead of three to seven points. This reflects the usual convention surge and a final flare-up of Trumpian foot-in-mouth disorder. It is far from a safe margin ten weeks from a presidential election, and even farther from the elephantine gap the more energetic anti-Trumpians were predicting. (They envisioned something like the sixty-four point margin in the French presidential election of 2002 between Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen.)

The Democratic National Convention was designed to be a shock and awe campaign on behalf of all the forces of continuity of both parties. Both Clintons, both Obamas, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, as well as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, an all-time record for addresses from present, former and intended imminent occupants of the White House and Naval Observatory (where the vice president lives). If Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine win and are reelected, it will be an astonishing sixty-four years in the official residences for those convention speakers, without adding a future term or two for Kaine or Warren.

It was intended to be a show of strength and unity for the whole concept of continuity of what the country has had for most of the last quarter century. In reinforcement of that theme, Michael Bloomberg was trotted out to perform a billionaire New Yorker-to-billionaire New Yorker hit job on Donald Trump, wedged in among all the past, present and future public tenants.

The question was whether the parade of verbose incumbents stabilized the election campaign and rallied adequate numbers of those satisfied with the Clinton-Obama record and ethos, and added to it a cubit of those capable of being frightened at the prospect of Trump in high places; or whether it reinforced the exasperation, boredom, anger, and numbers of those who want to clean house and sweep the Clinton dynasty into the same dust-bin as the Bush dynasty which inadvertently spawned it. The question remains unanswered, as neither has occurred.

In fact, the Bushes and Clintons have been more incumbencies than dynasties. The Adams had father and son presidents, then a grandson who was a vice presidential candidate and distinguished minister to Great Britain during the Civil War; respected writers descended from him. They were one of America’s most prominent families for 150 years. The Harrisons had an Indian Wars and War of 1812 general who became president, his son was a U.S. senator, and the senator’s son was a president, having been a Civil War general. They were a famous family in the Midwest for almost all of the nineteenth century. The Roosevelts gave the nation two of its greatest presidents, but they were, apart from the fact that Franklin married Theodore’s niece and goddaughter, only sixth cousins, a generation apart in age and in different parties, but they were, between them, very prominent in the public life of the country for nearly fifty years, and one or the other was the leading American public figure for probably half that time. These were meritocratic dynasties, though the Adams and Roosevelts were well launched into their public careers from well-to-do families.

Prescott Bush was an able and respected man who married the daughter of the boss and became the head of a merchant bank, and then a U.S. senator from Connecticut. His son, George H.W., was well-placed in the oil business in Texas through his father’s connections, became congressman in a safe Republican district of Texas, and was rewarded by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford for two unsuccessful Senate campaigns in Texas with the embassy to the United Nations, chairmanship of the Republican Party, the mission to China and direction of the CIA. He was competent in all these roles and ran behind Reagan in the primaries in 1980, conceding the primary he could win in Reagan’s favor after Reagan had sewn up the nomination; the nominee rewarded his courtesy with the vice-presidential nomination.

The vice president performed capably and stood on the Reagan coat-tails all the way into the White House. He was an above average president but not a good party leader, and allowed the erratic Texas billionaire Ross Perot to split the Republicans, bringing in the Clintons, who might otherwise not have been durably prominent outside Arkansas. Between them, the Bushes and Clintons held the White House for twenty consecutive years. Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama in the primaries eight years ago, but Obama sold the ex officio delegates on the timeliness of a nonwhite president; he won and gave Mrs. Clinton the State Department as a consolation prize. Thus, the two families held one of the three greatest offices in the federal government for eight straight terms, from the inauguration of the senior Bush as vice president in 1981 to Mrs. Clinton’s retirement from the State Department in 2013.

There has never been anything remotely like such a two-family condominium in the country’s history, and as all readers know, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have spent the last four years preparing for another crack at the White House. Hillary limped over the first hurdle after a bruising battle with an unfeasible old socialist, and Jeb had an unscheduled rendezvous with the rocket-propelled grenade of the Trump campaign, after pitching a stupefying amount of backers’ money out of the windows.

The points of this recitation are that the country’s candidates for national office have steadily declined in quality (apart from Reagan, who first ran for the Republican nomination in 1968) since the Watergate crucifixion in 1973–1974, and that both parties are now having great difficulty staying within the bounds of moderation. Today, two-thirds of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, the Democratic nominee’s trust level among voters is an archeological level of about a third of the voters, and even after the heavy Democratic batteries have spoken, the polls show Americans fairly evenly divided.

I will make a hazardous prediction: I think that Hillary Clinton, in the words of Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, when his fellow-Republicans were drinking the Kool Aid about the pre-ordained unacceptability of Donald Trump, will “drop like a hot rock.” I am not ignoring the shortcomings of Trump as a candidate for such a great office. His short temper, tendency to braggadocio, vagueness on many issues and the orgy of political incorrectness that the scores of millions of Archie Bunkers in America find so endearing, are not the type-casters’ model of a successful challenge to the ultimate former incumbent, thundering on the door of the people’s house one more time.

But that is the point. The people haven’t entirely figured out that it all started to go horribly wrong when one of the most successful administrations in history was torn down over the idiocy of Watergate. The president who ended school segregation, the draft, the endless riots, the hijackings and the assassinations, founded the Environmental Protection Agency and opened relations with China, began the Middle East peace process, and signed the greatest arms-control agreement in history, bungled Watergate; but there has never been any evidence that he committed any illegalities, and certainly not anything to justify removal from office.

Hillary Clinton lied to federal officials, has been verbally indicted by the FBI director (even as he declined to indict her formally), has never answered any serious questions about the tangled relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department, or even about her miraculous profits as a neophyte commodities trader in the Whitewater affair; her offenses vastly exceed anything Richard Nixon did, and her accomplishments are comparatively minimal. Most Americans don’t analyze their recent history as precisely as this, but they are very disappointed and angry and do not particularly want any more pleasantries and civilities. That was all they got from the Bushes and Romneys and others, and Donald Trump suits the mood of a “huge” number of Americans.

The Democrats fired their national chairperson as their convention opened, for abuse of her position at the expense of Senator Sanders. The public are as disgusted with the Washington media as with the office-holders attached to the furniture in the great offices of the land. The same media who still ululate with triumph at the salvation they engineered by bloodlessly assassinating Nixon and delivering Indochina to the uneven mercies of Pol Pot and the North Vietnamese Communists were lured from their spurious caves of nonpartisanship by the Democratic convention. The token Republican on the ten-member CNN panel that drooled with glee over Bloomberg’s shabby, envious speech were purring like tabbies after Hillary’s platitudinous exercise in the make-believe that her candidacy had not been grievously wounded by decades of self-indulgence and extensive misconduct.

Donald Trump is an improbable savior, and may not be a savior in the end. But he is not complicit in twenty years of the great housing bubble followed by the Great Recession, or in doubling in just seven years the national debt accumulated in the 233 previous years of American history (to produce economic growth of 1 percent), or in giving a green light to Iranian nuclear arms which Clinton and Obama shouted themselves hoarse saying they would stop; or in miring the conventional armed forces of the country for a decade in ridiculous wars in the Middle East that gave most of Iraq to Iran and left the West allied with Iran and Russia in the remnants of Iraq but opposed to them in the war-torn carcass of Syria, while costing scores of thousands of American casualties and trillions of dollars and generating an immense humanitarian crisis. Donald Trump did not invent the evaporating Red Line, is not afraid to utter the words “Islamist terrorism” when it occurs, did not sleep while the ambassador in Libya was murdered or apologize to the Muslims of the world over irrelevant activities of an individual American anti-Muslim creator of home-videos. He didn’t tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff that climate change was the greatest threat to the United States and didn’t call the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence.”

Hillary Clinton barely exceeded 50 percent of the Democratic vote against the absurd socialist retread Sanders. The Bush-Romney-McCain society of Republican losers got 20 percent of the votes against Trump and Cruz. If the winner of this election doesn’t do better than the last two presidents, the succeeding occupant of the White House is likely to be well outside the thirty-yard lines and sound a lot like Sanders or Cruz, a specter that would justify the pyrotechnic frenzy many affect over Trump.

The game is up. Trump may not sound much like Washington or Lincoln or the Roosevelts or Reagan. But he is the only alternative to the incarnation of the decline and self-flagellation of America who is his Democratic opponent. Clinton would enthrone political correctness and flatline the economy. Unless Trump, who has been quite prudent in the last two weeks, succumbs to such mortal self-inflicted verbal blunderbuss wounds, and the biased, hopeless Washington press corps manages to brainwash and gender-modify scores of millions of despairing Archie Bunkers into shrieking Rachel Maddows, he will win. This long-running ascendancy of, in Cromwellian terms, “decayed servitors” cannot go on. And as Herb Stein famously averred, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

via http://ift.tt/2cu9BPz Tyler Durden

Want to Reduce Illegal Immigration? You Don’t Have to Build a Wall

Donald Trump’s hard-line immigration speech on Wednesday night included plans for hiring more border patrol agents, deploying bio-metric scanners to catch illegal immigrants and establishing a new “deportation force” to round-up and eject many of the estimated 11 million people in the United States without documentation.

Of course there will also be a wall. An “impenetrable, physical, tall, beautiful, southern border wall” that would be paid for by Mexico, as Reason’s Ed Krayewski reported.

Cracking down on illegal immigration is the central plank of Trump’s campaign, but if he’s serious about shutting down the flow of undocumented workers across America’s southern border, he might want to consider an idea more radical than giant walls and an expanding immigration police force: letting more people into the country legally.

As David Bier, an immigration policy analyst for the Cato Institute, notes in a blog post this week: historically the best way to reduce illegal immigration has been to increase legal immigration. That’s because one of the biggest impediments to legal immigration is the federal government’s quotas on certain categories of workers. Those quotas are arbitrary totals completely disconnected from the economic forces that drive immigrants to seek work in the United States.

Those quotas “are the definition of an unreasonable immigration policy,” writes Bier. “They are no different than Soviet manufacturing quotas, and they have the exact same effect: discord in the free market—surpluses where workers are unneeded, shortages where they are needed, and black markets that inevitably results when government makes movement illegal.”

For example: the federal government issues about 150,000 visas annually for temporary farm workers — a number that doesn’t even come close to the estimated 2 million seasonal workers on U.S. farms and ranches.

When government policy allows more lesser-skilled guest workers in the country, there are fewer illegal immigrants, Bier argues with this graphic:

In an op-ed for CNN on Wednesday, Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson explained why this approach would do a better job of reducing illegal immigration than Trump’s proposals (or current U.S. policy).

“Our politicians, both right and left, have created a system for legal immigration that simply doesn’t work. We have artificial quotas. We have ‘caps’ on certain categories of workers that have no real relationship to the realities of the free market,” Johnson wrote.

Instead, Johnson favors a system with no caps, no categories and no quotas. “Just a straightforward background check, the proper paperwork to obtain a real Social Security number and work legally,” he wrote, calling that “a reliable system to know who is coming and who is going.”

Note that he isn’t calling for open borders or amnesty for illegal immigrants. People coming to the country still have to follow the rules, but he says the government should make it easier for them to do that.

Under Trump’s plan (and current U.S. policy) there are essentially two groups of people coming across the border: legal immigrant and illegal immigrants. The first group is fine, but the second group consists of de facto criminals because they are breaking the law to enter the country, the argument goes.

Immigration policy requires a bit more nuance than that. Let’s assume there are actually three groups of people coming across the border: legal immigrants, illegal immigrants who want to come here legally but cannot because of quotas and actual criminals who are coming to the United States to traffic drugs or fulfill any of the other fevered nightmares of the so-called Alt-Right.

Current immigration policy forces the second and third groups to cross the border illegally, but for very different reasons. Members of the second group are seeking economic opportunities and are forced into breaking the law by nonsensical government policy, but would be able to pass a basic background check under a “reliable system to know who is coming and going,” like Johnson proposes. They want to be legal immigrants, and we should welcome them.

The third group is pretty small, but those are the people Trump and his fans are actually worried about. Right now, they are harder to find and stop because they are mixed in with all the illegal-but-would-prefer-to-be-legal immigrants. A better legal immigration system would leave only those “criminal immigrants” would be jumping the fence—or wall, if you believe Trump will actually build one—and the border patrol (which, by the way, has been doubled in size under President Obama) would be able to focus exclusively on them.

If Trump’s supporters don’t like this idea—and I suspect some of them won’t—then what they are really against is immigration, period. Trump even suggested during Wednesday’s speech that he would be open to further restrictions on legal immigration, saying he wanted to “reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers.

If the goal is truly to stop the “criminal immigrants,” as Trump is fond of saying, then this is the best way to sort that element out from the rest of the people coming across the border in search of a job.

If Johnson’s plan were implemented, says Bier, “the days of illegal immigration would be behind us for good.”

That’s what Trump says he wants, right?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bYAsAa
via IFTTT

“Death, Taxes, & A Disappointing August Jobs Data” – Why Tomorrow’s Payroll Print Will Be A Farce

As the world awaits tomorrow's "most important jobs data ever" on the basis that it alone will decide the path of The Fed's data-dependent rate decisions and thus the tightening of financial conditions across global markets, there is one chart that everyone has to see…

August NFPs have been weaker than consensus expectations in each of the last 5 years and in 14 of the last 18 years of available data.

 

And furthermore, going back 25 years, no month has produced less jobs than August…

h/t @RyanDetrick

Which could be a problem, because, as Bloomberg reports, while the focus was on Yellen’s statement that the case for an interest-rate increase “has strengthened in recent months,” she followed with new language that the central bank’s decisions depend on the degree that data “continues to confirm” the outlook.

That, and other recent remarks by Fed officials, suggest that job gains need to be merely solid — rather than extraordinary — to warrant raising borrowing costs for the first time in 2016.

 

After global developments and weak May employment derailed Fed rate-hike plans earlier this year, U.S. payrolls surged in June and July, and economists expect Friday’s Labor Department figures to show a gain of 180,000 in August, in line with the average for 2016. That would provide evidence the economy is on steadier ground and faster wage gains are coming, context that some Fed officials have been waiting for.

 

“Unless there’s a massive disappointment, the bar seems pretty low for the Fed,” said Laura Rosner, a senior U.S. economist at BNP Paribas in New York. Yellen’s language “gives the impression that the indicators and the data are already consistent with the outlook, and they want to see that confirmation continue. And so it doesn’t mean things need to ramp up and accelerate way above and beyond what we’ve seen.”

And if the odds play out, it will be a disappointment…

Two potential issues complicate the report:

 

One, the payrolls data have been cursed in August, with the survey median undershooting the first print for the month in each of the last five years, by an average 47,000.

 

“At least over the last few years there’s a few guarantees — there’s death, taxes, and a disappointing August first print,” said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

 

Culprits include low response rates in a popular vacation month and difficulty adjusting for seasonal effects at the start of the school year. Even so, four of those last five Augusts looked better by the time the Labor Department released its final estimate. From 2011 to 2014, they were revised up by an average of 94,000 between the first and the latest prints.

 

The second issue is that wages could be subject to a calendar quirk. The report’s survey week doesn’t include the 15th — a payday for many workers — and that pattern frequently has resulted in weaker average hourly earnings growth.

 

In the past five instances of this calendar makeup over three years, average hourly earnings showed one monthly decline and four unchanged readings, Morgan Stanley’s Ted Wieseman said in a research note. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bank of America Merrill Lynch each point to research that shows the calendar pattern doesn’t result in a statistically significant impact on the wage figures.

But realistically – only one thing matters – Is The Dow more than 3% from record highs? If "yes" then 'hold rates'.

via http://ift.tt/2bHm5R7 Tyler Durden