Podcast appearances and mentions of justice louis brandeis

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.comThis Day in Legal History: Wiretapping ConstitutionalOn June 4, 1928, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a significant decision in the case of Olmstead v. United States, ruling that wiretapping private telephone conversations without judicial approval was constitutional. The case involved Roy Olmstead, a suspected bootlegger during the Prohibition era, whose phone conversations had been wiretapped by federal agents without a warrant. The evidence obtained was crucial in convicting him. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the majority opinion, holding that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not extend to wiretapping because the Amendment only protected tangible property and physical intrusion.Justice Louis Brandeis penned a notable dissent, emphasizing the right to privacy and warning of the potential for abuse and overreach in government surveillance. He argued that the Constitution should adapt to modern technological advancements, including the methods of communication. The decision highlighted a significant tension between law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights, a debate that has continued to evolve with advancements in technology.This ruling stood until 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned it in Katz v. United States, establishing that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, thus extending privacy rights to include electronic communications. The Olmstead decision remains a pivotal moment in legal history, reflecting the complexities of interpreting constitutional protections in the face of new technological realities.

* Guest: Lowell Nelson - CampaignForLiberty.org, RonPaulInstitute.org * Lowell Attends The Utah Republican Party Nominating Convention. * Utah Gov. Spencer Cox received 32.46% of the vote from delegates during the second round of voting while Rep. Phil Lyman received 67.54%, making Lyman the winner. * In the Utah US Senate race, Trent Staggs won the nomination with 70% of the vote, while John Curtis got 30% - Curtis gathered signatures, so he will be on the Primary ballot, as will Jason Walton and Brad Wilson. * Final Nail in America's Coffin? - Ron Paul. "The US and its allies have already sent over $300B to Ukraine and the country is still losing its war with Russia. Nobody believes another $60B will pull a victory from the jaws of defeat. But this additional money is meant to keep up appearances until November at the expense of Americans who are forced to pay for it and Ukrainians who are forced to die for it." * Killing the Constitution - Andrew Napolitano. "The quintessential American right is the right to be left alone. Justice Louis Brandeis called it the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized persons. It presumes that you can think as you wish and say what you think and read what you want and publish what you say, that you can exclude whomever you wish — including the government — from your property and from your thoughts; and that you can do all this without a government permission slip or fear of government reprisal. "This natural right is also protected in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires a warrant issued by a judge based upon probable cause of crime before the government can invade your property or spy on you." * After Watergate, Congress passed FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, "which established a secret court to do to Americans what the British had done to the colonists — issue broad general warrants, based on whatever the government wanted and not specifying the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. * Students Go After the Hypocrites - Eric Margolis. * What Started the War for Independence - Michael Boldin, TenthAmendmentCenter.com * "It bears repeating: The fighting at Lexington and Concord wasn't because the British army came to collect taxes. It was because of gun control."

WARNING: This episode contains opinions of a law-nerd nature. Discretion is advised.Have you ever encountered the parenthetical “(cleaned up)” at the end of a case citation? By now over 5,000 judicial opinions in nearly ever jurisdiction have used it, including the U.S. Supreme Court. So it's time you got acquainted with it.The credit (or blame) for introducing this new device goes to Jack Metzler. Jack shares how he came up with the innovation over several long moments of deliberation on Twitter (specifically: about 90 seconds). But unlike most tweets, Jack's idea flourished into a law review article that now stands as the 2nd most-often cited article in judicial opinions of all time (and only 40 citations behind Justice Louis Brandeis's 1st place paper).Jack subjects himself to the following questioning:❔What does (cleaned up) even mean? Answer: It means you can start a quote with a capital letter without using those stupid ugly square brackets, without having to explain it. And other stuff like that.❔Ok, so judges are using it. But will judges trust lawyers to use it faithfully? Answer: Judges already don't trust lawyers, so I don't even understand your question.❔I think the judges want to see the quote exactly as it appeared. Answer: That's not even a question. And no one is forcing you to use (cleaned up).Jack Metzler's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Metzler published an essay in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process on (cleaned up) citations a few years agoApparently, Bryan Garner has endorsed the practice tooThe most prominent (cleaned up) user is Justice Thomas, who included it in a February 25 opinion. According to information that Metzler gave the ABA Journal in March 2021, (cleaned up) has appeared in 5000 judicial opinions.Read the full article at the tvalaw.com blog  here.

In the 1932 Supreme Court ruling, Justice Louis Brandeis popularized the phrase “laboratories of democracy“ to describe how “a single courageous state may, if its citizen choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experience without risk to the rest of the country.”   Many states have looked to become laboratories to address some of the gaps in the US current retirement system that federal policy hasn't yet been able to successfully solve. Josh Cohen and guest co-host Michael Kreps talk to two early experimenters, Hank Kim and Daniel Biss, to learn from their experiences turning policy ideas into legislation.    Hosted by Josh Cohen, The Accidental Plan Sponsor podcast explores the history, evolution and future of employer-based retirement plants, including the 401(k), through the eyes of its creators -- providing unparalleled insights into an imperfect system that works for many, but not all.    Key Takeaways: [:38] Josh Cohen, your host, approaches the fact that some states have become laboratories to address some of the gaps in the current retirement system, which federal policy cannot tackle yet.  It can be a lengthy process to set up these kinds of experiments.  [1:51] Josh gives a refresher on the last episode. [3:44] How did states get involved in retirement policy when it is typically taken care of at a national level?  [4:07] Michael Kreps, Principal at Groom Law, joins Josh. [4:32:] Michael shares some of his recollections and experiences about the journey that some of the states have been going through. [6:06] What drove some states to go down this path of turning policy ideas into laws? Who were some of the most important players? [7:15] Hank Kim, Executive Director & Counsel at NCPERS, talks about Secure Choice Plans (a term he coined himself). [8:50] Hank shares how he got involved in the healthcare sector. [9:04] Hank talks about how he began working on pension issues, starting with the union of firefighters. [9:37] Hank speaks of the history of NCPERS. [11:32] Hank explains why NCPERS showed interest in the private sector. [12:40] In 2010, the markets crashed and pension assets were hit hard, especially the private sector ones; Hank talks about what NCPERS did to protect those funds. [14:12] Hank shares how they came up with the Secure Choice Pension concept and what it is. [16:08] Hank talks about the Californian, Oregon, and Illinois policymakers and how they couldn't get around political challenges as they defined the benefit pension approach. [18:42] Mike explains why timing is everything. [19:58] Mike talks about what happens at the legislative-process stage. [21:27] Illinois was the first state to pass legislation approving the launching of an auto RAA program. Daniel Biss, Mayor of Evanston, explains how he plays a part in the story of retirement security. [24:25] Daniel shares the funny story behind how the auto RAA program became on his radar. [27:13] Daniel talks about his journey overcoming opposition. [28:21] Daniel voices another funny story involving a small business owner. [30:20] Daniel tells what happened in early November 2014, before the final vote. [31:16] The bill had to go back to the Senate after some changes were made to it. [32:50] Daniel recognizes this isn't the perfect solution to some retirement policy challenges. [33:40] Daniel explains why states can be the laboratory of democracy. [34:30] Even today, as the mayor of Evanston, Daniel still feels the weight of these issues. [35:05] Michael shares his perspective about states being laboratories of innovation. [37:31] If several states experiment with different designs, could that contribute to a consensus around a National policy? Michael gives his expert opinion.   Thank you for tuning in. If you liked what you heard, please subscribe and leave us a review wherever you listen to your podcasts.   Links: The Accidental Plan Sponsor   Mentioned in this episode: More about Michael Kreps More about Hank Kim More about Daniel Biss  

This week on “The Learning Curve,” Gerard and Cara talk with Melvin Urofsky, Professor of Law & Public Policy and Professor Emeritus of History at Virginia Commonwealth University, and the author of several books, including Louis D. Brandeis: A Life and Dissent and the Supreme Court. Professor Urofsky shares insights on Justice Brandeis's jurisprudence, and why he consistently ranks among the... Source

This week on “The Learning Curve,” Gerard and Cara talk with Melvin Urofsky, Professor of Law & Public Policy and Professor Emeritus of History at Virginia Commonwealth University, and the author of several books, including Louis D. Brandeis: A Life and Dissent and the Supreme Court. Professor Urofsky shares insights on Justice Brandeis’s jurisprudence, and why he consistently […]

Mike Davis joins Tim to talk about the current debate over whether or not to expand the size of the U.S. Supreme Court, otherwise known as “court packing.” Mike is president of the Article 3 Project. That's an organization that focuses on the U.S. Constitution and the judicial branch of government. Mike explains how important it is to preserve the apolitical nature of the judicial branch of government, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/SCOTUS_9_auphonic.mp3 The U.S. Supreme Court is as old as the country itself. The Court was established by the United States Constitution with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It first assembled in 1790. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the court system, representing the judiciary branch of the nation. The judiciary is one of three branches of government. The other two are the executive branch, headed by the president, and the legislative branch, which represents both the House of Representatives and the Senate. When the Supreme Court was established back in 1789, it had six Justices. Since then, the number of justices on the court has changed a few times.  John Adams, when he was president, passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the Court to five justices. This was an attempt to limit how many appointments the next president – Thomas Jefferson – could appoint to the bench. Once Jefferson got into office, he and his party repealed the act and went back to having six justices on the high court. Then, in 1807, Jefferson and Congress decided to add a seventh justice when it added a seventh federal circuit. Andrew Jackson was the next president to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. In 1837, he added two more justices to the high court after Congress expanded the number of federal circuit court districts. The next time there was a change to that number was for a short time during the Civil War. In 1863, Congress created a 10th federal circuit, and so the country had a 10th Supreme Court Justice. Once the war was over, Congress passed legislation in 1866 to reduce the Court to seven justices. That lasted for two years. In 1869, a new Judiciary Act established the number of nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. That was the last time there was a change to the number of justices on the Supreme Court. 1869. The last time there was any serious consideration to changing the number was a failed attempt by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. His motives were political. He wanted a majority of Democrat-leaning justices to help advance his agenda. So, his idea was to add as many as six new members to the Supreme Court. The effort failed when two respected members of the Court at that time, decided to oppose the effort – Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Louis Brandeis. Mike Davis has spent much of his career focused on the justice system, and the U.S. Constitution. He's had a special focus on the judiciary and the Supreme Court. Links The Article 3 Project, website Internet Accountability Project, website Court-packing Isn't Just a Bad Idea, It's Downright Unconstitutional, New York Post Mike Davis: Packing the Court is a Radical Assault on Judicial Independence, The Epoch Times Democrats Introducing Legislation to Pack Supreme Court with 4 New Justices, Report Says, DailyWire About this Episode's Guest Mike Davis Mike Davis leads the Article III Project (A3P), established to fight for and defend judicial nominees, appointed judges, the process, and judicial independence. He is also the founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, a new advocacy organization that opposes Big Tech and seeks to hold them accountable for their bad acts. Davis previously served as Chief Counsel for Nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary during the 115...

Mike Davis joins Tim to talk about the current debate over whether or not to expand the size of the U.S. Supreme Court, otherwise known as “court packing.” Mike is president of the Article 3 Project. That’s an organization that focuses on the U.S. Constitution and the judicial branch of government. Mike explains how important it is to preserve the apolitical nature of the judicial branch of government, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/SCOTUS_9_auphonic.mp3 The U.S. Supreme Court is as old as the country itself. The Court was established by the United States Constitution with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It first assembled in 1790. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the court system, representing the judiciary branch of the nation. The judiciary is one of three branches of government. The other two are the executive branch, headed by the president, and the legislative branch, which represents both the House of Representatives and the Senate. When the Supreme Court was established back in 1789, it had six Justices. Since then, the number of justices on the court has changed a few times.  John Adams, when he was president, passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which reduced the Court to five justices. This was an attempt to limit how many appointments the next president – Thomas Jefferson – could appoint to the bench. Once Jefferson got into office, he and his party repealed the act and went back to having six justices on the high court. Then, in 1807, Jefferson and Congress decided to add a seventh justice when it added a seventh federal circuit. Andrew Jackson was the next president to change the number of justices on the Supreme Court. In 1837, he added two more justices to the high court after Congress expanded the number of federal circuit court districts. The next time there was a change to that number was for a short time during the Civil War. In 1863, Congress created a 10th federal circuit, and so the country had a 10th Supreme Court Justice. Once the war was over, Congress passed legislation in 1866 to reduce the Court to seven justices. That lasted for two years. In 1869, a new Judiciary Act established the number of nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. That was the last time there was a change to the number of justices on the Supreme Court. 1869. The last time there was any serious consideration to changing the number was a failed attempt by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1937. His motives were political. He wanted a majority of Democrat-leaning justices to help advance his agenda. So, his idea was to add as many as six new members to the Supreme Court. The effort failed when two respected members of the Court at that time, decided to oppose the effort – Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Louis Brandeis. Mike Davis has spent much of his career focused on the justice system, and the U.S. Constitution. He’s had a special focus on the judiciary and the Supreme Court. Links The Article 3 Project, website Internet Accountability Project, website Court-packing Isn't Just a Bad Idea, It's Downright Unconstitutional, New York Post Mike Davis: Packing the Court is a Radical Assault on Judicial Independence, The Epoch Times Democrats Introducing Legislation to Pack Supreme Court with 4 New Justices, Report Says, DailyWire About this Episode’s Guest Mike Davis Mike Davis leads the Article III Project (A3P), established to fight for and defend judicial nominees, appointed judges, the process, and judicial independence. He is also the founder and president of the Internet Accountability Project, a new advocacy organization that opposes Big Tech and seeks to hold them accountable for their bad acts. Davis previously served as Chief Counsel for Nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary during the 115...

(00:00) Intro (03:30) Segment 1: Christophe Difo and Sean Prophet break down the pre-election news. (18:33) White supremacy, police-nationalism and the blue-stripe flag, reading flag commentary by Jeff Sharlet. (31:22) Elections in Africa, as a cautionary tale as to where American democracy may be headed. (42:37) Segment 2: The terrible, terrible idea of libertarianism. This is the definitive explainer on libertarianism from The Radical Secular. Freedom vs. Accountability, Freedom from vs. Freedom to, Environment, Cornucopianism vs. Sustainability, Free will vs. freedom of thought, the blank slate, the just world fallacy. Failing to plan for best outcomes. The social contract, vs. deontology and absolute power. Taxation as a check on power. Justice Louis Brandeis on democracy vs. wealth. The problem of billionaires. Minority rule. Private property / rents vs. personal property. The bogus claim that "Taxation is theft." The scare-word of "SOCIALISM" as a block to a cooperative, inclusive society. The scare-word of "STATISM" as a block to high-functioning government. The assault on government, the goal being "government small enough to drown in a bathtub." Picking the scab of tribalism. Learning from history what ideas can and should be disqualified. The wealthy put their thumbs on the scale of not only democracy, but the marketplace of ideas. Buying academia. Re-opening old wounds, and revisiting settled law. Ayn Rand and the "virtues" of selfishness. The narrow individualist definition of "rational self-interest." (01:42:14) Off the Radical Secular Radar (01:44:45) Segment 3: Radical Solutions The Radical Secular presents politics from a liberal, cosmopolitan perspective. Show notes: https://www.facebook.com/jeff.sharlet/posts/10158883224536963 (Jeff Sharlet's thread on police nationalism) https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/03/13/destroy/ ("That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be.") ___________________________ Email: theradicalsecular@gmail.com Instagram: @radical_secular https://www.facebook.com/theradicalsecular (Facebook) Twitter: @RadicalSecular https://the-radical-secular.captivate.fm/ (Podcast) All standard podcast venues: Apple, Google, Spotify, Stitcher, Amazon, Gaana, Saavn https://medium.com/just-words-fallacy (The Just Words Fallacy)

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Many folks think that there should be some way to control some of the “noxious doctrine” – a term coined in 1927 by Justice Louis Brandeis – that is circulating online. The big question is who should decide what gets transmitted and what doesn’t in the digirtal age when we have a First Amendment in this country that protects free speech. It’s a big question. Let’s start to think about it.

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Many folks think that there should be some way to control some of the “noxious doctrine” – a term coined in 1927 by Justice Louis Brandeis – that is circulating online. The big question is who should decide what gets transmitted and what doesn’t in the digirtal age when we have a First Amendment in this country that protects free speech. It’s a big question. Let’s start to think about it. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 10/29/20: Free Speech Online 2 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

We're committed to building to a more just future for everyone. We want to flourish within our homes AND we want to contribute to social movements.   These things can seem like they're at odds, but I think they're actually compatible.   Justice Louis Brandeis used the concept “laboratories of democracy” to name how states' small size make them an ideal place to test progressive policies.     This is how I see our families. What our homes lack in scale, we make up in sovereignty. We can co-create ideas and policies that lead to mutual flourishing.   This completely fits with Adrienne Marie Brown's ideas about emergent strategy—at the micro-level, we can set the pattern for the entire design.   Micro is mighty.   Subscribe now to stay updated on future episodes. Show notes, relevant links, and full transcript at https://justicecentered.com/episode   Fall Feeding Workshop Series Info  

Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," but sometimes, as proven by the current administration, it just gives you a better view of the infection. And when it comes to COVID-19 & Trump's corruption, the GOP would prefer to keep us in the dark. Cognitive Dissidents Julianne Simitz, Jim Coughlin, Liz Stewart, "The Black Voice of Reason" Tymon Shipp, and Dr. David Robinson, on the other hand, are like a bright ray of sunshine with your weekly dose of newsy infotainment! GET DOSED!

This time of year back in 1916, Senate confirmation hearings were beginning for Louis D. Brandeis. After a lengthy confirmation process, Brandeis was confirmed as the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, and went on to write landmark opinions on free speech, privacy, and more. In this 2016 program, National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen and Brandeis scholars Philippa Strum and Melvin Urofsky explain why Brandeis’ forward-thinking wisdom still matters today. They celebrated the launch of Jeff’s book Louis D. Brandeis: American Prophet – part of the Jewish Lives biography series. Jeff recently discussed the book on the Jewish Lives podcast, and you can listen to that interview here. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Welcome to Finance and Fury,  For the past few Monday episodes been talking about complexity theory and markets – check out Last two eps – went through phase transition, feedback loops and how markets become fragile and some signs this is happening Most recent episode: https://financeandfury.com.au/how-do-you-know-that-the-share-markets-are-likely-to-be-in-for-a-collapse/ Previous episode: https://financeandfury.com.au/how-to-analyse-share-markets-by-treating-them-as-a-complex-system/ When applying complexity theory to current state of financial markets – exhibit characteristic of the point of criticality Lack of resilience (fragility – glass v plastic vase), flipping feedback loops = critical tipping points where markets are unstable In any system - the interaction between chaos and order builds resilience - The criticality of the balance between order and deterministic chaos is an optimal evolutionary solution for systems – too many feedback loops create a loss of resilience Making it dangerous – likely to enter chaos and then an alternative stable state – think of the gym – overtraining Know first hand – used to do 10-12 hard workouts a week – after almost 2 years body would shut down Today’s ep – looking at the things that have created a lack of resilience and what might shatter the vase Transitions are not inheritably negative – some may trend to order, not disorder Important point it the identification and the awareness of criticality – and the direction of the transition And the sensitivity of a complex system to parameters – i.e. ‘deterministic chaotic behaviour’ - ‘chaos is when the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future’ Butterfly effect - a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state First – visualisation or measurement tool - basin of attraction – what is the pull to an unstable state – Imagine a normal distribution – dome shape – bottom – 0 – 100 – goes up – peak at 50 – basin of attraction is spread out equally over the whole 0-100 - Now say some point of attraction occurs – the basin of attraction narrows something pulls of the peak down the peak An attractor's basin of attraction is the region of the phase space, over which iterations are defined, such that any point (any initial condition) in that region will eventually be iterated into the attractor. Characteristics and current states of the market – what feedbacks reduced resilience Extreme indebtedness – i.e. debt saturation – think of the economy like a cloth – it has a limit on absorption – ShamWow can absorb a lot – but a small pond or swimming pool? Think of money as the water and the economy as the cloth - has debt tolerance limits Despite the record-low interest rates available to service such debt - The falling productivity of new credit lending is visibly at play. (decreasing marginal effectiveness of lending) – Bank policies are for low-risk high collateral lending – where does it go? Housing Over last half-decade or so – flipped 20/80 to 80/20 residential to business lending Rephrased in the context of complexity theory, the basin of attraction is not as steep as before. Extreme leverage to buy financial assets - NYSE leverage is at all-time highs. A long trip up the basin of attraction. Extreme monetary policymaking brought the cost of capital close to zero, depriving the system from resilience through preservation of so-called ‘zombie companies’ and other mis-allocation of resources – misallocation of resources The market is no longer a marketplace where buyers and sellers meet for exchanges - rather a buyers frenzy Negative feedback loops flipped into positive feedback loops - creating a singularity between public and private flows in hovering up assets price-insensitively - one-sided regular flows Extreme valuations - markets have reached bubble valuations - disconnected to fundamentals Using most valuation metrics - the corporate debt to GDP, the price to book, enterprise value on sales and EBITDA US equity valuations at all-time highs when compared to trend growth - Extreme valuations for bonds and equities simultaneously, now unable to hedge one another. Patterns of correlation between major asset classes. Bonds and equities have been negatively correlated in last few decades – recently have been positively correlated – worth watching – bonds might not be the hedge Inability for valuations on Bonds to progress from here – mathematically - due to zero-bound on interest rates and pricing mechanics on bonds – prices are capped out Other anomalies like European bonds trading at negative yields Changing the structure of markets - the rise of passive strategies / ETFs - creates price-insensitivity of share markets Current investments - one-sided risk of the investor community, long-only, fully invested, short volatility The shift from active managers to passive managed ETFs in past years (for almost $3trn) is only the tip of the iceberg, and encapsulates the difference between risk-conscious and risk-insensitive investing, resulting in the clash between under-weighted longs (active managers) and over-performing longs (passive vehicles). Beyond ETFs, other quasi-passive players prosper as they mechanically go long with leverage, follow the trend or sell vol: the end result is that today it’s all one single giant position, and market risk became a systemic risk. The structure of markets resembles that of a pressure cooker, owing to the synchronicity of three elements:massive concentration of passive or quasi-passive players (90% of US daily equity flows), massive concentration in few fund players (top 4 Asset Management shops account for almost $15trn in AUM), massive concentration/correlation of investment strategies (90% are either volatility-linked or trend-linked).   The Question then becomes one of identification of such critical tipping points What is the level beyond which a small change can provoke a large swing, a big transformation? What is the last snowflake on the snowpack that the system can take in before transformation? May be several critical switching points, not just one, on one key variable. The resilience of the system may degrade to some tipping point where a small perturbation can push it into another state. The loss of resilience makes it flip, eventually, at a point. Like all systems – you have within and from outside – the system and the environment   Tipping points within financial markets - where can we go from here? Valuations may go higher – occurrence of a ‘melt-up’ – US started more QE, same with other central bankers - a possible scenario for markets to continue through their threshold – more fuel in the tanks based around leverage Cash balances are thin, while leverage is already high - Most investors classed are now close to full investment, between 90% and 100% of disposable assets: private clients, pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, mutual funds, hedge funds – little cash left to put into markets though – so all new funds But Debt metrics are beyond classic measures of tolerance in several countries – USA, Japan, now in China and Turkey, Marginal effectiveness of new lending is on the decline – when measured using the credit-to-GDP gap’ of the BIS – shows that the new money being printed and put into the markets isn’t effective in stimulating any growth When will Quantitative Easing reach its peak – seemed to be running out in mid-2017 Still an active tool in the hands of Central Banks, although capacity constraints are known - but is now expected to continue for a little while before it goes into reverse – which would trigger a big collapse of markets But the tipping point may be already in - 2017 marked the peak in Quantitative Easing at $3.7trn of asset purchases $300bn p.m. As this liquidity tide goes off - markets will start to face their first real crash test in 10 years Only after the QE is ceased will we know what is real and what is not in today’s markets We will be living through the unintended consequences for many years - zombie companies let to live and saturate the system blocking the rise of newcomers - political instability and populism (critical income inequality).   Endogenous Tipping Point: The Market Itself – Every element of today’s markets has a potential tipping point Now that Central Banks controlling markets – them stepping away from QE, the ‘momentum and volatility factors’ entering turbulent waters are the first suspects - as passive and quasi-passive investors battle one another in a race to the bottom. A sudden rupture can be endogenous, and come from within Financial booms can't go on indefinitely, they can fall under their own weight Obviously, as always, there can be exogenous triggers too, tipping the balance and leading to a rapidly changing state. Exogenous Triggers - It is because we are the edge of chaos and feedback loops are broken, system is degrading and at risk of deep transformations that triggers matter. In normal circumstances they would matter less and you may expect policymakers to have more of a control upon intervention. May the trigger be Cryptocurrencies? Left unchecked by regulators, they have grown to a level where they must matter for global systemic risks, at 750 billion dollars, with emphasis on its volatility – come back to this in another ep May the trigger be China? The extreme credit expansion of recent years seems a textbook case study to prove wrong the theories of a Minsky Moment. A total on- and off-balance sheet bank credit of 40trn, at almost 4 times GDP, a credit expansion well above trend (in danger zone according to BIS credit-to-GDP ratio gap measures), Corporate China at above 250% debt on GDP in only few years, a budget deficit at 13% of GDP (including local authorities) are classic recipes for overdue system failure. May the trigger be inflation? Presumed by most to be dead, it is showing signs of resurrection, all the while as wages started to react to a tight job market in the US. US rates are stationing right at multi-decades downward trend-lines, the break of which would wreak havoc. May the trigger be a ‘USD shortage’ or de-dollarization? The drop in the USD creates a drop in what most assets are priced in May the trigger be political risk - political framework itself may be on the verge of a regime shift under the weight of ever-rising ‘wealth effect’ of QE The populism in political circles that was visible in 2016 (Trump, Brexit, Italian Referendum) and 2017 (Germany, Catalonia, Eastern Europe) is therefore expected to play an even bigger role in 2020. There will be an inevitable critical transformation in politics sooner or later due to economics – created by politicians and banking groups - In the words of Will Durrant: “in progressive societies the concentration [of wealth] may reach a point where the strength of number in the many poor rivals the strength of ability in the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution distributing poverty.” Rephrased by Justice Louis Brandeis, ‘’we can have vast wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy. But we cannot have both.’’   In Summary – All the signs are there but what the trigger is – who knows – next week we will look at the chances of Australian market going up from here – RBA increased M1 massively in the past few months – sign of the first QE moves which would push market prices up   Thanks for listening, if you would like to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact      

Washington D.C. had never seen anything quite like it: in January, 1919, three foreign diplomats, with no known enemies, assassinated in the city's Kalorama neighborhood. Without any leads or clear motive, the police were baffled until they zeroed in on a suspect, Ziang Sung Wan, a Chinese student living in New York. He was held incommunicado without formal arrest for more than a week until he was browbeaten into a confession. In The Third Degree: The Triple Murder that Shook Washington and Changed American Criminal Justice, part murder mystery, part courtroom drama and part landmark legal case, author Scott D. Seligman tells the forgotten story of a young man’s abuse by the police and his arduous, seven-year journey through the legal system that drew in Warren G. Harding, William Howard Taft, Oliver Wendell Holmes, John W. Davis and even J. Edgar Hoover. It culminated in a landmark Supreme Court ruling written by Justice Louis Brandeis that set the stage for Miranda v. Arizona many years later. The National Committee will partner with the Museum of Chinese in America for the launch of Mr. Seligman’s new book on May 17 in New York City. Speaker Bio: Scott D. Seligman is a writer, historian, genealogist, retired corporate executive and career "China hand." He holds an undergraduate degree in history from Princeton University with high honors in American civilization, and a master's degree from Harvard University. Fluent in Mandarin and conversant in Cantonese, he lived in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China for eight years and reads and writes Chinese. He has worked as a legislative assistant in Congress, a businessman in China, and a communications director of a Fortune 50 company. He is the author of Tong Wars: The Untold Story of Vice, Money and Murder in New York's Chinatown (Viking Books, 2016), The First Chinese American: The Remarkable Life of Wong Chin Foo (Hong Kong University Press, 2013), Three Tough Chinamen (Earnshaw Books, 2012), the best-selling Chinese Business Etiquette (Hachette, 1999) and Dealing with the Chinese (Warner Books, 1989). He is also co-author of the best-selling Cultural Revolution Cookbook (Earnshaw, 2011) and Now You're Talking Mandarin Chinese (Barron's, 2006). He has published articles in the Washington Post, the Seattle Times, the Asian Wall Street Journal, the China Business Review, Bucknell Magazine, Howard Magazine, the Jewish Daily Forward, China Heritage Quarterly, The Cleaver Quarterly, the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center blog, the New York History blog, the Granite Studio blog and Traces, the Journal of the Indiana Historical Society. He has also created several websites on historical and genealogical topics. He lives in Washington, D.C.

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Two topics today, both very important in our daily lives in different ways. March 11-17 is Sunshine Week, a time devoted to thinking about how much access we taxpayers and citizens have to the information that our governments generate. The name comes from the famous line by Justice Louis Brandeis that “Sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant.” We also take a look at what money is in today’s world, and why a new digital currency called bitcoin, and the technology it is based on called blockchain, have a very good chance of changing the way we shop, pay bills, make contracts, and more. Here’s why. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 3/8/18 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

A consensus is emerging on Capitol Hill about the need to fund Obamacare's cost-sharing subsidies, which help working-class Americans buy health insurance. The question is what fundamental reforms conservatives should get in return.In my view, they should focus on giving states greater flexibility to design their own health reforms. There's actually a part of Obamacare that allows states to receive federal money in a lump sum and to waive or revise many of Obamacare's most noteworthy provisions, including its mandates, the structure and administration of subsidies provided by it and covered benefits . Conservatives should focus on making it easier for states to qualify for these waivers, so we can move away from the one-size-fits-all system that Obamacare created.We are on the cusp of a rare health care bipartisan agreement. Still, conservatives will (and should) insist on fundamental changes to Obamacare as part of the deal. In so doing, they should aim for an approach that will truly give more states the opportunity to become what Justice Louis Brandeis once called “the laboratories of democracy.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Much of the legal world’s attention was focused this week on Donald Trump’s attacks on Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over the Trump University fraud cases in California. The outrage centered on Trump’s insistence that the fact of Curiel’s Mexican ancestry should disqualify him from the case, considering Trump’s declared intent to build a border wall. We discuss Trump’s stance – and its historical antecedents – with Deborah Rhode, founding director of Stanford University’s Center on Ethics. And we sit down with Jeffrey Rosen to talk about the far-reaching legal mind of Justice Louis Brandeis, confirmed to the Supreme Court 100 years ago this month. Rosen is the author of the new book Louis D. Brandeis: An American Prophet.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Sign up for a free Slate Plus trial here.  Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. Right now, Amicus listeners can stream Influence: Mastering Life’s Most Powerful Skill—and hundreds of other courses—for free. Just visit TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. All Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a 100-day period. Right now, get 50 dollars toward any mattress purchase by visiting Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code AMICUS. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.   Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Much of the legal world’s attention was focused this week on Donald Trump’s attacks on Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge presiding over the Trump University fraud cases in California. The outrage centered on Trump’s insistence that the fact of Curiel’s Mexican ancestry should disqualify him from the case, considering Trump’s declared intent to build a border wall. We discuss Trump’s stance – and its historical antecedents – with Deborah Rhode, founding director of Stanford University’s Center on Ethics. And we sit down with Jeffrey Rosen to talk about the far-reaching legal mind of Justice Louis Brandeis, confirmed to the Supreme Court 100 years ago this month. Rosen is the author of the new book Louis D. Brandeis: An American Prophet.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Sign up for a free Slate Plus trial here.  Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. Right now, Amicus listeners can stream Influence: Mastering Life’s Most Powerful Skill—and hundreds of other courses—for free. Just visit TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. All Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a 100-day period. Right now, get 50 dollars toward any mattress purchase by visiting Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code AMICUS. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, is joined by Melvin Urofsky of Virginia Commonwealth University and Philippa Strum of the Wilson Center to discuss his new biography of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People on iTunes. While you’re in the iTunes Store, leave us a rating and review; it helps other people discover what we do. Please also subscribe to Live at America’s Town Hall, featuring conversations and debates presented at the Center, across from Independence Hall in beautiful Philadelphia. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out all of our sibling podcasts at iTunes.com/Panoply. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and edited by David Stotz. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, is joined by Melvin Urofsky of Virginia Commonwealth University and Philippa Strum of the Wilson Center to discuss his new biography of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People on iTunes. While you’re in the iTunes Store, leave us a rating and review; it helps other people discover what we do. Please also subscribe to Live at America’s Town Hall, featuring conversations and debates presented at the Center, across from Independence Hall in beautiful Philadelphia. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out all of our sibling podcasts at iTunes.com/Panoply. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and edited by David Stotz. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.