Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
June 27, 2019
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/27/can-the-city-survive-brexit
The world has a handful of great commercial hubs. Silicon Valley dominates technology. For electronics, head to Shenzhen. The home of luxury is Paris and the capital of outsourcing is Bangalore, in India. One of the mightiest clusters of all is London, which hosts the globe’s largest international financial centre. Within a square mile on the Thames, a multinational firm can sell $5bn of shares in 20 minutes, or a European startup can raise seed finance from Asian pensioners. You can insure container ships or a pop star’s vocal cords. Companies can hedge the risk that a factory anywhere on the planet will face a volatile currency or hurricanes and a rising sea level a decade from now.
This metropolis of money, known as the City, generates £120bn ($152bn) of output a year—as much as Germany’s car industry. Because it allocates capital and distributes risk at a vast scale, its influence is global. But now, with a “no-deal” conclusion looking increasingly likely after a change of leader of the Conservative Party (see article), Brexit threatens to rupture Britain’s financial links with the European Union. If Labour wins the next election under Jeremy Corbyn, Britain will also end up with its most left-wing government since 1945, one that is deeply hostile to capital and markets. Either outcome would make the eu poorer and damage London’s position. Together, they could change the workings of the global financial system.
London’s prowess is something to behold. It hosts 37% of the world’s currency dealing and 18% of cross-border lending. It is a hub for derivatives, asset management, insurance and investment banks. Relations with Europe are particularly intimate. The City generates a quarter of its income from the continent, and Europe gets a quarter of its financial services from London, often the most sophisticated ones. French or Italian firms go to London to meet investors or organise a takeover. When the European Central Bank buys bonds as part of its monetary policy, the sellers are very often asset managers and banks domiciled in Britain. Some 90% of European interest-rate swaps are cleared through the City’s plumbing.
The City’s history is long but serpentine. In 1873 Walter Bagehot, The Economist’s then-editor, wrote of its “natural pre-eminence”. In fact decades of decline lay ahead. A revival began in the 1960s when the offshore market for dollar lending boomed. Another lift came with the stockmarket deregulation of Big Bang in 1986 and again after 2000 when London became a centre for trading the euro and emerging markets. Even the financial crisis of 2008 did not do much damage to the City’s standing abroad. Today the magic formula has many parts: openness to people and capital, the time zone, proximity to subsea data cables, and posh schools. But, above all, it relies on stable politics and regulation, close ties to America and seamless ones to Europe. Brexit and Mr Corbyn threaten this formula in three ways.
The first is by ripping up the legal framework, as the eu cancels the “passports” that let City firms operate across the continent. Activity may move in search of certainty. The second is by the remaining 27 eu members adopting an industrial policy that uses regulation to compel financial firms to move to the euro zone. As Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris jostle for business, this fight is turning ugly. And the last is from within Britain—if a Corbyn government takes the country back decades, with nationalisation at below-market prices, a financial-transactions tax, a tough line on mergers and acquisitions and possibly even capital controls. If a Labour government also attacks private schools and second homes, London’s giant pools of capital will disappear faster than a trader’s cocktail.
snip
Can the City survive Brexit?
The world’s biggest international financial centre faces its toughest testhttps://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/06/27/can-the-city-survive-brexit
The world has a handful of great commercial hubs. Silicon Valley dominates technology. For electronics, head to Shenzhen. The home of luxury is Paris and the capital of outsourcing is Bangalore, in India. One of the mightiest clusters of all is London, which hosts the globe’s largest international financial centre. Within a square mile on the Thames, a multinational firm can sell $5bn of shares in 20 minutes, or a European startup can raise seed finance from Asian pensioners. You can insure container ships or a pop star’s vocal cords. Companies can hedge the risk that a factory anywhere on the planet will face a volatile currency or hurricanes and a rising sea level a decade from now.
This metropolis of money, known as the City, generates £120bn ($152bn) of output a year—as much as Germany’s car industry. Because it allocates capital and distributes risk at a vast scale, its influence is global. But now, with a “no-deal” conclusion looking increasingly likely after a change of leader of the Conservative Party (see article), Brexit threatens to rupture Britain’s financial links with the European Union. If Labour wins the next election under Jeremy Corbyn, Britain will also end up with its most left-wing government since 1945, one that is deeply hostile to capital and markets. Either outcome would make the eu poorer and damage London’s position. Together, they could change the workings of the global financial system.
London’s prowess is something to behold. It hosts 37% of the world’s currency dealing and 18% of cross-border lending. It is a hub for derivatives, asset management, insurance and investment banks. Relations with Europe are particularly intimate. The City generates a quarter of its income from the continent, and Europe gets a quarter of its financial services from London, often the most sophisticated ones. French or Italian firms go to London to meet investors or organise a takeover. When the European Central Bank buys bonds as part of its monetary policy, the sellers are very often asset managers and banks domiciled in Britain. Some 90% of European interest-rate swaps are cleared through the City’s plumbing.
The City’s history is long but serpentine. In 1873 Walter Bagehot, The Economist’s then-editor, wrote of its “natural pre-eminence”. In fact decades of decline lay ahead. A revival began in the 1960s when the offshore market for dollar lending boomed. Another lift came with the stockmarket deregulation of Big Bang in 1986 and again after 2000 when London became a centre for trading the euro and emerging markets. Even the financial crisis of 2008 did not do much damage to the City’s standing abroad. Today the magic formula has many parts: openness to people and capital, the time zone, proximity to subsea data cables, and posh schools. But, above all, it relies on stable politics and regulation, close ties to America and seamless ones to Europe. Brexit and Mr Corbyn threaten this formula in three ways.
The first is by ripping up the legal framework, as the eu cancels the “passports” that let City firms operate across the continent. Activity may move in search of certainty. The second is by the remaining 27 eu members adopting an industrial policy that uses regulation to compel financial firms to move to the euro zone. As Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris jostle for business, this fight is turning ugly. And the last is from within Britain—if a Corbyn government takes the country back decades, with nationalisation at below-market prices, a financial-transactions tax, a tough line on mergers and acquisitions and possibly even capital controls. If a Labour government also attacks private schools and second homes, London’s giant pools of capital will disappear faster than a trader’s cocktail.
snip
June 27, 2019
holy shit is all I can say (Rump's latest tweet)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144072877290872832
June 27, 2019
wow, Booker just said 100% he turns down VP slot if top is a male, it needs to be a woman
June 27, 2019
Joy Reid nails it. Rump's base LOVES this abuse and death, because he is 'hurting the right people'
from an older NYT article
https://twitter.com/briantashman/status/1082454094319636480
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/florida-government-shutdown-marianna.html
June 24, 2019
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/06/24/immoral-trademarks-like-fuct-are-allowed-divided-us-supreme-court-says/
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from denying intellectual property protection to “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks, such as the name of the clothing line “FUCT” that was in the case before the justices.
Ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti, the justices said the Lanham Act, which bans registration of “immoral … or scandalous matter,” violates the free speech rights of clothing designer Erik Brunetti.
“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 6-3 majority.
The court’s decision followed the court’s trend of ruling in favor of free speech. Just two years ago, in Matal v. Tam, the court ruled that disparaging marks could not be denied registration under the Lanham Act.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. dissented in part, asserting that “standing alone, the term ‘scandalous’ need not be understood to reach marks that offend because of the ideas they convey; it can be read more narrowly to bar only marks that offend because of their mode of expression—marks that are obscene, vulgar, or profane.”
FUCT’s Erik Brunetti Talks Censorship & Building a Brand in New Interview
https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/fuct-erik-brunetti-interview/
FUCT‘s Erik Brunetti has never been one to mince words and in his recent interview with Jenkem Magazine He spoke frankly about his thoughts on Supreme, brand authenticity, high fashion collaborations, and PC culture. We’ve pulled some of the most illuminating and provocative quotes from the interview to give a sense of where FUCT is going and what Brunetti thinks of his peers.
Take a look below.
On what his recent Supreme Court win means for FUCT
“I’ll be able to shut down the tremendous amount of bootlegging that’s been happening for years. It will also enable me to eventually sell the brand if I so choose. In regards to other brands, it’s going to allow Jason Dill to register his brand [Fucking Awesome]. Therefore he’d be able to expand from where they already are, for example.”
On the recent FUCT resurgence
“It’s not really a resurgence, it’s funny that people say that. I was primarily selling in Japan for the past eight years and it was too expensive to purchase product in the United States, therefore it was hard to get here. Shipping from Japan was $25. Now we’re back in the US completely so that’s why people may think, “FUCT’s back!” But we really never went away.”
On the name
“We wanted to start a graphic design company but we needed a name for it. We thought it would be clever to call the brand FUCT and present it [as] very corporate, so you had to question the pronunciation of the name based on the way it looked. It was very premeditated. We didn’t wanna just call it FUCT to make it look crazy. We wanted it to be confusing.”
snip
https://fuct.com/
well, it's FUCT FTW!
'Immoral' Trademarks Like 'FUCT' Are Allowed, Divided US Supreme Court Sayshttps://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/06/24/immoral-trademarks-like-fuct-are-allowed-divided-us-supreme-court-says/
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from denying intellectual property protection to “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks, such as the name of the clothing line “FUCT” that was in the case before the justices.
Ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti, the justices said the Lanham Act, which bans registration of “immoral … or scandalous matter,” violates the free speech rights of clothing designer Erik Brunetti.
“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 6-3 majority.
The court’s decision followed the court’s trend of ruling in favor of free speech. Just two years ago, in Matal v. Tam, the court ruled that disparaging marks could not be denied registration under the Lanham Act.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. dissented in part, asserting that “standing alone, the term ‘scandalous’ need not be understood to reach marks that offend because of the ideas they convey; it can be read more narrowly to bar only marks that offend because of their mode of expression—marks that are obscene, vulgar, or profane.”
FUCT’s Erik Brunetti Talks Censorship & Building a Brand in New Interview
https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/fuct-erik-brunetti-interview/
FUCT‘s Erik Brunetti has never been one to mince words and in his recent interview with Jenkem Magazine He spoke frankly about his thoughts on Supreme, brand authenticity, high fashion collaborations, and PC culture. We’ve pulled some of the most illuminating and provocative quotes from the interview to give a sense of where FUCT is going and what Brunetti thinks of his peers.
Take a look below.
On what his recent Supreme Court win means for FUCT
“I’ll be able to shut down the tremendous amount of bootlegging that’s been happening for years. It will also enable me to eventually sell the brand if I so choose. In regards to other brands, it’s going to allow Jason Dill to register his brand [Fucking Awesome]. Therefore he’d be able to expand from where they already are, for example.”
On the recent FUCT resurgence
“It’s not really a resurgence, it’s funny that people say that. I was primarily selling in Japan for the past eight years and it was too expensive to purchase product in the United States, therefore it was hard to get here. Shipping from Japan was $25. Now we’re back in the US completely so that’s why people may think, “FUCT’s back!” But we really never went away.”
On the name
“We wanted to start a graphic design company but we needed a name for it. We thought it would be clever to call the brand FUCT and present it [as] very corporate, so you had to question the pronunciation of the name based on the way it looked. It was very premeditated. We didn’t wanna just call it FUCT to make it look crazy. We wanted it to be confusing.”
snip
https://fuct.com/
June 24, 2019
Unless you've lucked out with a dream subsidized housing scenario or managed to scoop up a beautiful home for $1, you're probably less-than-stoked at the size of the rent check you have to cut every month. That's especially true if you live in a market where real estate prices have skyrocketed in recent years. In fact, the harsh reality is that there's not a single state, county, or city in America where a full-time worker earning minimum wage can afford to rent a two-bedroom home, according to bleak statistics revealed in a new housing report.
The gloomy new report comes courtesy of the folks at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which has been analyzing the growing gap between renters' earnings and monthly rent costs for the last 30 years. This year's troubling study reveals the gap has grown even further and that there's not a single place in America where a person working full-time on a minimum wage income can afford to rent a modest two-bedroom home without spending more than 30% of their earnings on housing costs (when you pay 30% or more you qualify as a "housing cost-burdened" renter).
To make the glut of intel a bit easier to understand, the NLICH also distilled the report into a nifty interactive map, which shows the hourly wage one must earn in each state in order to afford the "fair market" rent on a two-bedroom home there ("fair market" is defined as what a family can expect to pay for a modestly priced rental in a particular area in 2019). The map also reveals how many hours of work at the minimum wage are required to afford a two-bedroom without spending 30% or more of your income on it, as well as where each state ranks in relation to others.
Topping the list as the most expensive state for renters right now is Hawaii, where you need to earn $36.82 an hour -- or nearly $77,000 per year -- to afford renting a two-bedroom. That's compared to the least expensive state, Arkansas, where you'd need to earn $14.26 an hour (or roughly $30,000 annually) to afford the same thing. Keep in mind that while minimum wages do differ from state to state, federally it is just $7.25 an hour.
snip
On edit, as multiple people are claiming this is flawed because it doesn't break it down by county and metro area, here again (I sat again as I had already placed the link in the OP article), is the interactive map that does break it further down to a more granular levels (including individual counties/areas and different flat sizes as well)
https://reports.nlihc.org/oor
This Map Shows the Hourly Wage Needed to Rent a 2-Bedroom Home in Every State
https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/hourly-wages-to-afford-two-bedroom-rent-mappedUnless you've lucked out with a dream subsidized housing scenario or managed to scoop up a beautiful home for $1, you're probably less-than-stoked at the size of the rent check you have to cut every month. That's especially true if you live in a market where real estate prices have skyrocketed in recent years. In fact, the harsh reality is that there's not a single state, county, or city in America where a full-time worker earning minimum wage can afford to rent a two-bedroom home, according to bleak statistics revealed in a new housing report.
The gloomy new report comes courtesy of the folks at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, which has been analyzing the growing gap between renters' earnings and monthly rent costs for the last 30 years. This year's troubling study reveals the gap has grown even further and that there's not a single place in America where a person working full-time on a minimum wage income can afford to rent a modest two-bedroom home without spending more than 30% of their earnings on housing costs (when you pay 30% or more you qualify as a "housing cost-burdened" renter).
To make the glut of intel a bit easier to understand, the NLICH also distilled the report into a nifty interactive map, which shows the hourly wage one must earn in each state in order to afford the "fair market" rent on a two-bedroom home there ("fair market" is defined as what a family can expect to pay for a modestly priced rental in a particular area in 2019). The map also reveals how many hours of work at the minimum wage are required to afford a two-bedroom without spending 30% or more of your income on it, as well as where each state ranks in relation to others.
Topping the list as the most expensive state for renters right now is Hawaii, where you need to earn $36.82 an hour -- or nearly $77,000 per year -- to afford renting a two-bedroom. That's compared to the least expensive state, Arkansas, where you'd need to earn $14.26 an hour (or roughly $30,000 annually) to afford the same thing. Keep in mind that while minimum wages do differ from state to state, federally it is just $7.25 an hour.
snip
On edit, as multiple people are claiming this is flawed because it doesn't break it down by county and metro area, here again (I sat again as I had already placed the link in the OP article), is the interactive map that does break it further down to a more granular levels (including individual counties/areas and different flat sizes as well)
https://reports.nlihc.org/oor
June 22, 2019
People have accused the Metropolitan Police of covering for Boris Johnson. That’s because the Met initially denied that they had any record of a neighbour calling them after hearing a disturbance between Johnson and his girlfriend. According to the Guardian, it was only after the news outlet provided reference numbers and information identifying the police vehicles that the Met admitted attending the scene.
The Met now denies this chain of events.
The incident
The Guardian reported that the neighbour phoned the police after hearing “screaming, shouting and banging” from the flat and knocking three times to try and make sure they were okay. Carrie Symonds, Johnson’s girlfriend, was also heard shouting “get off me” and “get out of my flat”.
After initially saying they had “no record” of the incident, the Met then released a statement:
Speaking to freelance journalist Alex Tiffin, the Met denied a cover-up:
“Shocking”
On social media, people had questions:
https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1142172594776498176
https://twitter.com/RespectIsVital/status/1142157287567609856
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1142140601321873408
snip
Police accused of pro-Boris Johnson cover up after saying they had 'no record' of visiting him
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/06/22/police-accused-of-pro-boris-johnson-cover-up-after-saying-they-had-no-record-of-visiting-him/People have accused the Metropolitan Police of covering for Boris Johnson. That’s because the Met initially denied that they had any record of a neighbour calling them after hearing a disturbance between Johnson and his girlfriend. According to the Guardian, it was only after the news outlet provided reference numbers and information identifying the police vehicles that the Met admitted attending the scene.
The Met now denies this chain of events.
The incident
The Guardian reported that the neighbour phoned the police after hearing “screaming, shouting and banging” from the flat and knocking three times to try and make sure they were okay. Carrie Symonds, Johnson’s girlfriend, was also heard shouting “get off me” and “get out of my flat”.
After initially saying they had “no record” of the incident, the Met then released a statement:
At 00:24hrs on Friday, 21 June, police responded to a call from a local resident in [south London]. The caller was concerned for the welfare of a female neighbour.
Police attended and spoke to all occupants of the address, who were all safe and well. There were no offences or concerns apparent to the officers and there was no cause for police action.
Police attended and spoke to all occupants of the address, who were all safe and well. There were no offences or concerns apparent to the officers and there was no cause for police action.
Speaking to freelance journalist Alex Tiffin, the Met denied a cover-up:
The press office did not at any point deny or refuse to confirm that police had attended an address in Camberwell, and any suggestions of a ‘cover up’ are completely false.
“Shocking”
On social media, people had questions:
https://twitter.com/liamyoung/status/1142172594776498176
https://twitter.com/RespectIsVital/status/1142157287567609856
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1142140601321873408
snip
June 22, 2019
Pete should have resigned as mayor before he announced for POTUS
Every disgruntled political foe (no matter how minor, down to rabble-rousing pseudo community organisers) are out gunning for him back in South Bend, and the TYT/Bernie alliance has been down there for months, digging up dirt. Now the national media is being spoon-fed negatively-slanted spin stories.
Missing the Fish Fry, whilst the right thing to do morally, is pretty much a coffin nail in any hopes he had for generating new SC momentum. Being mayor is really unique, as he is going to be blamed for everything under his watch, unlike a congressperson or a governor.
That New York Times article a couple days ago was just brutal. Complete hit job, and also re-hashed every major issue that is used against him.
Now this shit is going on:
Memorial for man shot by South Bend police officer is vandalized for third time
https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/memorial-for-man-shot-by-south-bend-police-officer-is/article_8a4652f3-edc5-5d0a-ae49-4ef5b3eb41c1.html
If he can manage this balancing act, he REALLY is ready for the presidency.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,526