New York and California order nearly all residents to stay home. The government pushes back the tax filing deadline. And the stock market has another rough week. How should investors navigate the coronavirus crisis? Is it time to buy? Which industries should investors avoid? And which businesses will benefit from changing consumer behavior? Motley Fool analysts Andy Cross, Ron Gross, and Jason Moser tackle those questions and discuss the fear of missing out and the fear of being invested. Plus, the guys share a couple of stocks on their radar: Redfin and Intuitive Surgical.
Thanks to Molekule for supporting our podcast. Get 10% off your first air purifier at http://www.molekule.com with code fool10.
Post your job today at Indeed.com/motley and get a free sponsored job upgrade on your 1st posting.
Peter McCormack is the host of What Bitcoin Did and the Defiance podcast. He recently returned from travel to a number of countries in South America including Venezuela and Colombia as well as the Turkey-Greece border.
In this off-the-cuff and wide ranging conversation, Peter and @NLW discuss
Bitcoiner politics and the bitcoin community’s reaction to the potential for increased state power in the wake of Coronavirus
Which types of state power growth we should be most concerned with
How to push governments to retract power growth on the other side of crisis
How travel around the world has informed Peter’s perspective on bitcoin and politics
Why nuance is both disincentivized and sorely needed in times of crisis
Three L.A. comedians are quarantined in a podcast studio during a global pandemic. There is literally nothing to be done EXCEPT make content. These are "The Corona Diaries" and this is Episode #5. Special call-in show today with Sam and Rivers! Guests today are Alabama-based comedian and podcaster Nick Thomas. Follow him on Twitter @OneDumbBoy. We also heard from our co-host emeritus Dr. Pat Reilly. Follow him on Twitter @PM_Reilly.
While the human species is inarguably successful (for now), hundreds of millions of people struggle under daily threats of starvation, physical danger, lack of shelter and disease. And, perhaps more troubling, the numbers indicate it's possible to feed and shelter virtually every single person on the planet -- or is it? Is there enough for everyone, and, if so, why isn't humanity transforming this potential into a reality? Join the guys as they explore the answers to this question, along with its disturbing implications.
California issues a stay-at-home order. Questions about stocks trades by Senators just before the slide? Reaching out to the most vulnerable in this crisis. CBS News Correspondent Steve Kathan has today's World News Roundup.
Schools are closing down as covid-19 measures take hold; we look into the social, economic and educational costs for a world thrust into distance learning and homeschooling. Wild market swings have regulators worldwide wondering whether to shut down stock exchanges altogether. And remembering the backgammon genius known only as Falafel. For full access to print, digital and audio editions of The Economist, subscribe here www.economist.com/radiooffer
On Nov. 25, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a summary opinion in Thompson v. Hebdon, a case involving campaign-finance law. Specifically at issue was whether Alaska’s political contribution limits are consistent with this Court’s First Amendment precedents. Currently, Alaska’s law imposes (among other things) a $500 annual limit on individual contributions to a political candidate and to any group other than a political party. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the limits, ruling that they were drawn narrowly to prevent quid pro quo corruption or the appearance of such corruption. The Supreme Court, in an per curiam opinion, granted the petition of cert, vacated the decision below and remanded the case back for the 9th Circuit to revisit. Justice Ginsburg filed a statement. To discuss the case, we have Derek Muller, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
On Jan. 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Kelly v. United States, a case asking whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not that official’s subjective “real reason” for making the decision. In 2013, in a New Jersey scandal known as “Bridgegate,” petitioners William E. Baroni, Jr. and Bridget Anne Kelly manufactured a grid-lock traffic jam in Fort Lee, New Jersey after the mayor refused to endorse then-Governor Chris Christie’s re-election campaign. Under the guise of a “traffic study” the two limited Fort Lee motorists’ access to the George Washington Bridge--the busiest bridge in the world--over the period of four days coinciding with the local school district’s first week of school. Baroni and Kelly were indicted in 2015 for conspiracy to obtain by fraud, knowingly convert, or intentionally misapply property of an organization receiving federal benefits, the underlying offense itself (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A)), conspiracy to commit wire fraud, actual wire fraud, and conspiracy against civil rights. A jury convicted both defendants on all counts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and vacated the civil rights convictions, but affirmed all other judgments of conviction. The Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari, however, to consider whether a public official can “defraud” the government of its property by advancing a public policy reason for an official decision that was not actually the public official’s subjective reason for making the decision. To discuss the case, we have Erin Sheley, associate professor of law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
