The democratically elected president was impeached despite no allegations of personal corruption — by politicians who are knee-deep in bribery and kickback scandals.

Rousseff has been accused of ‘pedalling’, the illegal delay of re-payments to state banks) to mask public debt.

From the start of the campaign to impeach Brazil’s democratically elected President Dilma Rousseff,  The Associated Press reported:  “Independent auditors hired by Brazil’s Senate said in a report released Monday that suspended President Dilma Rousseff didn’t engage in the creative accounting she was charged with at her impeachment trial.” In other words, the Senate’s own objective experts gutted the primary claim as to why impeachment was something other than a coup.

The report did not fully exonerate Dilma, finding that she did open lines of credit without congressional approval, part of the impeachment case. But it was the pedaladas charge that did creative accounting that dominated the impeachment debate.

The primary pretext used to impeach her has just been debunked by the Senate’s own independent expert report. The corruption-plagued man they installed in her place — who currently has a 70 percent disapproval rating, and whom 60 percent of the country wants impeached — is now secretly meeting with the very judges whose supposed independence, credibility, and integrity were the prime argument against calling this a “coup,” all while he plots to save his bribery-enriched fellow party member. And while all this happens, they are blithely proceeding to impose an agenda of austerity and privatization that is undemocratic.

Whatever the motives were for getting rid of Dilma, illegality and corruption plainly had nothing to do with it. Just look at this week’s Senate report, or the face of the person they’ve installed, to see how true that is.

If the world economy tanks, the West may be less inclined to add to its economic problems by pursuing confrontation with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the South China Sea. 

The PRC will also derive some consolation from the outsized horror that neo-liberal globalists have expressed at the excesses of direct democracy as displayed in the referendum: “emotional, bigoted, low-information voters” delivering “catastrophic” outcomes against the earnest but unheeded advice of their intellectual and moral betters.

The practical consequences of Brexit to the PRC are probably more disadvantageous.

The PRC had made a sizable investment of time, effort, political capital and who knows what combination of behind the scenes arm twisting & enticements to get a ride for Xi Jinping in the royal coach with Queen Elizabeth. With Cameron out that plan will need some re-thinking.  How much actual reworking is needed depends on the ability of Europhiles in the UK to turn “Brexit” into “Brexit-Lite” or even, with apologies to Sartre, “No Brexit.”

Beyond the sunk costs of its UK investment, the PRC leadership apparently regards the travails of the EU with some uneasy sympathy and fear of democratic/nationalist contagion.

The specter of regional political and economic disintegration, with indications that Brexit may spark EU-friendly secession movements by Scotland and Northern Ireland and even trigger a rush to the exits by disgruntled EU member states on the Continent is disconcerting to say the least. 

The main bits are Han, Manchurian, Mongolian, Uyghur, Zhuang, Yi, Tujia, & Hui.  Everybody’s favorite aggrieved PRC minority, the Tibetans, are around 9^th on the list, with a population of about 5 million.  In the PRC era, India has continually entertained hard-liner plans to wrong foot China by encouraging Tibetan separatist movements. 

Today, there is increasing enthusiasm for playing the nationalities card as a weapon against PRC “assertiveness.” India hawks talk about putting both Tibet and Xinjiang in play by providing material and moral support to separatist movements. Hong Kong self-determination and Taiwan independence are well on their way to becoming default options for globally-minded liberals. 

Keeping together a multi-national empire in the modern age, in other words, is not easy.  Belt-tightening and testicle-squeezing-inclined German central bankers yielded youth unemployment rates of up to 50% in peripheral countries like Spain and Greece instead of EU-wide economic nirvana.

Open dysfunction in Europe, at the very heart of the globalist regime, might make things harder for the alliance of neo-liberal and neo-conservative strategists now constructing a “the rules-based liberal international order” and “revisionist authoritarianism.” 

Call it “reshoring,” or “insourcing” if you prefer. By any name, a significant movement of manufacturing back to U.S. shores may be exactly what the US economy needs. Factory movement overseas has opened a hole in the American job market that nothing else can truly fill, a point stressed in blue-collar populist appeals from both political parties.

The reshoring movement is, by definition, a fusion of politics and economics.   Industrial giants will not move operations back to American soil if doing so makes no sense from a financial standpoint. Given the expense involved in relocating factories, some of the gloomier analysts believe decades of movement overseas might be irreversible. Every business cost is ultimately passed along to consumers, whose willingness to pay significantly more for goods with a “Made in America” label has always been greater in theory than in practice.

However, government policies were a big part of the reason offshoring happened, and wise policy can set the economic conditions that make bringing capital back home attractive. Naturally, after agreeing that America wants manufacturing to come home, candidates from different parties have dramatically different ideas about what those policies would look like.

While a growing number of companies are returning to the United States to do their manufacturing, the trend is smaller and less significant to the economy than it appears. The number of companies bringing operations home is actually quite modest.

Manufacturing jobs coming home are still exceeded by jobs heading overseas.

Certain industries have been especially enthusiastic about bringing their factories home, leading to big predictions about a broad-based reshoring “movement” that has yet to begin. One notable example is the apparel industry. Brooks Brothers, which has increased hiring at new and upgraded factories in the U.S. over the past decade while steadily increasing sales, is cited as a standout of reshoring.

The reasons for the return of apparel manufacturing, and their policy implications, are interesting. Every industry with positive movement on reshoring mentions lower energy costs.  Reshoring companies also routinely cite increased wages in China as a reason American labor has become more competitive, so artificially increasing labor costs with more taxes, more mandatory benefits, and an increased minimum wage would be dangerous.

Garment manufacturers additionally describe the importance of remaining flexible in their industry, asserting that domestic factories make it possible to produce smaller product runs and reduce the amount of excess inventory that ends up on clearance racks… or gear up rapidly for high-production runs of popular items, as needed. The short turnaround time from design to manufacture made possible by domestic manufacturing is also highly desirable for the trend-conscious fashion industry.

Those virtues might be difficult to sell to industries that don’t place such a high value on flexible manufacturing, but one other appealing aspect of onshore manufacturing mentioned by Forbes is universally intriguing: keeping factories in the U.S. makes it possible for businesses to start smaller. A certain magnitude of sales is needed for the cost benefits of overseas manufacturing to kick in.  Make small business entrepreneurship easier to increase the demand for small-scale onshore manufacturing.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Tuesday his last EU summit took place in a mood of “sadness and regret” about his country’s decision to leave the European Union in a referendum last week.

“The tone of the meeting was of sadness and regret. Our partners were very much sad that we’ve decided to leave the union,” Cameron, who had campaigned to stay in the bloc, told reporters in Brussels after his talks with the other 27 EU leaders.

In an atmosphere of “universal respect” for the U.K. electorate’s decision, European leaders had understood that “Britain should seek the closest possible relations over trade and security” with the bloc, said Cameron, who will step down to make way for a new Conservative prime minister by October.

The people who’ve been left behind in Britain and the United States are making themselves heard.

Should the US Fed be easing policy after the Brexit vote?

The Fed obviously was unprepared for the outcome. US President Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Fed Chairman Janet Yellen had all weighed in on the ‘Remain’ side.

Some US Presidential contenders realize the full extent that much of our citizenry feels left behind. The solutions proposed by candidates may be pipedreams, but one clearly can be applied across the developed world. Infrastructure is falling apart. It needs repair. Good jobs can be created for the disaffected.

In the meanwhile, stop gap measures might be applied by the central bank.

Should Yellen start explaining negative interest rates? In part this depends on who needs help? Is it her job to stabilize markets? Unfortunately during the sub-prime mortgage crisis which began in 2008, only needs of outsized banks, the markets and the very wealthy were addressed.

In the US, both Democrats and Republicans know that we have to repair our bridges and highways. An infrastructure bill passed our legislature this spring in which the US Fed, in a highly unusual move , provided financing.

We have written, over and over, that the idea that central banks should be the prime movers in shaping the economy is undemocratic and an inappropriate aggrandizement of their role.

They have stepped in where others fear to tred. But now is not too soon to start looking elsewhere for overall guidance of the economies of developed countries. Other Brexit’s will happen if we don’t.

Britain has voted to remove itself from the European Union in a move that could set off a raft of financial and economic uncertainty across the globe.

An intense campaign over the U.K.’s place in the continent-wide government came to a head Thursday, with voters deciding they no longer want to work with other nations in the Brussels-based partnership.

The potential for an unprecedented exit of one of the EU’s biggest members has gripped policymakers and financial markets on both sides of the Atlantic.

The campaign to pull out has been driven by growing complaints about Britain’s inability to write and enforce its own laws. The growing number of Middle East refugees seeking solace in Europe has heightened concerns, driving the campaign to pull out of the 28-nation governing body.

The stunning murder of a British politician, Jo Cox, earlier this month cast even further doubt on the high-stakes vote. Cox, a supporter of remaining in the EU, was allegedly killed by a man who called for “freedom for Britain” in court.

Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said that the central bank opted not to raise interest rates earlier this month in part because of the looming Brexit vote, and told lawmakers it could carry “significant economic repercussions.”

When he visited the country in April, President Obama warned that if Britain were to leave the EU, it could throw a wrench into efforts to establish a new trade agreement between the two nations.

White House officials have emphasized that the president was offering his opinion on the matter, while making clear British voters would have the final say.

But that didn’t stop some Republicans from blasting the president for his remarks, calling it out of bounds for a foreign head of state to weigh in on another country’s domestic affairs.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.)  said: “I’m going to do exactly what the president did not do and not weigh in on this, and send the signal to our great friends and allies in Britain that we stand with them regardless of what decision they make,” Ryan said.

Janet Yellen, head of the US Federal Reserve, told a Congressional hearing that the US would be adversely impacted if Brexit passes.

Sen.Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) is vowing that he’ll fight any attempt to punish the United Kingdom if it votes to leave the European Union this week.

Cotton spoke on the Senate floor Tuesday against politicians, including President Obama, and economists who have warned of dire economic consequences if the U.K. leaves the EU, called “Brexit.”

“The American people will stand with Britain, in or out of the EU, and will stand against punitive retaliation against the British people,” said Cotton, promising to defend the U.S. and U.K.’s close military and economic ties.

“Just as I’ll do everything in my power to preserve our special relationship against [European] meddling, so I’ll do the same with any administration who doesn’t fully appreciate that relationship,” he said.

Ernest Scheyder and Terry Wade write: The comeback of shale: Two years into the worst oil price rout in a generation, large and mid-sized U.S. independent producers are surviving and eyeing growth again as oil nears $50 a barrel, confounding OPEC and Saudi Arabia with their resiliency. That shale giants Hess Corp (HES.N), Apache Corp (APA.N) and more than 25 other companies have beaten back OPEC’s attempt to sideline them would have been unthinkable just months ago, when oil plumbed $26 a barrel and collapses were feared.

So far no U.S. producer that pumps more than 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) has gone bankrupt. The survival of these big producers partly explains why overall U.S. production has slipped only about 10 percent since peaking at 9.69 million bpd.

Their agility – which required slashing costs in half while doubling down on improved techniques to squeeze more oil from each new well – is now allowing the industry to cautiously focus on growth again.

But this time, U.S. producers say they will stay focused on capital returns, having abandoned a culture of maximizing production regardless of costs.

OPEC and Saudi Arabia “thought that there would be major capitulation and damage to U.S. shale producers as a result of the deep downturn,” said Les Csorba, a leadership consultant at Heidrick & Struggles who works with shale executives. “But what happened was that it actually created a new paradigm among U.S. producers to transform their businesses.”

Acquisition activity has picked up markedly in recent weeks, with Devon Energy Corp finding buyers for more than $2 billion in non-core assets. The company is using part of that cash to boost its capital budget by $200 million.

WPX Energy Inc spent more on acquisitions last year than any U.S. oil company, and sold 45 million new shares earlier this month, planning to use the funds to drill new Texas wells.

“We’re a leaner organization than we were before the price crash,” said Rick Muncrief, WPX’s chief executive.

True, costs were slashed in the height of the price downturn when oil plumbed $26 per barrel in February and “there’s a perception out there that if commodity prices go back up, you’re going to lose those cost savings,” Muncrief said.

But, he stressed, “that’s simply not the case.”

Industry consensus holds that costs for oilfield services – fracking and the like – may rise in tandem with oil prices, though high-tech advancements in sand, drilling and chemical technologies should stick around.

“Real progress for us has come on the cost side,” said John Christmann, Apache’s chief executive. “We plan to maintain a methodical approach to the cycle with a focus on returns.”

U.S. oil prices have recouped nearly half their losses from mid-2014 highs, almost doubling from the 13-year lows hit in February to reach over $51 in early June.

A year ago prices hit similar levels before plunging; oil executives are hoping past is not prologue.

To be sure, some executives say a bit more is needed – at least $60 a barrel – to ramp up drilling and fracking operations across most U.S. shale plays.

That attitude has been reflected in oil producers’ capital budgets, which are still billions below 2015 levels.

Hess has long said it will add rigs in North Dakota when oil prices hit that mark, even though it is profitable in the state at $40.

Some oil companies aren’t ready to even acknowledge the $50 milestone as relevant.  Others are moving ahead in the Bakken, Eagle Ford and Permian, considered the cheapest and most-prolific U.S. shale oil fields.

BBC reports:  The two most surprising political phenomena of this year have been the rise of Donald Trump and the success of the Leave Europe camp in Britain’s referendum on Brexit.

Few pundits saw either coming.  This week, polls suggest, Britain may pull out of the European Union. Opinion polls currently have the 23 June referendum too close to call but the Brexit camp (those in favour of the UK splitting from the EU) has been inching ahead in recent weeks.

Later this year, Americans will decide whether to elect Donald Trump as the 45th US President, or Hillary Clinton.

Opinion polls also suggest this race is close, though with five months to go, those polls aren’t terribly instructive yet. Yet the result next week in Britain could give us some indication of how Americans will vote in November.

Here’s five reasons why.

Angry electorate

Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, the leader of the Leave campaign, have tapped into a similar public mood of disgruntlement. On both sides of the Atlantic, a lot of people feel they’ve been handed a bad deal. In the UK, it’s European bureaucrats in Brussels who are to blame. In the US, it’s elected politicians in Washington who are held responsible. Mr Johnson promises Brits a better deal if they throw off the onerous yoke of EU regulations. Mr Trump promises Americans a better deal if they put him in the White House.

Globalisation

The forces of globalisation are causing havoc for European workers as they are for American workers. If you are a white working class man (in particular) the combined effects of immigration, free trade and technology have made your job and your wages less secure. Policy makers in the UK and the US have singularly failed to address these issues in any meaningful way. If the Brexit camp wins next week it could suggest the global anti-globalisation mood (if such a thing is possible) is stronger than we realised.

Immigration

Immigration deserves its own category because it is so critical in both campaigns. Economists argue about the relative impact of immigrants versus robots on wage stagnation – voters don’t care much. They blame immigrants. In both countries, governments haven’t handled immigration well. America tried and failed to implement immigration reform and the country’s Southern border remains porous (though to be fair, more people are using it to go south not north at the moment.) Like its European partner, the British government is caught in the nightmare story that is the European migrant/refugee crisis, with no effective response.

Lost pride

The complicated feeling of having had a bad deal has created an insidious spin off, a sense of broken pride, both national and personal.

Populism

And, finally, populism loves simplicity, especially, it seems, when it’s dressed up with an impressively wacky hair do. Boris Johnson and Donald Trump appeal to the heart not the head.

If the forces of disgruntlement, nationalism, populism and anti-globalisation are strong enough to force a radical move in the UK, they may be strong enough to force a radical election in America too.

Matt Levine writes: The basic puzzle of insider trading is that it is legal to call up corporate executives or government officials and ask them questions, and it is legal to trade stocks, and it is even legal to trade stocks after asking your question and getting an answer, except that sometimes it isn’t. .