Connect with us

Government

Top Law Schools Promote Ditching The Constitution

Top Law Schools Promote Ditching The Constitution

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Yale University…

Published

on

Top Law Schools Promote Ditching The Constitution

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Yale University Law student Jesse Tripathi (2R) and others protest against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the rotunda of the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Sept. 24, 2018. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

In almost every state, law students who pass their state bar examination, which allows them to practice law, take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution.

But the country's top law schools teach future lawyers and judges the opposite.

Many now teach that the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the nation since its ratification in 1788, is broken and should be scrapped.

At least that's what two members of conservative think tanks believe after reviewing courses at the country's Top 10 law schools, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report in 2022. They examined the teaching at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, and Columbia universities and others.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center. (Benjamin Chasteen/The Epoch Times)

Law professors at elite schools are open about their disdain for the U.S. Constitution, the researchers found.

"They're saying they want to get rid of the Constitution—they're making no secret about it," said J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. He's also worked for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center and former DOJ counsel, agreed.

The radicalization of law schools is a threat to freedom not previously encountered in the nation's history, Mr. von Spakovsky said.

"In fact, some of them are very direct in teaching kids that they need to be revolutionaries, according to these courses that these law school students are taking," he told The Epoch Times.

Pitching the Ditching of the Constitution

In 2022, Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn—who teach law at Harvard and Yale universities, respectively—wrote a New York Times editorial titled "The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed."

In it, they wrote that the struggle over the Constitution has proven to be a dead end for liberals. They called the founding document "undemocratic" and "inadequate."

"The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism," they wrote in the piece.

The writers reasoned that it would be far better if liberal legislators had the power to make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without having "to bother with the Constitution."

That way of thinking has pushed law schools increasingly to the political left over the past decade, Mr. Adams said.

"The stuff they're teaching now is straight-up Marxist. There's a big difference from just 10 years ago."

Mr. von Spakovsky and Mr. Adams have been sounding the alarm about what's happening within the country's law schools through articles examining law school curricula.

Schools often teach that the Constitution is a tool of discrimination that must be uprooted, Mr. von Spakovsky said.

The idea that the Constitution and the United States are hopelessly flawed stems from critical race theory (CRT) and the concept of promoting social justice.

CRT has been spotlighted by works such as The 1619 Project by New York Times writers.

The 1619 Project, widely lauded by the political left, paints the United States as a country founded on slavery. It characterizes the nation's Founding Fathers as racists.

While The 1619 Project has been rejected by many academics, historians, and politicians, its teachings have been embraced vigorously by the left. Many have held it up as a model of how history should be taught to children and college students.

The ideology upholds that thinking that "our Constitution is a patriarchal, oppressive document used to suppress minorities and just about everyone else," Mr. von Spakovsky said. "And we are supposedly a systematically racist, misogynist society, and these law students need to go out and preach and practice revolution."

Creating Revolutionaries

Classes such as "Decentralized Resistance" and "Law and Inequality" at Yale University are examples of the far-left infiltration of law schools, Mr. Adams claims in his series of articles.

The "Decentralized Resistance" class is about social change that results from "everyday resistance." Accumulating widespread and numerous acts of everyday resistance can precipitate "quasi-revolutionary" change, class instruction tells law students, Mr. Adams said.

"Law and Inequality" explores "inequality along lines of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and class," he said.

This kind of classroom instruction has given rise to the far-left notion that prisons should be emptied because they're "racist," Mr. von Spakovsky said.

The popularization of these ideas also led to the election of George Soros-funded prosecutors in Democrat-run cities. Mr. Soros is a Hungarian-born businessman who has donated billions to left-wing causes.

Conservatives lament that Soros-friendly prosecutors care more about criminals than their victims and allow them to go unpunished while crime spirals out of control.

Left-wing ideology holds that laws wrongly target minorities more than white people. Proponents of that thinking say society needs to find a more equitable way of dealing with crime, such as using social workers to rehabilitate lawbreakers instead of putting them behind bars.

"What they want is lawyers and judges who simply decide cases based on ideology, not on the law," Mr. von Spakovsky said.

A copy of former President George Washington's personal copy of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is viewed at Christie's auction house on June 15, 2012. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Fighting Words

Cancel culture, censorship on social media platforms, and the rise of activists who successfully shut down opposing speakers work together to demonstrate the left's "unbelievable contempt" for the First Amendment, the bedrock of democracy, Mr. von Spakovsky said.

"They literally equate words with violence," he said.

"So if you are expressing any kind of opinions that they disagree with, [they argue that] you don't have a First Amendment right to engage in that kind of speech because it suppresses minorities and others," he said.

Several classes at Stanford University demonstrated a shift away from the more routine courses on torts and contracts to classes with a more militant tone, Mr. von Spakovsky wrote in his articles.

Stanford law school offers "Violence, Resistance, and the Law," which teaches how the law "suppresses and invites resistance" and identifies the "subjects against whom legal violence is deployed."

"The State of Democratic Discourse" course at Stanford is "devoted to a candid discussion about the current state of public discourse, both nationally and in universities, focusing especially on misinformation and intimidation."

Counter-protesters hold up signs while waiting for conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos to arrive at the University of California–Berkeley campus on Sept. 24, 2017. (Josh Edelson/AFP via Getty Images)

Gag Rules

Those ideas played out in real life in March when the Stanford chapter of the Federalist Society invited 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan to speak on campus.

While he tried to deliver his speech, a mob of about 100 students heckled and shouted him down while faculty members did nothing. And some encouraged the students.

Judge Duncan asked for an administrator to address the hecklers.

Instead, Tirien Steinbach, Stanford Law School's associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion, took to the podium, scolding the conservative judge for the "harm" he inflicted with his rulings.

Students were angry at Judge Duncan because he refused in 2020 to allow a transgender inmate convicted of possessing child pornography to change his pronouns to female.

The judge had to be escorted from the law school by federal marshals.

Ms. Steinbach was put on administrative leave and resigned in July. But Stanford didn't punish students or other administrators and only required them to complete free speech training.

Law and Disorder

The now-viral video of the judge's treatment grabbed public attention and drew concern from conservatives.

Austin Knudsen, Montana's attorney general, wrote a May 16 letter to Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike McGrath addressing left-wing tactics in law schools.

Students are "far too comfortable using intimidation to silence opposing viewpoints," Mr. Knudsen wrote.

Activist students, he wrote, are "self-styled members of the progressive vanguard and justify their actions based on the perceived evil of conservative legal views."

He warned that disruptions at elite law schools are everyone's problem, and "Montana can't bury its head in the sand and hope it goes away."

"We are at a turning point for the integrity of the legal profession," he wrote.

The behavior on campus will soon show up in the courts if there are no consequences for the student's actions, Knudsen warned.

Monkey Business

Top law schools have demonstrated a dramatic shift in focus, even when compared with just 10 years ago, Mr. Adams said.

It's important to take notice because graduates from elite law schools go on to influence government, courts, academia, and corporate America, he said.

The preaching of CRT, radical gender ideology, feminism, and climate change have been woven into much of the curriculum of Ivy League schools, such as Harvard Law, according to his review.

He noted a feminist offering at Harvard Law called the Bonobo Sisterhood, a one-credit course at Harvard Law. The class examined how people can learn about feminism from primates in a male-dominated society.

The course examines the "power and potential of female alliances to disrupt patriarchal systems."

The course description reads: "Through a legal, political, social, cultural, and economic lens, we ask what lessons the bonobos—our close primate relatives who share 98.7% of our DNA—offer humans for creating a society free of male sexual coercion."

People walk past the Alma Mater statue on the Columbia University campus in New York, on July 1, 2013. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Cradle of CRT

Columbia University, the cradle of critical race theory, also offers classes on CRT.

The Institute for Social Research at Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, developed Marxist ideologies that came to be known as The Frankfurt School.

After being forced out of Germany by the Nazis, the institute's researchers relocated to Columbia University in New York in 1933 and developed critical theory.

That legacy now shows up in Columbia law classes, such as "Legal Methods II: Critical Race Methods: Practices, Prisms, and Problems."

The class description says the United States "suffers from many forms of discrimination," and the course will examine the "interface between legal interpretation, lawmaking practices, and racial hierarchy," Mr. von Spakovsky noted in his review.

The widespread social justice focus at top law schools suggests law firms would be better off hiring lawyers from state schools, he said.

But even there, "woke" ideology is rampant.

In a December 2022 Epoch Times story documenting CRT's effect on conservative college students, one law student at a Florida University confirmed that the Constitution was attacked in his law class.

The student, who wished to remain anonymous, recalled students arguing that the Constitution was illegitimate from the start and was written by racist, old, white men.

The professor didn't express that he condoned that point of view. But he didn't offer a rebuttal, either, the student said.

Poisoning the Well

Not all conservatives are pessimistic about the future of the legal profession.

According to William Jacobson, a clinical law professor and director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School, concepts such as CRT have long been taught in law schools.

Mr. Jacobson founded the Legal Insurrection website, which tracks CRT.

The increasing popularity of CRT in schools prompted him to start CritialRace.org in 2020, which maintains a database of schools and colleges that teach or employ CRT-related policies.

He doesn't keep a database on law schools that teach CRT because, traditionally, that's the only place it was taught, Mr. Jacobson said.

It wasn't until recently that the concepts began trickling down into K–12 classrooms and other college courses. That's where the concept became more controversial, he said.

The problem started when CRT evolved into anti-racism training.

It sounds innocuous. But the theory is to prescribe racism against whites and others of "privilege" in the name of retribution for racism against minorities in the past, present, and future.

"At the law school level, it's not going to bring down America," he said.

But it can certainly "poison the well," Mr. Jacobson said, by dividing people based on race or gender into oppressors or victims.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/27/2023 - 21:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Buyouts can bring relief from medical debt, but they’re far from a cure

Local governments are increasingly buying – and forgiving – their residents’ medical debt.

Published

on

Medical debt can have devastating consequences. PhotoAlto/Odilon Dimier via Getty Images

One in 10 Americans carry medical debt, while 2 in 5 are underinsured and at risk of not being able to pay their medical bills.

This burden crushes millions of families under mounting bills and contributes to the widening gap between rich and poor.

Some relief has come with a wave of debt buyouts by county and city governments, charities and even fast-food restaurants that pay pennies on the dollar to clear enormous balances. But as a health policy and economics researcher who studies out-of-pocket medical expenses, I think these buyouts are only a partial solution.

A quick fix that works

Over the past 10 years, the nonprofit RIP Medical Debt has emerged as the leader in making buyouts happen, using crowdfunding campaigns, celebrity engagement, and partnerships in the private and public sectors. It connects charitable buyers with hospitals and debt collection companies to arrange the sale and erasure of large bundles of debt.

The buyouts focus on low-income households and those with extreme debt burdens. You can’t sign up to have debt wiped away; you just get notified if you’re one of the lucky ones included in a bundle that’s bought off. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reviewed this strategy and determined it didn’t violate anti-kickback statutes, which reassured hospitals and collectors that they wouldn’t get in legal trouble partnering with RIP Medical Debt.

Buying a bundle of debt saddling low-income families can be a bargain. Hospitals and collection agencies are typically willing to sell the debt for steep discounts, even pennies on the dollar. That’s a great return on investment for philanthropists looking to make a big social impact.

And it’s not just charities pitching in. Local governments across the country, from Cook County, Illinois, to New Orleans, have been directing sizable public funds toward this cause. New York City recently announced plans to buy off the medical debt for half a million residents, at a cost of US$18 million. That would be the largest public buyout on record, although Los Angeles County may trump New York if it carries out its proposal to spend $24 million to help 810,000 residents erase their debt.

HBO’s John Oliver has collaborated with RIP Medical Debt.

Nationally, RIP Medical Debt has helped clear more than $10 billion in debt over the past decade. That’s a huge number, but a small fraction of the estimated $220 billion in medical debt out there. Ultimately, prevention would be better than cure.

Preventing medical debt is trickier

Medical debt has been a persistent problem over the past decade even after the reforms of the 2010 Affordable Care Act increased insurance coverage and made a dent in debt, especially in states that expanded Medicaid. A recent national survey by the Commonwealth Fund found that 43% of Americans lacked adequate insurance in 2022, which puts them at risk of taking on medical debt.

Unfortunately, it’s incredibly difficult to close coverage gaps in the patchwork American insurance system, which ties eligibility to employment, income, age, family size and location – all things that can change over time. But even in the absence of a total overhaul, there are several policy proposals that could keep the medical debt problem from getting worse.

Medicaid expansion has been shown to reduce uninsurance, underinsurance and medical debt. Unfortunately, insurance gaps are likely to get worse in the coming year, as states unwind their pandemic-era Medicaid rules, leaving millions without coverage. Bolstering Medicaid access in the 10 states that haven’t yet expanded the program could go a long way.

Once patients have a medical bill in hand that they can’t afford, it can be tricky to navigate financial aid and payment options. Some states, like Maryland and California, are ahead of the curve with policies that make it easier for patients to access aid and that rein in the use of liens, lawsuits and other aggressive collections tactics. More states could follow suit.

Another major factor driving underinsurance is rising out-of-pocket costs – like high deductibles – for those with private insurance. This is especially a concern for low-wage workers who live paycheck to paycheck. More than half of large employers believe their employees have concerns about their ability to afford medical care.

Lowering deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums could protect patients from accumulating debt, since it would lower the total amount they could incur in a given time period. But if the current system otherwise stayed the same, then premiums would have to rise to offset the reduction in out-of-pocket payments. Higher premiums would transfer costs across everyone in the insurance pool and make enrolling in insurance unreachable for some – which doesn’t solve the underinsurance problem.

Reducing out-of-pocket liability without inflating premiums would only be possible if the overall cost of health care drops. Fortunately, there’s room to reduce waste. Americans spend more on health care than people in other wealthy countries do, and arguably get less for their money. More than a quarter of health spending is on administrative costs, and the high prices Americans pay don’t necessarily translate into high-value care. That’s why some states like Massachusetts and California are experimenting with cost growth limits.

Momentum toward policy change

The growing number of city and county governments buying off medical debt signals that local leaders view medical debt as a problem worth solving. Congress has passed substantial price transparency laws and prohibited surprise medical billing in recent years. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is exploring rule changes for medical debt collections and reporting, and national credit bureaus have voluntarily removed some medical debt from credit reports to limit its impact on people’s approval for loans, leases and jobs.

These recent actions show that leaders at all levels of government want to end medical debt. I think that’s a good sign. After all, recognizing a problem is the first step toward meaningful change.

Erin Duffy receives funding from Arnold Ventures.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Student Loan Forgiveness Is Robbing Peter To Pay Paul

Student Loan Forgiveness Is Robbing Peter To Pay Paul

Via SchiffGold.com,

With President Biden’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE)…

Published

on

Student Loan Forgiveness Is Robbing Peter To Pay Paul

Via SchiffGold.com,

With President Biden’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan set to extend more student loan relief to borrowers this summer, the federal government is pretending it can wave a magic wand to make debts disappear. But the truth of student debt “relief” is that they’re simply shifting the burden to everyone else, robbing Peter to pay Paul and funneling more steam into an inflation pressure cooker that’s already set to burst.

Starting July 1st, new rules go into effect that change the discretionary income requirements for their payment plans from 10% to only 5% for undergraduates, leading to lower payments for millions. Some borrowers will even have their owed balances revert to zero.

What the plan doesn’t describe, predictably, is how that burden will be shifted to the rest of the country by stealing value out of their pockets via new taxes or increased inflation, which still simmering well above levels seen in early 2020 before the Fed printed trillions in Covid “stimulus” money. They’re rewarding students who took out loans they can’t afford and punishing those who paid their way or repaid their loans, attending school while living within their means. And they’re stealing from the entire country to finance it.

Biden actually claims that a continuing Covid “emergency” is what gives him the authority to offer student loan forgiveness to begin with. As with any “temporary” measure that gives state power a pretense to grow, or gives them an excuse to collect more revenue (I’m looking at you, federal income tax), COVID-19 continues to be the gift that keeps on giving for power and revenue-hungry politicians even as the CDC reclassifies the virus as a threat similar to the seasonal flu.

The SAVE plan takes the burden of billions of dollars in owed payments away from students and adds it to a national debt that’s already ballooning to the tune of a mind-boggling trillion dollars every 3 months. If all student loan debt were forgiven, according to the Brookings Institution, it would surpass the cumulative totals for the past 20 years for multiple existing tax credits and welfare programs:

“Forgiving all student debt would be a transfer larger than the amounts the nation has spent over the past 20 years on unemployment insurance, larger than the amount it has spent on the Earned Income Tax Credit, and larger than the amount it has spent on food stamps.”

Ironically enough, adding hundreds of billions to the national debt from Biden’s program is likely to cause the most pain to the very demographics the Biden administration claims to be helping with its plan: poor people, anyone who skipped college entirely or paid their loans back, and other already overly-indebted young adults, whose purchasing power is being rapidly eroded by out-of-control government spending and central bank monetary shenanigans. It effectively transfers even more wealth from the poor to the wealthy, a trend that Covid-era measures have taken to new extremes.

As Ron Paul pointed out in a recent op-ed for the Eurasia Review:

“…these loans will be paid off in part by taxpayers who did not go to college, paid their own way through school, or have already paid off their student loans. Since those with college degrees tend to earn more over time than those without them, this program redistributes wealth from lower to higher income Americans.”

Even some progressives are taking aim at the plan, not because it shifts the debt burden to other Americans, but because it will require cutting welfare or sacrificing other expensive social programs promised by Biden such as universal pre-K. For these critics, the issue isn’t so much that spending and debt are totally out of control, but that they’re being funneled into the wrong issues.

Progressive “solutions” always seem to take the form of slogans like “tax the wealthy,” a feel-good bromide that for lawmakers always seems to translate into increased taxes for the middle and lower-upper class. Meanwhile, the .01% continue to avoid taxes through offshore accounts, money laundering trickery dressed up as philanthropy, and general de facto ownership of the system through channels like political donations and aggressive lobbying.

If new waves of college applicants expect loan forgiveness plans to continue, it also encourages schools to continue raising tuition and motivates prospective students to continue with even more irresponsible borrowing.

This puts pressure on the Fed to keep interest rates lower to help accommodate waves of new student loan applicants from sparkly-eyed young borrowers who figure they’ll never really have to pay the money back.

With the Fed already expected to cut rates this year despite inflation not being properly under control, the loan forgiveness scheme is just one of many factors conspiring to cause inflation to start running hotter again, spiraling out of control, as the entire country is forced to pay the hidden tax of price increases for all their basic needs.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 06:30

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Analyst reviews Apple stock price target amid challenges

Here’s what could happen to Apple shares next.

Published

on

They said it was bound to happen.

It was Jan. 11, 2024 when software giant Microsoft  (MSFT)  briefly passed Apple  (AAPL)  as the most valuable company in the world.

Microsoft's stock closed 0.5% higher, giving it a market valuation of $2.859 trillion. 

It rose as much as 2% during the session and the company was briefly worth $2.903 trillion. Apple closed 0.3% lower, giving the company a market capitalization of $2.886 trillion. 

"It was inevitable that Microsoft would overtake Apple since Microsoft is growing faster and has more to benefit from the generative AI revolution," D.A. Davidson analyst Gil Luria said at the time, according to Reuters.

The two tech titans have jostled for top spot over the years and Microsoft was ahead at last check, with a market cap of $3.085 trillion, compared with Apple's value of $2.684 trillion.

Analysts noted that Apple had been dealing with weakening demand, including for the iPhone, the company’s main source of revenue. 

Demand in China, a major market, has slumped as the country's economy makes a slow recovery from the pandemic and competition from Huawei.

Sales in China of Apple's iPhone fell by 24% in the first six weeks of 2024 compared with a year earlier, according to research firm Counterpoint, as the company contended with stiff competition from a resurgent Huawei "while getting squeezed in the middle on aggressive pricing from the likes of OPPO, vivo and Xiaomi," said senior Analyst Mengmeng Zhang.

“Although the iPhone 15 is a great device, it has no significant upgrades from the previous version, so consumers feel fine holding on to the older-generation iPhones for now," he said.

A man scrolling through Netflix on an Apple iPad Pro. Photo by Phil Barker/Future Publishing via Getty Images.

Future Publishing/Getty Images

Big plans for China

Counterpoint said that the first six weeks of 2023 saw abnormally high numbers with significant unit sales being deferred from December 2022 due to production issues.

Apple is planning to open its eighth store in Shanghai – and its 47th across China – on March 21.

Related: Tech News Now: OpenAI says Musk contract 'never existed', Xiaomi's EV, and more

The company also plans to expand its research centre in Shanghai to support all of its product lines and open a new lab in southern tech hub Shenzhen later this year, according to the South China Morning Post.

Meanwhile, over in Europe, Apple announced changes to comply with the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA), which went into effect last week, Reuters reported on March 12.

Beginning this spring, software developers operating in Europe will be able to distribute apps to EU customers directly from their own websites instead of through the App Store.

"To reflect the DMA’s changes, users in the EU can install apps from alternative app marketplaces in iOS 17.4 and later," Apple said on its website, referring to the software platform that runs iPhones and iPads. 

"Users will be able to download an alternative marketplace app from the marketplace developer’s website," the company said.

Apple has also said it will appeal a $2 billion EU antitrust fine for thwarting competition from Spotify  (SPOT)  and other music streaming rivals via restrictions on the App Store.

The company's shares have suffered amid all this upheaval, but some analysts still see good things in Apple's future.

Bank of America Securities confirmed its positive stance on Apple, maintaining a buy rating with a steady price target of $225, according to Investing.com

The firm's analysis highlighted Apple's pricing strategy evolution since the introduction of the first iPhone in 2007, with initial prices set at $499 for the 4GB model and $599 for the 8GB model.

BofA said that Apple has consistently launched new iPhone models, including the Pro/Pro Max versions, to target the premium market. 

Analyst says Apple selloff 'overdone'

Concurrently, prices for previous models are typically reduced by about $100 with each new release. 

This strategy, coupled with installment plans from Apple and carriers, has contributed to the iPhone's installed base reaching a record 1.2 billion in 2023, the firm said.

More Tech Stocks:

Apple has effectively shifted its sales mix toward higher-value units despite experiencing slower unit sales, BofA said.

This trend is expected to persist and could help mitigate potential unit sales weaknesses, particularly in China. 

BofA also noted Apple's dominance in the high-end market, maintaining a market share of over 90% in the $1,000 and above price band for the past three years.

The firm also cited the anticipation of a multi-year iPhone cycle propelled by next-generation AI technology, robust services growth, and the potential for margin expansion.

On Monday, Evercore ISI analysts said they believed that the sell-off in the iPhone maker’s shares may be “overdone.”

The firm said that investors' growing preference for AI-focused stocks like Nvidia  (NVDA)  has led to a reallocation of funds away from Apple. 

In addition, Evercore said concerns over weakening demand in China, where Apple may be losing market share in the smartphone segment, have affected investor sentiment.

And then ongoing regulatory issues continue to have an impact on investor confidence in the world's second-biggest company.

“We think the sell-off is rather overdone, while we suspect there is strong valuation support at current levels to down 10%, there are three distinct drivers that could unlock upside on the stock from here – a) Cap allocation, b) AI inferencing, and c) Risk-off/defensive shift," the firm said in a research note.

Related: Veteran fund manager picks favorite stocks for 2024

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending