Lionel Messi says his Argentina career is over after Copa América final defeat

Argentina captain misses penalty in shootout defeat to Chile
Sergio Agüero says he and other players are also considering future

Lionel Messi has said his international career is over at the age of 29 after he blazed a penalty over the bar in Argentina’s defeat in the Copa América final to Chile.

The Argentina captain missed his spot-kick in the decisive shootout at Met Life Stadium, which Chile went on to win 4-2 and secure a second Copa crown in two years, and was disconsolate on the pitch after the game.

“It’s tough, it’s not the time for analysis,” he said. “In the dressing room I thought that this is the end for me with the national team, it’s not for me. That’s the way I feel right now, it’s a huge sadness once again and I missed the penalty that was so important.

“I tried so hard to be [a] champion with Argentina. But it didn’t happen. I couldn’t do it. I think it’s best for everyone, for me and for many people who want it. The choice for me is over, it is a decision. I tried many times [to be a champion] but did not.”

Sergio Agüero and other Argentina players could now follow Messi’s lead, with the Manchester City forward telling Olé: “The likelihood is that Messi is not the only one that will leave the national team. There are several players like me that are evaluating whether or not to continue.

“One doesn’t want to think about it but at times, there are things that happen and the thought [of retiring] comes into your mind. Afterwards, it’s difficult to get it out. Unfortunately, the one that leaves most affected is Leo Messi after his penalty miss. This is the worst that I’ve seen him in the changing room. We are all affected and we will try to think about something else and move forward. Again, luck was not on our side.”

The defeat continued Argentina’s 23-year trophyless run and Messi’s own personal misery now extends to four lost finals with the national side – at the 2014 World Cup against Germany and at three Copa Américas, in 2007, 2015 and now 2016.

Argentina coach Gerardo Martino said: “The burden of the consecutive games [lost] has been accumulating these last two years. He feels like you would expect a player to feel after playing and losing a final.”

Messi had enjoyed another impressive outing in the latest final of his international career but failed to find a finishing touch over 120 minutes of play. Still, few would have expected him to miss from 12 yards after Chile’s Arturo Vidal had seen the first kick of the shootout saved by Sergio Romero. But the Barcelona forward conspired to balloon the ball over the bar and pass up the chance to give his side an early advantage.

Lucas Biglia also missed for Argentina with his penalty being saved by Messi’s Barcelona team-mate Claudio Bravo, before Chilean midfielder Francisco Silva scored the decisive spot-kick.

Messi, a five-time Ballon d’Or winner, was representing his country for the 112th time since making his debut in 2005 as an 18-year-old.

In that time he scored 55 times, including five this tournament. He surpassed Gabriel Batistuta’s all-time leading mark of 54 for Argentina with a superb free-kick in last week’s semi-final against the US.

“Messi’s numbers are unparalleled and I think they’ll remain that way forever, because it’s impossible for a football player to do what Messi has done,” said Juan Antonio Pizzi, the Chile coach who is from Argentina. “My generation can’t compare him to [Diego] Maradona that’s for my generation, because of what Maradona did for Argentine soccer. But I think the best player ever played today here in the United States.”

Immediately after Sunday’s shock announcement, goalkeeper Romero said he hoped Messi would change his mind. “I think Leo spoke in the heat of the moment because we missed that great chance,” said Romero.

Messi now stands to miss the 2018 World Cup, with the odds of Argentina breaking their long-standing major trophy drought in Russia just having lengthened significantly.

Brexit? What Now?

Here's what happens if voters in England decide it's time to leave the European Union

After months of debate, bitterly divided Brits head to the polls on Thursday to cast their votes in an historic referendum whether to leave the European Union. Polls are too close to call.

Those for a Brexit, or “British exit,” want to breakaway from the 28-member European Union and “take back” their country by returning control of British immigration, laws and taxes to Britain. The campaign for a Brexit is led by former London mayor and conservative politician Boris Johnson and the leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage.

Those in the remain camp say leaving the European Union would have major financial consequences on Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron warned of the damage a British exit would have on Britain’s world standing.“If we left, our neighbors would go on meeting and making decisions that profoundly affect us, affect our country, affect our jobs, but we wouldn’t be there. They would be making decisions about us, but without us,” he said.

Cameron’s argument to “remain” is being echoed around the globe. Speaking after a Federal Reserve policy meeting last week, US Fed Chair Janet Yellen said, “It is a decision that could have consequences for economic and financial conditions in global financial markets. If it does so itcould have consequences in turn for the US economic outlook that would be a factor in deciding on the appropriate path of policy.”

Jamie Dimon, head of JP Morgan Chase, which employs thousands of people in Britain, is quoted as saying a Brexit would be “a terrible deal for the British economy and jobs.” That sentiment is joined by billionaire investor George Soros and the head of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi. Renowned economist Nouriel Roubini tweeted, “the Brexit could stall the UK economy and tip it into a recession.”

Global financial markets have been watching Brexit polls closely for weeks now. A vote in favor of a Brexit is expected to cause the British pound to tumble. If that were to happen, it’s believed the Bank of England might stepin and raise interest rates. That would cause borrowing and mortgage prices to rise, which could cause UK home prices to drop. Some economists say Britain’s GDP could decline by more than 2% and that jobs and trade deals would disappear. As for David Cameron: Some say his career as prime minister would be over.

But those pro-Brexit dismiss critics. Some point to Britain’s decision to stay out of the single European currency as an example of British success in going it alone.

Come Friday morning the votes are expected to be tallied and one thing is for sure, change wouldn’t happen overnight. If the vote to exit Britain passes, Britain would then need to negotiate an EU exit plan, which is expected to be a two-year process.

What the Brexit vote means for the US economy

Yes, the Brexit vote matters to Americans. It's not terrible, but it's not good.

For weeks, there have been a lot of headlines crossing about this so-called Brexit vote
Brexit is the abbreviation for "British exit from the European Union." Unhappy with having EU policies forced on them, anti-EU Brits organized and called for a vote. And in a surprise development on Thursday, Britain voted to leave. Specifically, 52% of voters voted to leave as 48% voted to remain.

For our purposes, we're gonna skip what the Brexit vote means for everyone else and focus on what it means for the US.

What the Brexit vote means for the US: Tighter financial conditions

While the US economy and the companies in the US stock market have limited exposure to the UK, they're all nevertheless affected by what's unfolding.

The first thing most economists are flagging right now is tighter financial conditions. Simply put, tighter financial conditions means that it is harder and more expensive for businesses and consumers to get money. That in turn leads to less borrowing, less investing, and ultimately less economic activity.

And these tighter financial conditions are appearing in the US.

"The sharp fall in stock prices in most economies and the widening of credit spreads represent a tightening of financial conditions," Wells Fargo's Jay Bryson said. "If financial conditions remain tight in coming weeks, economic activity in many economies could decelerate from already lackluster rates of growth."

On Friday, the S&P 500 (^GSPC) plunged 75 points or 3.6%. The Dow (^DJI) fell 610 points or 3.4%.

Expect the Fed to keep monetary policy loose for longer

This comes at a time when the Federal Reserve has been planning to actively tighten financial conditionsthrough tighter monetary policy. Why would they want to do this? Because the economy has made great strides in the past seven years since the end of the financial crisis, which means the economy is actually at risk of overheating.

But with these new developments out of the UK  combined with other recent signs of slowdown economists agree that tighter monetary policy which the Fed has been rolling out with interest rate hikes  is likely to be put off for now.

“The Fed will likely delay the hiking cycle,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s Ethan Harris said. “We expect the next hike to be in December versus our prior forecast of September. Given the high degree of uncertainty, we will be nimble to adjust forecasts as needed depending on financial conditions.”

Harris isn't the only economist who believes that rate hikes will be put off until the end of the year. His peers at Nomura, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, and UBS all see the Fed waiting until December until the next rate hike comes. ING's Rob Carnell thinks the next rate hike won't come until 2017.

The good news

Historically, these types of shocks rarely have long-lasting affects. Event-driven sell-offs in the financial markets are usually followed by huge rallies.

It's a similar story for economic growth, especially for regional shocks. Renaissance Macro's Neil Dutta considered other major regional shocks from recent history.

"Examples include the European Exchange Rate Mechanism crisis in the early 1990s, the Tequila crisis of the mid-1990s, and the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s," Dutta observed. "We saw regional recessions that did not bleed to the rest of the world."

Dutta believes that the US economy could experience "a possible GDP hit of anywhere from 0.2 to 0.6ppt to US GDP over the next year" following this Brexit vote. But he also sees growth to improve thanks to, among other things, loose monetary policy.

Stock markets tumble after Leave vote

Wall Street and the FTSE 100 both fell sharply in a wild day of trading after the UK voted for Brexit.

The London blue-chip index fell 7% in early trading to just over 5,800 points but ended the day 3.15% lower at 6,138.

New York and European markets all suffered even bigger falls, with the Dow Jones posting its biggest one-day slide in almost five years.

Sterling also plunged, falling more than 8% against the dollar and 6% against the euro.

Credit rating agency Moody's cut the UK's outlook from stable to negative on Friday night, saying the Brexit vote could result in weaker economic growth.

Wall Street fell sharply in late trading, with the Dow plunging more than 600 points, or 3.4%, to close at 17,400 points.

The S&P 500 fell 3.6% - the biggest daily slide in 10 months - while the Nasdaq slumped 4.1% to give the technology-focused index its worst day since 2011.

Jack Ablin, chief investment officer of BMO Private Bank, said: "This was really an event that caught most global investors flat-footed. We're going to see more days like today as the collective wisdom may prove wrong in others cases, too."

In London the FTSE 250, which mostly comprises companies that trade in the UK, shed 7.2% to close at 16,088 points.

Financial services group Aldermore was the biggest faller on the 250, down 32%, with house builder Crest Nicholson closing 26% lower.

House builders were also the three biggest fallers on the FTSE 100, with Taylor Wimpey suffering a 29% slide.

Liberum analyst Charlie Campbell said: "The outcome is bad for housebuilders' shares as the combination of slowing GDP, rising longer-term rates and political uncertainty is like Kryptonite for that group of shares."

However, the FTSE 100 index still ended the week higher than it started at 6,021 points.

Gold miner Randgold jumped 14%, while consumer-facing companies including GlaxoSmithKline, Unilever and Diageo all rose more than 3%.

The London market regained some poise after the Bank of England pledged to intervene to help shore up the markets.

Governor Mark Carney said the Bank was prepared to provide £250bn to support the markets, but added that "some market and economic volatility can be expected as this process unfolds".
'Bargain hunting'

The European Central Bank also said it was closely monitoring financial markets and was in close contact with other central banks.

Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said investors on the hunt for bargains helped the blue-chip index later in the day.

"A significant number of FTSE 100 stocks ended the day in positive territory, predominantly those companies with lots of overseas earnings, which stand to benefit from a weaker pound," he said. "Looking forward, we expect further choppiness in the days and weeks to come."

Brexit reaction: Business live

Brexit: Five areas to watch on the economy

Jack: The great business referendum snub

City shock at referendum result

UK interest rate 'likely to hit zero'

How will Brexit affect your finances?

Property market lull may follow EU vote

Drivers 'face rising petrol prices'

Business calls for stability and direction

Sterling fell more than 10% early on Friday to levels not seen since 1985, sinking as low as $1.3236 against the dollar, before regaining some ground to $1.3578.

John Higgins of Capital Economics said: "While this is still a lot lower than the $1.50 reached late on Thursday (UK time), it is not much different from the level that it reached a week earlier when the opinion polls first began to suggest that a Brexit was likely. It therefore seems disingenuous to suggest that sterling has collapsed in the wake of this outcome."
Media caption


UK government bond yields hit a new record low, with 10-year yields down more than 30 basis points to 1.018%, according to Reuters data.

Two-year yields fell more than 20 basis points to their lowest levels since mid-2013, at 0.233%.
European hit

Oil prices have also fallen sharply in the wake of the referendum outcome, with Brent crude down 4.9% to $48.41 a barrel - the biggest fall since February. US crude also fell 4.7% to $47.77 a barrel.

Gold jumped 5% to its highest level in more than three years at $1,322 an ounce.

The impact of the vote was also felt across the continent. The Dax in Frankfurt fell 6.8% - its worst day since 2008 - while Paris ended 8% lower, with falls of about 12% in both Milan and Madrid.

Capital Markets analyst Oliver Roth said the slide in the Dax "wasn't quite as bad as we had feared. At the opening it was down almost 10% but the markets stabilised somewhat ... However, there is great concern after this political disaster."

IAG, which owns British Airways and Iberia, said the result of the vote would hit its profits, sending shares down 22.5% in London.

"Following the outcome of the referendum, and given current market volatility, while IAG continues to expect a significant increase in operating profit this year, it no longer expects to generate an absolute operating profit increase similar to 2015," it said.

UK banks were also hit hard, with Lloyds closing 21% lower, Royal Bank of Scotland fell 18.8% and Barclays shed 17.7%.

Along with housebuilders, the banking sector is regarded to be most at risk from a weaker UK economy.

In France, Societe Generale plunged 20% and BNP Paribas fell 17.4%, while in Germany Deutsche Bank slumped 14.1% and Commerzbank slid 13%.

Meanwhile, shares in Santander - the eurozone's largest bank - fell almost 20% in Madrid.

David Tinsley at UBS said there would be "a significant rise in economic uncertainty" and that the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) was expected to take action, including interest rate cuts and an extension of its quantitative easing programme.

"We expect the MPC will cut policy rates to zero and make further asset purchases, in the first instance of £50-75bn, not later than February 2017," he said.

Did Demi Lovato Just Diss Mariah Carey? Singer Defends Jennifer Lopez in On-Going Drama

Demi Lovato reportedly slammed Mariah Carey in a series of comments (that have since been deleted) on a celebrity gossip account, The Art of Shade, late Thursday, coming to the defense of Jennifer Lopez.

The post compared Ariana Grande to Mariah, claiming the former Nickelodeon star is a lesser version of the 46-year-old singer. Demi commented, saying, "You got it the wrong way around honey," before bringing up Mariah and J.Lo's decades-long feud that has recently resurfaced in the media.

"Mariah is a legend and so talented but constantly disses people. It's nasty the way she treats Jennifer," Demi continued. "Ari did nothing wrong."

When Mariah's "lambs" began lashing out at Demi, she explained further, "This is why I posted what I did. Jen keeps it classy but I'm not afraid to say s--t. The woman is mean for no reason."

She added,"Extremely talented? Yes. Superhuman? Possibly. Unnecessarily rude? Absolutely."

Demi's alleged comments surround the on-going feud between Mariah and J.Lo that started back in the 2000s when Mimi told a few members of the paparazzi that she "didn't know"who the Latina singer was.

It was reignited again in March when Mariah was asked about Lopez by photographers, and she laughed, "I still don't know her!"

However, she clarified her comments during an interview with Andy Cohen on Watch What Happens Live last month. "That was so long ago," she said. "I can't believe people still make such a big deal out of it."

She added, "Apparently, I am forgetful. It wasn't like I don't know who she is—of course I do. That's not the question."

When Cohen asked her if she thinks J.Lo is cool, Mimi responded, point-blank, "I don't know her. What am I supposed to say? I'm not going to put on a thing like we're all Hollywood and let's pretend we're best friends."

Adored Mexican comic actor Ruben Aguirre dies

Mexican comic actor Ruben Aguirre, loved by millions of children and adults across Latin America, has died, aged 82.

Aguirre was best known for his role in the long-running children's TV series El Chavo del Ocho, where he played the teacher, Professor Jirafales.

Episodes of the programme were repeated for years across Latin America, dubbed into Portuguese in Brazil.

He had been very ill for some time and died in his home in Puerto Vallarta.

In his role as Professor Jirafales, a play on the word "giraffe" because Ruben Aguirre was very tall and skinny, he enchanted his audience with his gentle slapstick humour, his catchphrases and his character's courtship of a local woman who had a cheeky son in his class.

He had started early in show business, first in radio, then television, and played various comedy roles.

In the nineties when his television contracts had finished he bought a circus and travelled with it across the Americas.

At one time he had earned a living as a bull-fighting commentator and he presented the first bullfight broadcast live via satellite from Madrid to Mexico.

How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago

So many Americans are slaughtered by gun violence that even the most sensitive of us has grown numb to some degree. An Islamic extremist turns a gay nightclub into a grisly abattoir and we all know what comes next: nothing.

Regardless of your position on guns, two facts are beyond dispute: The National Rifle Association as a lobby is sufficiently powerful to stop confiscation laws dead in their tracks; and the astounding number of guns in America means even that if every gun manufacturer folded tomorrow, generations of Americans would still live in a nation awash in instruments of death, whether said death is directed at animals, intruders, or innocents.

These two facts were best confirmed by President Obama, who said during a townhall meeting earlier this month that "the notion that I, or Hillary, or Democrats, or whoever you want to choose, are hell-bent on taking away folks' guns is just not true, and I don't care how many times the NRA says it. I'm about to leave office. There have been more guns sold since I've been president than just about any time in U.S. history. There are enough guns for every man, woman, and child in this country and at no point have I ever proposed confiscating guns from responsible gun owners."

This is true.

So what can be done?

The answer is right there in the the Second Amendment, unchanged since it first flowed from the quill of James Madison: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Ask yourself: For what purpose did the Framers endow militias with such a special place in the Bill of Rights?

The Federalist Papers assert that local militias (as opposed to a "regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country") exist as a formidable check on federal power. In Federalist 46, Madison writes of the local militia versus a national military:

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. [Federalist 46]

Bearing arms is "the right of the people" who would make up a state militia, which protects us from national tyranny (even if Madison was overly generous in describing the efficacy of militiamen during the Revolutionary War). In Federalist 29, published 228 years ago, in 1788, Alexander Hamilton concurs as to why militias are necessary:

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29]

People need firearms proficiency to defend against young soldiers of a standing army who might be, in Madison's words, "rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power." Hamilton also elaborates on ideas that would later lead to the Second Amendment, and particularly the notion of a well-regulated militia. He is unambiguous in Federalist 29 on the point that people have a right to their weapons, and that they need not attend formal military training to be part of a militia, which would be "as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."

By definition, then, a "well-regulated militia" would no longer seem to include the National Guard, which does require formal and sustained military training by the regular Army. At any rate, in its present incarnation, the Guard — as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan — is a "state" force in name only. In practice, it is a part-time Army Reserve: a national army that happens also to be used for natural disasters in home states.

Hamilton writes further of the requirements of militia members:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. [Federalist 29]

So: If the whole point of the keeping and bearing of arms is to stock "well-regulated militias," why not mandate militia membership in order to own a gun?

Before this suggestion is dismissed out of hand, I assert that the extremist so-called "militias" in Oregon, Ohio, and elsewhere — these people who live on compounds and confront federal agents — are not militiamen but rather insurrectionists. Insurrectionists should be excluded from this discussion. They surrender any claim to the designation "militia" and any place in civil society.

Proper militias would be comprised of sane men and women who own guns and wish to comply with state law. (And that is key: Militias belongentirely to the states, who regulate them accordingly.) Militias might be formed voluntarily based on like-mindedness and geography. Never forgetting their purpose — the common defense — hunters in north Louisiana, for example, might form their own militia — which in practice would exist as a kind of society or association. State regulation of militias would seek to prevent the radicalization of any such group and thus suppress insurrectionists. Likewise, state laws and local governance from within a militia might find better luck in implementing piecemeal the gun reforms that confound federal legislatures.

Recall Hamilton's statement of fact that in order to be "well regulated," a militia should meet once or twice a year. This is key to a militia-based reform (as opposed to an arms-based one) and could easily be accomplished. Precedent exists for large groups of people to assemble for one or two days a year to fulfill a civic obligation, and local governments are quite good at making such assemblies happen, as anyone who has ever been called to jury duty can attest.

Because, as Hamilton writes, formal military training would entail "a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss," how might these militias spend their two days of annual assembly? How about using those days as opportunities for gun safety training. Why not bring the NRA to said meetings to conduct such training? Their political activities aside, the NRA is peerless with respect to teaching such classes. This also allows militia members to "feel each other out" and police one another, as all communities and associations are wont to do.

As militias would be geography based, members directly and through degrees of separation would run invariably across one another's Facebook profiles and the like. A monster like Dylann Roof, for example, might attract added attention with his pro-apartheid regalia, gun poses, burning American flags, and Confederate flag fixation. His friends might not care — and might well have similar beliefs — but a group of sane gun owners familiar with the consequences of inaction might be more willing to keep an eye on the guy and flag him to local law enforcement. Likewise Omar Mateen — not because of his name, religion, or skin color, but because hebeat his wife and was reared by an unhinged video podcaster preaching pro-Taliban propaganda. Anyone who grew up in a small community knows: Fair or not, word of such things gets around. And a militia, as it were, would be just such a community.

This might not have directly prevented the massacres committed by Mateen or Roof or Adam Lanza. The simple disruption (or rather: restoration) of what it means to own a firearm, however, might well prevent future horrors. Gun owners would be given a vested interest in keeping firearms out of the wrong hands: pride in their militia. Can there be a greater dishonor than an atrocity like the massacre in Orlando? It is a national stain, make no mistake. But if the perpetrator was the member of a local militia, the shame becomes local, and with that, a certain urgency to make sure it doesn't happen.

The result of compulsory militia membership for gun owners is actual reform whose design originates directly from the framers of the Constitution. This reform adds oversight, training, and state regulation while keeping the federal government out (militias existing specifically as a check on federal power); preserving the right to keep firearms; contributing perhaps to the security of the United States in some presently unimaginable future conflict at home that involves enemy divisions and open warfare; and has a better chance of seeing law than does confiscation or a repeal of the right to bear arms.

Court precedents work against this argument. But courts change, and new eyes will inevitably be set upon the Second Amendment. Still, I concede that the likelihood of this proposal ever surviving the gauntlet of our legislative process to be slim at best. I would consider a small chance of taking a first step in the right direction, however, to be preferable to thenothing that followed the unimaginable wholesale slaughter of first-graders at Sandy Hook. If the prevailing arguments against gun ownership could survive that unrivaled atrocity, which was conceived by a lunatic and doled out from the barrel of a rifle, then those arguments will simply never gain traction. I mean only to submit other strategies to the public debate. I hope others do as well.