Month: August 2020

Amazon received approval Monday from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate its fleet of Prime Air delivery drones in US skies, reported Bloomberg. 

The FAA designated Amazon Prime Air as an “air carrier,” allowing it to “safely and efficiently deliver packages to customers.” 

“This certification is an important step forward for Prime Air and indicates the FAA’s confidence in Amazon’s operating and safety procedures for an autonomous drone delivery service that will one day deliver packages to our customers around the world,” David Carbon, vice president of Prime Air, said in a statement. 

“We will continue to develop and refine our technology to fully integrate delivery drones into the airspace, and work closely with the FAA and other regulators around the world to realize our vision of 30-minute delivery,” Carbon said.  

The certification gives Prime Air drone operators the ability to fly the aircraft ‘beyond the line of sight’ to deliver packages across metro areas. Amazon made no mention of what cities nor timing of when the pilot tests will begin. 

Consumers are accustomed to two-day, one-day, and or now, even same-day deliveries. The idea a 30-minute delivery option could be available in the near term would be game-changing for consumers in a contactless society – though it would continue to roil brick-and-mortar retailers. 

Amazon is expected to use the MK27 unmanned aircraft for pilot testing. These drones have a delivery range of about 7.5 miles of a distribution center, with a payload weighing 5 pounds.

Amazon will join an elite club of companies, including Alphabet subsidiary Wing and UPS, operating FAA-approved trials in the US. 

Questions remain if the Prime Air drone will have the capability to spy on consumers (read: “Amazon Patents Creepy Drone Technology To Spy On Your Home.”) 

Via SchiffGold.com,

The Fed has moved the inflation goalposts.

The central bank will no longer focus on keeping a lid on inflation. In his podcast, Peter Schiff said this policy will simply speed up the destruction of the dollar and the economy.

Jerome Powell announced the new policy during his speech in Jackson Hole last Thursday. In the past, the central bank has targeted a 2% inflation rate as measured by CPI. Now it will shift to “average inflation targeting.” In effect, the Fed will allow the CPI to run “moderately” over 2% “for some time” to balance out periods where it runs under that level.

“Many find it counterintuitive that the Fed would want to push up inflation. However, inflation that is persistently too low can pose serious risks to the economy,” Powell said during prepared remarks at the summit.

Of course, when you define inflation correctly – as an expansion of the money supply – it is anything but “too low.” In fact, it is at the highest level in history.  But based on the CPI number, inflation has been well below 2% for many years. That means that the Fed will likely hold interest rates at zero for a significant amount of time – probably years – even if CPI runs above 2%. As Peter put it – the Fed has effectively raised its inflation target, but we don’t actually know what that target is.

It’s kind of a moving target. So, if we’ve had all these years of below 2% inflation – and again, I’m using the word inflation the way the Fed uses it, not what it actually means, so I’m not referring to the expansion of the money supply but the increase in consumer prices that results from that expansion, that inflation. But given that the official CPI has been below 2% for all of these years, the only way to bring the average up to 2% is for the Fed to now target an inflation rate above 2%. So, that’s really what the Fed has done. It’s not that they just said we want inflation to average 2%. What they’re saying is they want future inflation to be higher than 2% so that we can average out all of this low inflation that we’ve had in the past.”

Fed inflation policy has evolved over time. The natural tendency in a healthy economy is for prices to decline. So originally, the Fed’s goal was “price stability. Early on, the central bank simply tried to keep prices from rising or falling. Eventually, it shifted to a 2% ceiling. It didn’t want rising prices, but it would tolerate them as long as they stayed below 2%. Next, 2% became the target. And now we’ve reached the next step in the evolution.

Peter said the 2% target never really made any sense. Why is 2% inflation better than 1%?

The bottom line is what no one seems to understand is all of this is BS. The Fed is just making stuff up because it is in a predicament of its own creation. What the Fed has done with all of its prior monetary stimulus is to create a situation where the Fed can never actually fight the inflation that it creates. That’s why the Fed is now saying we’re going to let inflation run hotter – because they have no choice. It’s not because this is good for the economy. It’s not. It is necessary to keep the bubble from deflating. So, if the Fed’s goal is to prop up the stock market, to prevent the stock market from coming down, then they need more inflation. Because it’s inflation that’s propping the stock market up. The same thing with the real estate market and the bond market. And in fact, if the Fed wants to enable large government deficits, if they want to enable the government to keep borrowing money, then the only way to make that possible is to keep creating inflation because the Federal Reserve needs to monetize this debt by printing money, by expanding the money supply, by creating inflation, which of course is going to put upward pressure on consumer prices.”

The question nobody is asking is what will the Fed do if inflation heats up too much?

What if it gets too hot? How is the Fed going to put out the fire? It can’t. It’s impossible, which means the Fed has to constantly move the goalposts on its mission. So, the question is: what’s next? What are they going to say once the average rate of inflation is well above 3%?”

Wall Street loves this pivot because the Federal Reserve is basically saying not to worry about it raising interest rates. Government officials love it because this is what politicians need in order to keep spending money with reckless abandon. The only way politicians can give people something for nothing is if they pay for it through inflation.

Now, of course, the public doesn’t realize that inflation is a bill they are going to have to pay. That enables the politicians to continue to fool the public into thinking that they’re getting something for nothing. But we’re not getting anything for nothing. In fact, all of this extra inflation is going to damage the real economy. The ultimate irony of this is that the Fed allowing money to lose value, allowing people’s savings and wages to lose purchasing power, is not good for the economy. It may be good for the stock market in keeping a bubble inflated and keeping prices high. It may be good for maintaining the illusion that we have economic growth because we’re measuring that growth in nominal terms and not adjusting it for the decline in the value of money. But it’s not good for the economy.”

The bottom line is the Fed can’t fight inflation. That’s the reason for all this posturing. That’s why it has to move the goalposts. It has to pretend it can do something about inflation – if necessary – but then convince us that it’s not necessary. Peter said at some point the market is going to call the Fed’s bluff and ultimately the dollar is going to be destroyed.

In this podcast, Peter also talked about how Fed monetary policy exacerbates wealth inequality, the mainstream and market reaction to the Fed’s announcement and how this will ultimately impact the dollar.

An internal email leaked from CVS Health reveals that the company instructed pharmacy employees not to tell patients that someone who tested positive for COVID-19 had filled their prescriptions, according to Business Insider.

A Georgia CVS technician shared the internal email with Business Insider that asked employees to track down which prescriptions were filled by a COVID-positive employee and to pull them from the shelves. However, the email also emphasized that if a patient had already picked up one of those prescriptions, the standard policy is to “NOT make an outreach call.” –Business Insider

A spokesman for CVS, Michael DeAngelis, told Business Insider “We are looking into your specific question. Generally speaking, our priority during this pandemic is the safety of our employees, patients, and customers.”

According to a technician, staff were threatened with disciplinary action or termination if they revealed that someone at the store had tested positive for the virus.

“We were told not to contact anyone or let anyone know,” the technician told BI.

Meanwhile, at least 14 employees across the United States anonymously told the outlet that CVS has been “bullying” staff while disregarding their safety during the pandemic. Business Insider has confirmed their identities.

Staff have said that CVS has ignored incidents of potential coronavirus exposure and forced employees to work while sick. DeAngelis confirmed to Business Insider last week that it is CVS’s policy to allow employees to work after exposure or testing positive while asymptomatic.

DeAngelis said CVS allows asymptomatic employees to work if they wear surgical masks, self-monitor for symptoms, and if their temperature is taken before and after every shift for 14 days after exposure. –Business Insider

DeAngeles added that employees are allowed to request time off even if they are asymptomatic (no word on whether that request is granted) – though the Georgia technician’s coworker both showed symptoms and tested positive, yet was allowed to work in close proximity to others “because they couldn’t have anyone else out of work,” the tech said.

On Saturday, we showed that Trump had received a healthy boost in support following the Republican National Convention and the latest rioting in Kenosha and elsewhere, while enthusiasm for Joe Biden has slipped, according to a new poll by Morning Consult.  We also showed that a far more dramatic race was reflected in Real Clear Politics‘ betting average between Trump and Biden, using data from oddsmakers Betfair, Bovada, Bwin, Matchbook, Smarkets and SpreadEx.

This morning, in his latest note, Marko Kolanovic laid out “what is next for markets” and his contention was that as the data we showed over the weekend reveal, “investors should position for rising odds of Trump re-election” as “Trump’s re-election chances are rising and are already higher than currently reflected in investment styles.” This matters because “the impact on sectors and factors (momentum vs value, cyclicals vs tech, ESG) could be dramatic and investment portfolios should adjust for a potential Trump re-election.”

“Over the past few days, Trump’s betting odds are rapidly increasing” Kolanovic said, stating that he analyzed and quantified “2 effects that we believe are driving this shift and may significantly impact the election outcome.” The JPM quant then explained that “Trump’s betting odds started plummeting with the onset of large protests in early June. During the month of August, Trump was as much as 25 points behind and investors took Biden’s election for granted (we cautioned this may be premature). However, during the month of August, Trump’s betting odds started improving, with the largest increase happening over the past week. Currently, betting odds have Trump virtually tied with Biden.”

Kolanovic then asks what caused this initial collapse and then full recovery of Trump’s odds. His response: “we believe it is largely due to two effects: 1) the impact of the degree of violence in protests on public opinion and voting patterns and 2) a bias in polls due to Trump voters being more likely to decline or mislead polls”, both factors we discussed extensively over the past week (here and here).

Then, after laying out the dynamics our readers are already familiar with, Kolanovic says that “momentum related to the Wasow effect will continue in favor of Trump, unless Democrats pivot away from their stance regarding demonstrations. This may not be easy however, given that top Democrats have called for daily demonstrations (e.g. Kamala Harris) and rallied their base around the theme of defunding police and would need to effectively adopt Trump’s policy after 3 months as a reaction to polls. Some party officials already rationalized or promoted the behavior.”

Then there is the question of turnout: here Kolanovic makes a critical point saying that “turnout strongly depends on the left wing of the party (‘Bernie bros’, Marxist elements, etc.), which would be alienated by such a shift” [toward demonstrations].

Of course, the fading impact of Covid will also have an impact on the election: “Another important driver in determining both the market direction and election outcome is the progression of COVID-19. Figure 2 shows that daily US COVID-19 cases also correlate with Trump betting odds. New COVID-19 cases rate has been declining by about ~20,000 cases/day per month. Given that there are no very large states that have yet to see widespread outbreaks that can significantly boost new cases, this will likely set the pandemic on course to subside in time for the election. Declining cases may further provide a boost to Trump’s election odds.

Finally, Kolanovic notes that the last important driver of election odds will be the outcome of presidential debates: “Currently, top Democrats are calling for the historically unprecedented action of cancelling debates. Cancelling debates would likely not bode well for Biden, as recent polls suggest that 61% of voters think Biden should address the question of dementia publicly, and 52% are either not sure or think that Biden has the condition.”

And while the JPM strategist concedes that “a lot can happen in the next ~60 days to change the odds” he currently believes “that momentum in favor of Trump will continue, while the most investors are still positioned for a Biden win. Implications could significant for the performance of factors, sectors, COVID-19 winners/losers, as well as ESG.“

* * *

With just over two months left, it remains to be seen if Trump’s momentum persists but what we found unquestionably hilarious is that shortly after Kolanovic’s warning was publicized, none other than Nate Silver who predicted the 2016 would be won by Hillary (see here and here), though granted with some caveats and far less vocally than his even more clueless peers who had all predicted a Hillary landslide, had a meltdown on twitter, slamming the two core arguments behind Kolanovic’s opinion, proceeding directly to ad hominem attacks, calling Marko a “financebro” to wit:

“both of these propositions are almost entirely lacking in evidence, to the point where they’re more superstitious than empirical, but are an interesting window into the mindset of techbros and financebros who are buying up Trump shares on prediction markets.”

Both of these propositions are almost entirely lacking in evidence, to the point where they’re more superstitious than empirical, but are an interesting window into the mindset of techbros and financebros who are buying up Trump shares on prediction markets. https://t.co/HmNKxSG1ob

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 31, 2020

The meltdown continued for several more tweets, and culminated with the following scathing attack: “A chart like this is nonsense, and the analysis behind it is lacking any sort of empirical anchor and is otherwise hopelessly confused. It’s amazing that they shared it with a reporter because they thought it would make them look smart.”

Most of what makes political prediction markets dumb is that people assume they have expertise about election forecasting because they a) follow politics and b) understand “data” and “markets”. Without more specific domain knowledge, though, that combo is a recipe for stupidity.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 31, 2020

Part of it I guess is you don’t look smart by pointing out the obvious, the obvious being that the candidate who has been ahead in the polls all year (Biden) is the favorite, though the question of *how much* of a favorite requires a lot of technical and domain expertise.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) August 31, 2020

Nate, chill out “pollbro” and stop pretending like there is some profound, abstruse and complex science involved here – there isn’t – and that only certified grand druids of polling have a right to opine on the future. If anything, you are the one who should shut up, instead of trying to “look smart” by bashing Kolanovic, who at least lays out his logic and – ultimately – his clients will decide if he is right or wrong with their wallet. It’s called skin in the game: if Marko is right, he will be rewarded, if he is wrong he may lose his job. You, on the other hand, were hopelessly wrong in 2016 and yet here you are pretending you have some arcane “technical and domain expertise.”

What really prompted Silver’s implosion? It appears that despite his catastrophic track record from 2016, Nate still believes he somehow holds a monopoly on forecasting and “analyzing” polls and thus Kolanovic’s upstaging of Silver was taken especially personally, even though we are shocked that people still care and listen to what Silver has to say. Incidentally, Nate, it wasn’t you but this website that explained for much of 2016…

• “ABC/Wapo Effectively Admit To Poll Tampering As Hillary’s “Lead” Shrinks To 2-Points“
• “How Reuters “Tweaked” Its Latest Poll (Again) To Show A Clinton Lead“
• “Statisticians Warn Of “Systemic Mainstream Misinformation” In Poll Data“
• “CNN Goes “Full Reuters” – Attempts To Rig VP Debate Poll With Too Many Dems In Sample“
• “New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through ‘Oversamples’“

… why the polling results in 2016 were meaningless and why people should not rely on what they predicted. We were right, you were wrong.

Oh and for those who care or keep records of such things, Silver’s latest take – perhaps having learned from the 2016 fiasco – is that “Biden is slightly favored to win the election.”

So what does happen next? Well, the good news is that in just a few weeks we will know who is right and wrong. If Trump’s polling suddenly reverses and Biden steamrolls the president, well then it won’t be the first time that a “once in a decade” opportunity to bet on a reversal has gone wrong. On the other hand, we sincerely hope that if Trump is victorious on Nov 3 that Nate Silver finally finds a job that he is good at.

Yet another consecutive weekend of deadly gun violence has rocked Chicago, as President Trump continues to go after Democrat-run cities with his restore law-and-order emphasis.

The numbers of dead and wounded in Chicago this weekend are staggering, but yet again there’s barely a blip in major network coverage, which have opted instead to cover mayhem of a different sort related to ongoing Black Lives Matter protests and “race politics”. CBS Channel 2 Chicago reports:

At least 50 people had been shot, and 10 of them had been killed, so far this weekend in Chicago as of Sunday evening.

Among those wounded in shootings this weekend were two police officers, along a suspect whom a third officer shot, in Homan Square. Meanwhile, one man was killed and four others were injured in a mass shooting Sunday at a pancake house dining tent in Morgan Park.

Noticeably, two police officers were shot in Chicago over this latest weekend of bloodshed, but are expected to recover.

The crisis and blood-spilled streets of Chicago and other cities, increasingly New York City witnessing its own violent crime outbreak too, has led some commentators to observe that for the mainstream it seems only some Black lives matter, given the extreme disparity in coverage. 

The mayhem on Chicago streets this weekend included what local media is calling a “mass shooting” in broad daylight on Sunday, given that five people were shot when a gunman drove up to an outdoor restaurant socially distanced tent and opened fire:  

The mass shooting in Morgan Park happened around 2 p.m., an hour before closing, at the Lumes Pancake House at 11601 S. Western Ave.

The five adults were shot as they ate outside under a tent the restaurant had set up, according to the police and fire departments. Earlier reports had said six people were shot, but police later said it was five people.

A 31-year old man believed to be the main target in the shooting died of his wounds.

The shooting itself appears to have taken place inside this tent which is in the parking lot of Lumes Pancake House. #Chicago #ChicagoScanner pic.twitter.com/T4tuAorvrQ

— Tyler LaRiviere (@TylerLaRiviere) August 30, 2020

A waitress described of the shock and chaos of the scene: “Everybody started coming running in, and they were in the back in they were shooting. The guys came in the tent and started shooting everybody in the tent,” according to CBS 2. 

The tragic incident further begs the question: how is it that a mass shooting in broad daylight goes largely unnoticed on the major networks like CNN or MSNBC? 

Joe Biden has left the basement – skipping over Kenosha, Wisconsin for a campaign stop in Pittsburgh – where he attempted to flip the script on President Trump over left-wing violence which the former VP has failed to directly condemn.

Biden’s early return to the campaign trail comes after taking fire from Trump on Sunday over a milquetoast condemnation of ‘violence on both sides’ – failing to acknowledge left-wing violence from Antifa and BLM extremists which have turned nearly three months of anti-police protests into race riots in major cities across the country.

The left has created a monster that they have lost complete control of…

I never thought I’d see people chanting “death to America” in the streets of America.pic.twitter.com/YUDdb1unzb

— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) August 31, 2020

Biden’s pitch?

“Are you safe in Donald Trump’s America?” (from Biden voters?)

According to a statement from Biden’s campaign, the former VP will slam Trump’s COVID-19 response, before blaming the president for ‘fanning the flames of division and encouraging chaos in our cities.‘

“COVID runs unchecked throughout the country, killing thousands of Americans a week and turning our economy upside down. Parents around the country are struggling to send their kids to school safely. And Donald Trump continues to fan the flames of division and encourage chaos in our cities, rather than trying to calm tensions and heal this country.

On Monday, Joe Biden will offer a different vision for a better future in Joe Biden’s America.”

Does anyone believe there will be less violence in America if Donald Trump is reelected?

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) August 31, 2020

He’s already off to a stumble…

What? pic.twitter.com/g8Xv43v8u8

— Thomas Catenacci (@ThomasCatenacci) August 31, 2020

In speech today, Biden defended himself from growing charges he’s soft on leftwing looting, rioting and arson besieging US cities by trying to make it seem like “white nationalists,” “white supremacists” and “right-wing militias” are behind the civil unrest

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 31, 2020

The Trump campaign has responded to Biden’s pitch with a one-line ‘question of the day for Joe Biden‘:

“Which supporter of yours coddled violent mobs of your leftist voters best: Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, Mayor Jenny Durkan of Seattle, or Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland?”

Will Biden condemn his base celebrating the death of a Trump supporter?

“I am not sad that a f**king fascist died tonight,” yells a female Antifa militant at a gathering in downtown Portland. The crowd laughs and cheers. The victim was a Trump supporter. pic.twitter.com/XK4Czzseia

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) August 30, 2020

Of course, New York Times‘ ‘disinformation reporter’ (lol) Davey Alba says it’s fake news because it wasn’t all of the protesters. She also calls Zero Hedge ‘far-right,’ and falsely claims we reported “that leftist protesters were claiming the person who died was “one of theirs” & the “shooter is a fascist”” (we did not, read our reporting on the shooting here). Then, she turned off replies, preventing anyone from providing counterpoints.

Talk about disinformation…

– Theyre also claiming that Antifa & the protesters were, in a coordinated fashion, “celebrating” the murder of a Trump supporter and had intentionally falsely identified the victim as Black (NYT has reported he was white & apparently far right) https://t.co/RZkOCE94gn (4/5)

— Davey Alba (@daveyalba) August 30, 2020

Alba then trots out three anonymous tweets from Antifa members condemning the killing, and writes “But reminder that Antifa and the protesters aren’t 1 totally united grp.”

So, case-closed?

– There’s a widely watched video pushing the “celebration” claim. It has 1.7M views on Twitter & is going around on other platforms. But reminder that Antifa and the protesters aren’t 1 totally united grp; I’m seeing Antifa also condemning the harm that happened last night. (5/5) pic.twitter.com/GMG9RV5kaD

— Davey Alba (@daveyalba) August 30, 2020

Imagine if Trump received the same kind of ‘assistance’ from the media…