another site
A politician explains President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan to three audiences: folks whose loans will be forgiven, those who paid back their loans or never went into debt, and people who never went to college.
Written, performed, and edited by Austin Bragg.
The post Student Loan Forgiveness Explained appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest https://ift.tt/uDG6nMo
via IFTTT
In this week’s The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie are joined by Associate Editor Liz Wolfe as they criticize President Joe Biden’s recently announced student loan forgiveness program.
2:07: Biden’s executive order to cancel student debt.
29:33: Weekly Listener Question:
Why is the abortion debate within libertarianism treated so dismissively by everyone on The Reason Roundtable? Most other topics are approached with an evenhandedness that attempts to at least acknowledge that those who disagree with the panelists are doing so in good faith and are at least attempting to be reasonable. It’s not surprising that everyone on The Roundtable is pro-choice. But why can’t you all acknowledge your disagreement with pro-life libertarians is over fundamental values that libertarianism can’t resolve? The way you approach the subject makes your own colleagues like Liz Wolfe into pariah libertarians who have no place in the movement. Pro-life libertarians begin with the premise that life starts at conception and that all humans have human rights. Further, in this line of thinking, the most foundational right (if any rights exist at all) is the right to not be killed without just cause. And so we conclude that the right of a baby to not be killed outweighs a woman’s right to not be pregnant or not to provide the sustenance a growing baby needs to live in her womb. It is perfectly rational for someone else to say that he values a woman’s autonomy more than the rights of a potential human life (or even an actual human life), but these two positions are irreconcilable. Why does everyone on The Roundtable go around masquerading as if their position on abortion is based on pure reason and science and the only acceptable libertarian position instead of acknowledging that it really boils down to values and you don’t value a baby’s life before she is born more than the mother’s autonomy?
49:58: This week’s cultural recommendations.
Mentioned in this podcast:
“TGIF: Debts Forgiven and Debts Forgotten,” by Nick Gillespie
“Emma Camp: Student Loan Forgiveness Is Bad News and Bad Policy,” by Peter Suderman
“The Student Loan Debate Isn’t Just About Money. It’s About the Experiences Students Like Me Sacrificed.” by Fiona Harrigan
“Forgiving Student Debt Without Abolishing the Federal Loan Program Is Morally Wrong,” by Robby Soave
“Debate: Forgive Student Debt?” by Intelligence Squared Debates
“Get Ready for the Post-Roe Sex Police!” by Nick Gillespie
Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today’s sponsor:
Looking for your next podcast? Check out The Political Orphanage. Host Andrew Heaton is one of the funny guys in Reason TV videos—you may have seen him in “Libertarian PBS,” “Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition,” or “Desperate Mayors Compete for Amazon HQ2.”
The Political Orphanage is designed for people who don’t feel at home in the Republican or Democratic Parties. Rather than explaining issues as a slap fight between Red Team and Blue Team, Heaton looks for the underlying problems to big issues and cracks jokes along the way. This month, Heaton flew to Berlin to interview a historian about Nazi economics and whether Hitler was a socialist or a capitalist. Over the next two weeks, he’s going to talk to comedians about if social justice is a religion. And later this month, he’s doing a special on what might happen in the event of nuclear war.
The Political Orphanage looks for the basic concepts affecting politics and explains them, so you can make up your own mind instead of just choosing a team to hate. It’s a funny, wonky, nonpartisan show with cool guests, and we think you’ll enjoy it. So check out The Political Orphanage.
Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Hunt Beaty
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve
The post Student Debt Forgiveness Folly appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest https://ift.tt/Nm3YdHA
via IFTTT
Bear with me for a moment, but to understand the conservative case for preserving the guardrails of democracy, one has to understand the M1 Abrams main battle tank. Introduced in 1980, it was the most powerful land warfare vehicle ever devised by the mind and industry of man. In 2022 it is still unmatched on the battlefield.
But it’s not quite the same M1. It’s had gun upgrades, armor upgrades, and targeting upgrades (to name just a few of the improvements over more than 40 years of service). There was the M1, the M1A1, the M1A2, and now the M1A2 SEP. It’s still the same tank. It even looks much the same. But it’s substantially better—built to withstand the challenges of modern war.
And so it is with the Constitution and American democracy. First, there was Democracy One, the original document that was, at the time, a remarkable advance for democracy and human rights, but it was flawed. It permitted slavery. Its most potent human rights protections—the guarantees of the individual liberty in the Bill of Rights—didn’t apply to the states. So the system was unstable. It was not going to age well.
And it didn’t. The nation ripped itself apart in the Civil War, and the victorious Union created Democracy Two, with a substantially updated Constitution that, over time, extended the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberty from every organ of American government. But still, it wasn’t enough. Black Americans continued to confront the “badges and incidents of slavery” in the form of a brutal system of racial oppression that depended on both public and private discrimination.
So along came Democracy Three, the post-Civil Rights era. The power of that state expanded dramatically. The government began to touch virtually every aspect of commercial life. The administrative state grew until it became the most potent branch of government. And while the United States is absolutely more just than it was—and citizens enjoy a greater degree of legal equality than in any previous iteration of the American experiment—the strains are beginning to show.
Congress, intended to be the most powerful branch of government, is now the weakest. Campaign finance reforms that were intended to empower the grassroots and disempower the wealthy elite have backfired. Radicalized small-dollar donors drive the financial bus. Progressive reforms that were designed to give power to the people through primaries have sidelined political parties. Now small minorities of activist primary voters exercise disproportionate power and further polarize our politics.
Taken together, these developments mean that the United States is less democratic where it needs the voice of the people, and more democratic where it needs the voice of the parties. And so the American constitutional main battle tank needs another overhaul–but not one as dramatic as the first two. Let’s call ours Democracy 3.1.
Our conservative reforms are designed to revitalize Congress. Revival of the nondelegation doctrine and the reversal of the Chevron doctrine would together deter Congress from punting more power to the presidency. War powers reform would prevent the president both declaring and waging war. Filibuster reform would preserve procedural safeguards against bare majorities passing sweeping legislation while acknowledging that the present Filibuster standard paralyzes Congress. We also want a legislative veto, so that Congress can block executive branch lawmaking, even without the president’s consent.
Critically, we also propose making it easier to amend the Constitution. The barrier is simply too high for meaningful constitutional reform.
Each of these reforms would make the United States more democratic, mainly by revitalizing Congress, the most democratic branch of the federal government. But lest anyone think we conservatives have become too enamored by the voice of the people, there are places where we also want less democracy, especially in party politics.
We propose eliminating individual campaign contribution limits. Every single effort to micromanage political expenditures hasn’t just failed, it’s backfired. No one can get money out of politics, but we can distort the ways in which it flows into the system. And presently money flows through radicalized small donors who are mobilized through alarmist rhetoric and captivated by celebrity.
Small dollar donations also undermine the power of parties. Give a political celebrity an email list, and they can build a movement. We want stronger parties. We want smoke-filled rooms. And if we can’t have smoke-filled rooms, we want party conventions. If we can’t have party conventions, we want tighter requirements for party primary voting.
The goal is to give voters and leaders a sense of institutional responsibility. We love American democracy, but not every institution in America needs to be democratic. We accept the power of accountable leadership in the military, the academy, and in corporate America. We need accountable leadership in our political parties as well.
Any discussion of American democracy should also include a discussion of American education. School choice is a vital value. Schools should compete for students, and within that spirit of competition there’s a role for revamped curriculum. Our curricular culture wars are inherently oppositional. Does defeating CRT prepare our students to counter the economic and military challenge of a rising China?
A commitment to school choice allows for creativity, for new ways of teaching history and for different emphases in the STEM fields. Why do we mandate algebra and geometry, but not statistics and coding? That’s an argument worth having—one that’s far more impactful and interesting than whether a school’s diversity PowerPoints are too problematic.
Finally, we want to make election day great again. The well-meaning desire to make voting easier has turned election day into election season, and perversely has put a premium on mobilization over persuasion. Now there’s a focus on “banking” votes, and the presumption is that “your” voters are your voters, and the challenge is finding and collecting all your people.
But new information surfaces on candidates all the time. How many early voters in 2016 wished they had a second bite at the apple after, say, the Access Hollywood Tape or James Comey’s letter announcing that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation? Moreover, election day is an important communal civic event.
Even an election weekend would be preferable to an election season, and we can make election day a national holiday to help those who have difficult work schedules. We know that we won’t go back to a single election day, but deadlines can and do concentrate the mind. Let’s restore the sense of communal civic participation and make sure that we’re all operating with the same access to information when we vote.
Not one of our reforms is as consequential as the Civil War Amendments or the Civil Rights Act. But even modest changes can make a profound difference if they’re precisely targeted at the problems that are causing systemic breakdown. We’ve long enjoyed the benefits of the world’s best constitutional system, but it still needs an upgrade.
We don’t need a revolution. To return to the M1 analogy at the start. We don’t need to scrap our tank. We just need the next iteration of the same basic system that has made the United States of America the most powerful and prosperous democracy in the history of the world.
The post An Upgrade, not a Rebuild appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest https://ift.tt/CYIZTwl
via IFTTT
A politician explains President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan to three audiences: folks whose loans will be forgiven, those who paid back their loans or never went into debt, and people who never went to college.
Written, performed, and edited by Austin Bragg.
The post Student Loan Forgiveness Explained appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest https://ift.tt/uDG6nMo
via IFTTT
In this week’s The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie are joined by Associate Editor Liz Wolfe as they criticize President Joe Biden’s recently announced student loan forgiveness program.
2:07: Biden’s executive order to cancel student debt.
29:33: Weekly Listener Question:
Why is the abortion debate within libertarianism treated so dismissively by everyone on The Reason Roundtable? Most other topics are approached with an evenhandedness that attempts to at least acknowledge that those who disagree with the panelists are doing so in good faith and are at least attempting to be reasonable. It’s not surprising that everyone on The Roundtable is pro-choice. But why can’t you all acknowledge your disagreement with pro-life libertarians is over fundamental values that libertarianism can’t resolve? The way you approach the subject makes your own colleagues like Liz Wolfe into pariah libertarians who have no place in the movement. Pro-life libertarians begin with the premise that life starts at conception and that all humans have human rights. Further, in this line of thinking, the most foundational right (if any rights exist at all) is the right to not be killed without just cause. And so we conclude that the right of a baby to not be killed outweighs a woman’s right to not be pregnant or not to provide the sustenance a growing baby needs to live in her womb. It is perfectly rational for someone else to say that he values a woman’s autonomy more than the rights of a potential human life (or even an actual human life), but these two positions are irreconcilable. Why does everyone on The Roundtable go around masquerading as if their position on abortion is based on pure reason and science and the only acceptable libertarian position instead of acknowledging that it really boils down to values and you don’t value a baby’s life before she is born more than the mother’s autonomy?
49:58: This week’s cultural recommendations.
Mentioned in this podcast:
“TGIF: Debts Forgiven and Debts Forgotten,” by Nick Gillespie
“Emma Camp: Student Loan Forgiveness Is Bad News and Bad Policy,” by Peter Suderman
“The Student Loan Debate Isn’t Just About Money. It’s About the Experiences Students Like Me Sacrificed.” by Fiona Harrigan
“Forgiving Student Debt Without Abolishing the Federal Loan Program Is Morally Wrong,” by Robby Soave
“Debate: Forgive Student Debt?” by Intelligence Squared Debates
“Get Ready for the Post-Roe Sex Police!” by Nick Gillespie
Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today’s sponsor:
Looking for your next podcast? Check out The Political Orphanage. Host Andrew Heaton is one of the funny guys in Reason TV videos—you may have seen him in “Libertarian PBS,” “Game of Thrones: Libertarian Edition,” or “Desperate Mayors Compete for Amazon HQ2.”
The Political Orphanage is designed for people who don’t feel at home in the Republican or Democratic Parties. Rather than explaining issues as a slap fight between Red Team and Blue Team, Heaton looks for the underlying problems to big issues and cracks jokes along the way. This month, Heaton flew to Berlin to interview a historian about Nazi economics and whether Hitler was a socialist or a capitalist. Over the next two weeks, he’s going to talk to comedians about if social justice is a religion. And later this month, he’s doing a special on what might happen in the event of nuclear war.
The Political Orphanage looks for the basic concepts affecting politics and explains them, so you can make up your own mind instead of just choosing a team to hate. It’s a funny, wonky, nonpartisan show with cool guests, and we think you’ll enjoy it. So check out The Political Orphanage.
Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Hunt Beaty
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve
The post Student Debt Forgiveness Folly appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest https://ift.tt/Nm3YdHA
via IFTTT
Bear with me for a moment, but to understand the conservative case for preserving the guardrails of democracy, one has to understand the M1 Abrams main battle tank. Introduced in 1980, it was the most powerful land warfare vehicle ever devised by the mind and industry of man. In 2022 it is still unmatched on the battlefield.
But it’s not quite the same M1. It’s had gun upgrades, armor upgrades, and targeting upgrades (to name just a few of the improvements over more than 40 years of service). There was the M1, the M1A1, the M1A2, and now the M1A2 SEP. It’s still the same tank. It even looks much the same. But it’s substantially better—built to withstand the challenges of modern war.
And so it is with the Constitution and American democracy. First, there was Democracy One, the original document that was, at the time, a remarkable advance for democracy and human rights, but it was flawed. It permitted slavery. Its most potent human rights protections—the guarantees of the individual liberty in the Bill of Rights—didn’t apply to the states. So the system was unstable. It was not going to age well.
And it didn’t. The nation ripped itself apart in the Civil War, and the victorious Union created Democracy Two, with a substantially updated Constitution that, over time, extended the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberty from every organ of American government. But still, it wasn’t enough. Black Americans continued to confront the “badges and incidents of slavery” in the form of a brutal system of racial oppression that depended on both public and private discrimination.
So along came Democracy Three, the post-Civil Rights era. The power of that state expanded dramatically. The government began to touch virtually every aspect of commercial life. The administrative state grew until it became the most potent branch of government. And while the United States is absolutely more just than it was—and citizens enjoy a greater degree of legal equality than in any previous iteration of the American experiment—the strains are beginning to show.
Congress, intended to be the most powerful branch of government, is now the weakest. Campaign finance reforms that were intended to empower the grassroots and disempower the wealthy elite have backfired. Radicalized small-dollar donors drive the financial bus. Progressive reforms that were designed to give power to the people through primaries have sidelined political parties. Now small minorities of activist primary voters exercise disproportionate power and further polarize our politics.
Taken together, these developments mean that the United States is less democratic where it needs the voice of the people, and more democratic where it needs the voice of the parties. And so the American constitutional main battle tank needs another overhaul–but not one as dramatic as the first two. Let’s call ours Democracy 3.1.
Our conservative reforms are designed to revitalize Congress. Revival of the nondelegation doctrine and the reversal of the Chevron doctrine would together deter Congress from punting more power to the presidency. War powers reform would prevent the president both declaring and waging war. Filibuster reform would preserve procedural safeguards against bare majorities passing sweeping legislation while acknowledging that the present Filibuster standard paralyzes Congress. We also want a legislative veto, so that Congress can block executive branch lawmaking, even without the president’s consent.
Critically, we also propose making it easier to amend the Constitution. The barrier is simply too high for meaningful constitutional reform.
Each of these reforms would make the United States more democratic, mainly by revitalizing Congress, the most democratic branch of the federal government. But lest anyone think we conservatives have become too enamored by the voice of the people, there are places where we also want less democracy, especially in party politics.
We propose eliminating individual campaign contribution limits. Every single effort to micromanage political expenditures hasn’t just failed, it’s backfired. No one can get money out of politics, but we can distort the ways in which it flows into the system. And presently money flows through radicalized small donors who are mobilized through alarmist rhetoric and captivated by celebrity.
Small dollar donations also undermine the power of parties. Give a political celebrity an email list, and they can build a movement. We want stronger parties. We want smoke-filled rooms. And if we can’t have smoke-filled rooms, we want party conventions. If we can’t have party conventions, we want tighter requirements for party primary voting.
The goal is to give voters and leaders a sense of institutional responsibility. We love American democracy, but not every institution in America needs to be democratic. We accept the power of accountable leadership in the military, the academy, and in corporate America. We need accountable leadership in our political parties as well.
Any discussion of American democracy should also include a discussion of American education. School choice is a vital value. Schools should compete for students, and within that spirit of competition there’s a role for revamped curriculum. Our curricular culture wars are inherently oppositional. Does defeating CRT prepare our students to counter the economic and military challenge of a rising China?
A commitment to school choice allows for creativity, for new ways of teaching history and for different emphases in the STEM fields. Why do we mandate algebra and geometry, but not statistics and coding? That’s an argument worth having—one that’s far more impactful and interesting than whether a school’s diversity PowerPoints are too problematic.
Finally, we want to make election day great again. The well-meaning desire to make voting easier has turned election day into election season, and perversely has put a premium on mobilization over persuasion. Now there’s a focus on “banking” votes, and the presumption is that “your” voters are your voters, and the challenge is finding and collecting all your people.
But new information surfaces on candidates all the time. How many early voters in 2016 wished they had a second bite at the apple after, say, the Access Hollywood Tape or James Comey’s letter announcing that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation? Moreover, election day is an important communal civic event.
Even an election weekend would be preferable to an election season, and we can make election day a national holiday to help those who have difficult work schedules. We know that we won’t go back to a single election day, but deadlines can and do concentrate the mind. Let’s restore the sense of communal civic participation and make sure that we’re all operating with the same access to information when we vote.
Not one of our reforms is as consequential as the Civil War Amendments or the Civil Rights Act. But even modest changes can make a profound difference if they’re precisely targeted at the problems that are causing systemic breakdown. We’ve long enjoyed the benefits of the world’s best constitutional system, but it still needs an upgrade.
We don’t need a revolution. To return to the M1 analogy at the start. We don’t need to scrap our tank. We just need the next iteration of the same basic system that has made the United States of America the most powerful and prosperous democracy in the history of the world.
The post An Upgrade, not a Rebuild appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest https://ift.tt/CYIZTwl
via IFTTT
Stocks & Bonds Sink As Post-Powell “Pain” Continues
Despite a smorgasbord of opinion on just what Jay Powell said on Friday – as “Powell Pivot” bulls desperately enter the various Kubler-Ross-ian stages of grief over their dead narrative – The Fed president’s words were unequivocally hawkish and that was reflected in more positioning adjustments today.
Financial Conditions have begun to tighten from their ridiculous easing shift… as per Powell’s plan (but there’s a lot more “pain” to come)…
Source: Bloomberg
The odds of a 75bps hike in September have risen to 75%…
Source: Bloomberg
As bond rate-hikes and rate-cuts shifted more hawkishly today…
Source: Bloomberg
Futures opened down hard extending Friday’s weakness, staged a slow recovery, dumped lower after the cash open, staged another comeback to get the S&P green (after Europe closed) briefly before sliding back…
The Nasdaq is down around 5% post-Powell.
The Dow found support today at its 50DMA and the S&P and Nasdaq traded between the 50- and 100-DMA…
Treasury yields were higher across the curve today with the mid- to long-end underperforming (2Y +3bps, 10Y +7bps). Post-Powell, the long-end is flat while the belly is notably higher in yield
Source: Bloomberg
The dollar gave back most of its overnight gains but managed to hold Friday’s hawkish spike returns…
Source: Bloomberg
Bitcoin tumbled back below $20,000 overnight but buyers stepped in…
Source: Bloomberg
Dr.Copper continued its slide lower…
NatGas was noisy amid idiotic comments on emergency plans from EU leaders…
Crude prices pushed higher amid Iraq headlines
Uranium extended its gains today as the Swiss join the Japanese and Germans in possibly maybe admitting the nuclear power is the solution…
Gold bounced back from overnight ugliness to close unchanged…
Finally, for a sense of just how far this de-risking could go, we note that STIRs never drank the ‘Pivot’ Kool-Aid and – just as we saw in the March equity squeeze- are likely to be the anchor of reality that stocks have to fall to for pain to slow…
Source: Bloomberg
Bear in mind that this drop in risk assets is what Powell needs – an actual tightening of financial conditions – and should dip-buyer step back in again on hopes that Powell’s “pain” will only last a brief moment, he will re-appear in his most hawkish suit and unleash reality once again until inflation (and speculative longs bank-rolls) are good and dead.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/29/2022 – 16:00
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/pYTjaXM Tyler Durden
The Narrative Of Housing Shortage Beginning To Crumble
Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,
The housing market in America is not one but many markets that generally share a few common threads. In America, the government, coupled with a slew of builder and Realtor associations controls the housing narrative. The truth is what they have been telling and selling us is generally based on their self-interest. Owning your home has pros and cons and is not the best option for everyone.
With mortgage rates rising, it appears we are witnessing a key reversal moment in the housing sector where FOMO vanishes and is replaced with the idea I’m glad I didn’t buy. The narrative we have a housing shortage is begging to crumble. It is likely many buyers are shifting into a wait-and-see mode. The false housing narrative of shortages is breaking down. The cheap money flowing from Wall Street has stopped flowing in and in some places has begun to retreat.
Whether this will be a short-term dip in prices or develop into a situation that lasts for years is difficult to predict. Just a few of the factors feeding into future prices of housing include interest rates, property taxes, insurance costs, maintenance, and the incomes of people living in the area. Incomes and interest rates are huge factors when it comes to affordability. This is where the real problem is and the lack of an easy fix that will make money for the big boys that drive our economy.
Housing prices can surge during a bubble but rapidly retreat.
It appears we have reached that apex and while cheap or inexpensive housing is difficult to find overall plenty of housing units exist if people are simply willing to clean them up. Often this means lowering their expectations of what they deserve, the reality is not everyone can afford or live in a brand new house.
It is a recent development, meaning just in the last few decades, that young couples and singles think they need or should be living in a several thousand square foot house with all the fixings and three or more baths and bedrooms, an attached garage, and more. Yes, the average size of new homes has grown while the size of families or the number of occupants has declined.
Population shifts and the media hype have also added to muddying the housing picture. Housing envy, the desire to live like the Jones is driven by images of most families living far better than the average American. Whether it is in a commercial, film, or on the news, few people are put before us that live in a dirty cramped shit hole.
The sad fact that people cause most of their own problems tends to be overlooked. If a person wants a nicer place to live there is a thing called paint and another item called a broom. The number of empty and underutilized houses in older neighborhoods stand as a monument to our government’s failed housing policies.
Investor demand and massive building activity in various areas of America will prove to be a destabilizing influence on prices going forward. Overall, one of the largest factors remains the fact houses are a tangible asset and may prove safer than the paper promises most people consider as having value. We must also remember home-ownership plays directly into the wealth effect. Housing values impact how people feel about the economy and has a huge influence on spending habits.
All the above factors feeding into this important sector of our economy create a murky picture for the future of housing. In an economic downturn of real magnitude, a reduction in household creation where people double or triple up is very likely. Across America, we have a huge number of large houses and the consolidation in the number of households can rapidly reduce demand when people move in together. One thing that is clear, people should take a cautious approach when they decide to make one of the biggest purchases of their lifetime.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/29/2022 – 15:45
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/9MzyiK4 Tyler Durden
Chinese Customs Halts Some Meat Imports From Tyson Foods
China informed the US Department of Agriculture that some meat imports from Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. would be suspended due to unsatisfactory inspections.
On Monday, the state-owned mouthpiece Global Times said, “Chinese authorities have informed the US Department of Agriculture that Chinese customs will suspend meat imports transported by US firm Tyson Fresh Meat starting from Monday after its pig trotters failed to pass inspection.”
Bloomberg pointed out that the suspension of some meat imports from Tyson came as China halted trade with two other US meatpackers because of the presence of ractopamine in the meat, a feed additive used in the US but prohibited by Beijing in raising livestock.
Rabobank’s Pan Chenjun doesn’t believe the Tyson suspension should tremendously impact the meat trade between both countries. He said the incident comes as Chinese buyers could increase overseas pork purchases.
“China’s pork demand is expected to improve in the coming months and prices are being pressured to climb further,” Chenjun said.
After pig ebola decimated the country’s pig herd several years ago, Fu Linghui, the National Bureau of Statistics spokesperson, said that China’s live pig production returned to near average levels.
Pig prices in the country are around $3.26 per pound, well off the highs during the outbreak of pig ebola that sent prices skyrocketing towards $6 in 2019.
Suppose the drivers behind the move aren’t due to banned feed additives or supply issues. In that case, it’s crucial to note that Sino-American relations have soured over the past month following House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. Then on Sunday, the US Navy sent two guided-missile cruisers through the Taiwan Strait on a “routine” mission.
Global Times said the US warships that transited the strait were sabotaging peace. The newspaper also said the “old warships” couldn’t “deter the PLA at all.”
Trade tensions between the US and China are an ongoing concern as Taiwan remains in focus.
Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/29/2022 – 15:28
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZFdAyiz Tyler Durden
Tropics Flare-Up Could Derail Impending August Record Of No-Named Storms
The Atlantic Basin has had a very quiet hurricane season so far. It’s been so uneventful that a quarter-century-long record of no named storms for August could be seen for the first time since 1997 and the third time since 1961. Though, the tropics are heating up this week with three systems that could spoil the potential record.
Last week, we told readers dry air, Saharan dust, and wind shear were some of the reasons why tropical activity remained depressed. Any systems in the tropics coming off the African coast this season were quickly disorganized by the wind shear that prevented further development.
If there are no named tropical storms through the end of this month (or after Wednesday), it would only be the third time since 1961.
However, the potential record could be derailed by new tropical activity that has sprung up in the Atlantic Basin.
The National Hurricane Center is monitoring three systems in the tropics and a disturbance over the central tropical Atlantic that has about a 50% chance of cyclone formation as it moves west-northwest at 5 to 10 mph toward the northern Leeward Islands.
“Confidence continues to grow that a tropical system will develop in the central Atlantic around midweek,” said AccuWeather Meteorologist Brandon Buckingham.
If that’s the case, say adios to the potential record if the storm exhibits a rotating circulation pattern and wind speeds above 39 mph because that would be the point the storm would be named.
Buckingham said: “It looks like September could kick off an active period in the tropics. A steady wave train of energy rolling off Africa into the tropical Atlantic is expected to keep things active for a while across the Atlantic basin.”
Tyler Durden
Mon, 08/29/2022 – 14:54
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RIijqD0 Tyler Durden