Author: admin

People Who Feel More Productive When Working At Home Are Not The Best Judges Of Their Own Productivity

Over the past 18 months, millions of workers were thrust into a natural experiment. They were suddenly required to work from home. And now that the pandemic is subsiding, employers are trying terminate that natural experiment. In many fields, employees are resisting, and are demanding flexible work schedules. With the so-called “Great Resignation,” some employees are actually leaving their jobs to avoid in-person work requirements.

A common thread in this debate is whether employees are more, or less productive working at home. I’ve read articles written on both sides of the issue. I don’t quite know what to conclude.

What I do know, is that employees demanding to work from home are not the best judges of their capabilities. Most people over-evaluate their abilities. It is human nature. In my experiences, students consistently think they have a handle on material until they flub a tough question or bomb an exam. Then they are quickly brought back to reality. That over-confidence does not vanish at graduation. Workers, at all levels, often view themselves as far more productive and effective than they are. Outside of Lake Wobegon, not everyone can be above average.

Unsurprisingly, workers claim to be more effective by working at home. Objectively, there is less time wasted on the commute. At least superficially, workers had more time every day to work. But were workers actually more productive? Who knows. It’s hard to measure pre-pandemic and post-pandemic norms.

It is also tough to generalize about productivity across all sorts of professions. Some jobs are done better in a workplace. Other jobs are done better at home. And some jobs require a mix. We really don’t know what the correct balance is.

Fortunately, markets can help work this problem out. Some employers will offer flexible policies. Others will not. And workers can choose.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iMumVa
via IFTTT

People Who Feel More Productive When Working At Home Are Not The Best Judges Of Their Own Productivity

Over the past 18 months, millions of workers were thrust into a natural experiment. They were suddenly required to work from home. And now that the pandemic is subsiding, employers are trying terminate that natural experiment. In many fields, employees are resisting, and are demanding flexible work schedules. With the so-called “Great Resignation,” some employees are actually leaving their jobs to avoid in-person work requirements.

A common thread in this debate is whether employees are more, or less productive working at home. I’ve read articles written on both sides of the issue. I don’t quite know what to conclude.

What I do know, is that employees demanding to work from home are not the best judges of their capabilities. Most people over-evaluate their abilities. It is human nature. In my experiences, students consistently think they have a handle on material until they flub a tough question or bomb an exam. Then they are quickly brought back to reality. That over-confidence does not vanish at graduation. Workers, at all levels, often view themselves as far more productive and effective than they are. Outside of Lake Wobegon, not everyone can be above average.

Unsurprisingly, workers claim to be more effective by working at home. Objectively, there is less time wasted on the commute. At least superficially, workers had more time every day to work. But were workers actually more productive? Who knows. It’s hard to measure pre-pandemic and post-pandemic norms.

It is also tough to generalize about productivity across all sorts of professions. Some jobs are done better in a workplace. Other jobs are done better at home. And some jobs require a mix. We really don’t know what the correct balance is.

Fortunately, markets can help work this problem out. Some employers will offer flexible policies. Others will not. And workers can choose.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iMumVa
via IFTTT

The U.S. Is Trying To Keep Out Mexicans Who Want To Sell Their Blood Plasma


bsiphotos019554

Among other supply chain issues sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world now faces a shortage of blood plasma, which is used in life-saving therapies for people who have certain chronic illnesses. A new policy implemented by the Biden administration serves to make that shortage worse.

On June 15, Customs and Border Protection announced that Mexicans would no longer be permitted to enter the U.S. on temporary visitor visas to sell their plasma. The new policy now designates Mexican donors “labor for hire,” which makes it illegal for them to sell plasma while holding a B1/B2 visitor visa, as the majority of those donors have previously done.

The Immune Deficiency Foundation estimates that the restrictions on Mexican donors could reduce the U.S. plasma supply by 5–10 percent. Though that may not sound drastic, Georgetown University ethics professor and paid plasma expert Peter Jaworski calls it an “enormous” issue. Jaworski tells Reason that the pandemic had already reduced U.S.-based plasma collection by 20–25 percent. “We are in a medicinal crunch,” he says. “We don’t have enough of these medicines. Already there’s a shortage in Spain…and in other parts of the European Union as well. Unless we figure out a way to increase plasma collection, we’re not going to overcome those shortages.”

Demand for plasma is rising, too—growing annually between 6–8 percent, and tripling during the pandemic. Plasma-for-pay is key to solving this issue, but few nations are willing to acknowledge that reality.

Just five countries allow donors to receive payment for blood plasma—the United States, Germany, Hungary, Austria, and the Czech Republic. That compensation model has led to these five nations having plasma collection surpluses, while countries that have to import plasma constantly grapple with shortages. Countries that allow paid plasma comprise 89 percent of the world’s plasma supply. The U.S. provides over 70 percent, making Biden’s move a potential catastrophe for the global importers of American plasma. In Spain, for example, La Razon reported that therapy providers have already had to space out plasma treatments due to shortages.

There are no alternatives to plasma-based medicines for the patients who use them. According to Jaworski, “they either get immunoglobulin or they suffer and sometimes die.” Roughly 300,000 Europeans and 125,000 Americans rely on plasma therapies to treat chronic illnesses—like Von Willebrand disease and hemophilia—and many more are treated with plasma after traumatic accidents or in preparation for surgeries. Researchers have looked to plasma in their efforts to treat COVID-19 and Alzheimer’s disease, making a reliable global supply all the more important.

Still, critics of paid blood plasma say the practice is exploitative. (A June ProPublica article celebrated Biden’s June policy change with the headline, “The U.S. Is Closing a Loophole That Lured Mexicans Over the Border to Donate Blood Plasma for Cash.”) They claim that plasma centers put Mexican donors at medical risk with the promise of making a quick buck. Beyond the blatant disregard for donor agency, that argument neglects how financially important paid plasma donation can be for people south of the border.

The U.S. caps donations at 104 per year, and with donors paid up to $40 for every donation, a Mexican donor could feasibly make over $4,000 annually from selling plasma. “The average salary in at least some of these border cities in Mexico is estimated to be about $9 a day,” explains Jaworski. “Meanwhile, Mexicans could cross the border and get basically $80 a week donating plasma twice a week.” Knowing that, Mexican donors have decided that selling plasma is a valuable opportunity to make some cash. 

“Take anything that you think is exploitative. You need to look at what the second-best option for that group of people is,” says Jaworski. “In banning the ability of Mexicans to cross the border to sell their plasma, we don’t thereby put money in their pockets. So whatever it is that made them exploitable in the first place still exists.”

“A lot of us were already unemployed and trying to make ends meet,” Geraldo Rivera, a regular plasma donor from Mexico, told Texas Public Radio shortly after the policy change. “Now they say we can’t donate and we don’t know how we’re going to survive.”

“Whether I have a steady job or not, I’m going to go back to donating,” Saul Vazquez, another frequent donor, told the El Paso Times.

Charges of high medical risk may well be overblown, too. The ProPublica article cautions that “frequent donors were underweight and showed low levels of antibodies,” but Jaworski says this is “basically speculation.” Paid plasma centers test potential donors’ protein and hemoglobin levels to ensure collection will go smoothly.

Far from being an exploitative practice, paid blood plasma donation is a lifeline for many Mexicans, and absolutely essential for patients with autoimmune disorders and other immunodeficiencies who rely on these therapies. And yet, the Biden administration has decided to jeopardize the world’s plasma supply, patient well-being, and the financial livelihoods of Mexican donors all at once.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3l2Ndya
via IFTTT

The Creator Of The Bond VIX Pens An Open Letter To The Fed

The Creator Of The Bond VIX Pens An Open Letter To The Fed

Submitted by Harley Bassman, creator of the bond VIX and author of the Convexity Maven blog

Open Letter To The Fed (pdf link)

In 1986 Herbert Stein, a University of Chicago economist and onetime Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, modestly proposed Stein’s Law: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

As such, with similar modestly, let me propose a few ways for the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) to “trim the sails” of their monetary support programs before another “Chuck Prince moment” arrives with a deafening silence.As a reminder, we have a massive debt problem in the US, both public and private; and there are only two paths out of such a situation, either default or inflate, where inflation is simply a slow-motion default.Thus, the FED’s program of Quantitative Easing (QE) was well-intentioned, and in fact it did create inflation; such a pity this inflation occurred in asset prices instead of Service (Labor) wages as intended.

Clever quants will say that a statistically significant mathematical correlation does not exist between money creation and financial asset prices;but who are you going to believe, them or your lying eyes? Below the blue line is the balance sheet assets of the major Western Central Banks, while the red line is the value of theirGlobal financial market.

Perhaps on a week-to-week basis asset prices do not move synchronously with the production of fiat currency, but $20 Trillion of money must reside someplace, and with the magic of financial leverage it is quite clear where.

Similarly, while I cannot show a formula that links concentrated wealth creation to significant political unrest, once again I will let your lying eyes consider the green line and the purple line on the prior chart. The yellow line below was a projection for the growth of the FED’s balance sheet relative to US GDP; hat tip to Bank of America as the balance sheet presently tops out at $8.24Tn versus a GDP of $22.79Tn, or 35.2%.

At some point,simple common sense must be a viable consideration. After all, if it were possible for the Sovereign to create the coin of the realm (fiat currency) at a pace faster than the growth of the economy, wouldn’t there be a record of that happening successfully before? Why should there be poor people if it is possible to create wealth and offer it to all citizens? It must stop eventually.

For better or worse, financial markets are now tightly linked to FED policies, and specifically balance sheet growth that:

  1. Funds non-investment Fiscal policies
  2. Controls interest rates
  3. Suppresses both realized and implied Volatility

Consequently, the notion of a cold turkey reduction of financial support would likely cause a disruption, which while perhaps beneficial over the long-term, would cause too much suffering for both our citizens and policymakers. As such, let me offer a few ways to improve FED policies without inducing an opioid-like withdrawal. [Did I just compare the FED to the Sacklers?]

Reduce Mortgage-backed Security (MBS) purchases

Presently the FED targets buying $120bn a month in bonds; $80bn in US Treasuries and $40bn in MBS. This MBS purchase is too large relative to the size of the market and the appetite for such securities from private investors. The best single measure of MBS value is the yield spread between the par Constant Maturity Mortgage rate (CMM) and the Constant Maturity 10yr Swap rate (10CMS).

The “forever” average is about 72bps; compare this the current 41bps.

Contraction of this spread implicitly leads to lower mortgage rates, which seems like a nice idea, until it is not.  It was reported that the year-over-year median national home price has risen by 23.4%; this has pushed home prices out of reach for many current renters.

The reality is that nobody “buys a house”, rather they agree to a thirty-year payment stream that is within their budget.  If someone can afford to pay $1800 per month for a home loan, the size of the mortgage they can take out is then limited by the interest rate on that loan.

Pencil to paper, if a Millennial couple can afford a median priced home at $363,300 when mortgage rates are at 2.50%, they could only afford a $319,600 home if mortgage rates rose to 3.50%.

MBS rates have declined by over 150bps since 2017/18, this has likely been the primary driver of the recent increase in home prices.As the Millennial demographic enters the household formation sweet spot, artificially elevating home prices is not a public policy benefit. In fact, it is a public policy dyspeptic that only adds to wealth disparity.

Reduce the purchase of TIPs

Long time readers know I have never been a fan of US Treasury Inflation Protected securities, if only because I believe CPI is an manufactured number that is constructed to bias reported inflation to a lower level.

There are a few sneaky metrics employed, perhaps the most impactful is the use of “owner’s equivalent rent” instead of actual home prices to conjure up the cost of housing, the largest input into CPI.

While the FED cannot resolve that issue, they can redirect their purchase of TIPS to shorter-term UST bills and notes. For reasons that are unclear, the FED altered their purchase metrics such that their ownership of TIPS has increased from10% to nearly 25%.

In fact, the FED is now purchasing more TIPs than are being net issued.

The harm here is clearly not to the owners of TIPs, who have benefited greatly;and in fact, not much harm has been done to anyone except the FED that owns a nominally negative yielding security.

Rather the problem is the distortion of information, both to the policy makers and investors. The TIPs market is totally dysfunctional as their market price offers little useful information about market sentiment for distant inflation.

While I shed few tears for speculative Hedge Funds, exactly how can the FED make policy when they have no useful feedback on inflationary expectations?

Buy fewer long-term securities

The single best indicator for a recession has always been the shape of the Yield Curve, often measured as the difference in yield between the three-month rate and the ten-year rate.To the extent the FED is holding down long-term rates via excessive purchases of long-term bonds, this important information is being withheld from, or worse distorted to,both investors and policy makers.

Over the past few months, the Yield Curve has flattened by nearly 50bps; the quandary is whether this is due to FED purchases, or market concerns that the COVID Delta variant might send the economy back into a recession.Once upon a time there was the notion of “facts”, another concept the FED cannot fix. However, to the extent FED policy disfigures the market, nobody can have confidence in the financial facts offered by market prices.

Encourage a steeper Yield Curve

I will not offer yet another chart that describes how the US has migrated from a manufacturing economy to one supported by financial activity; but rather note the plumbing of this system is managed by our Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks.

This is the raison d’etre for Dodd-Frank; while retribution for the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) may feel good, in fact we need to keep theseplumbers solvent to prevent an even greater catastrophe. [Those of a certain age will recall the somewhat bothersome story of Werner von Braun;we swallowed hard since Plan B would have been a lot worse.]

A steeper Yield Curve supports the plumbing of our financial system.  While increasing profits for TBTF banks will garner few cheers, increased revenue for the overall banking system builds a capital cushion to expand lending and reduce systemic risk.Moreover, a stronger capital base will enable banks to keep functioning when the QE money spigot is eventually shut.Higher long-term interest rates improve the health of our pension and insurance systems, both public and private.

The first quarter rate rise helped close the “funding gap” for the 100 largest Corporate Defined Benefit plans by nearly 8 percentage points.

Just as important is the financial health of our insurance industry.  To the extent insurance products become unaffordable, the Government will have to pick up the tab.  It is a public policy benefit for private citizens to purchase long-term health care from a private insurance company rather that rely upon Medicare.

The market is well-aware of the relationship between long-term interest rates and the profitability of large insurance companies.  Below, the blue line is  the UST 30yr rate while the green line is the price of AIG stock.

The FED’s policy of low interest rates has transferred money from savers (civilians) to borrowers (corporations). A steeper curve will rejigger this profile; and be especially helpful to the expanding retirement demographic. It is a public policy benefit for corporate borrowers to enhance retirement income via higher interest rates, and thus reduce the need for Government assistance.

Shorten “Forward Guidance” to reduce Moral Hazzard

While a bit hyperbolic, there is a reason the VIX is known as the “Fear Index”. What is anomalous is its current reading near 17, well under it’s long-term average.  While my summer in Quogue is indeed rather peaceful, how can one not be twitching with CPI printing a 5%-handle, COVID running rampant, and our political class is unsupervised while playing with sharp tools.

The MOVE Index of Implied Volatility for interest rates is low relative to the shape of the Yield Curve, as well as relative to history.

Similarly, either driven by a desperate need for income, or an over reliance upon the so called “Powell Put”, bonds at the bottom of the capital structure do not even return a positive real yield (the return after inflation).

The FED’s “forward guidance”,extrapolated by a speculative “Dot Plot”, is offering investors unsupported confidence in the economic future. As such, investors and financial managers are exhibiting classic Moral Hazzard by taking on a risk profile much greater than their true comfort level.

Closing…

I am loath to use the word “always”, but over the course of my professional career, there always seems to be a concentration of short Convexity positioning at the core of extreme market turbulence.

If you own any bond asset that is not a US Treasury, you are short Convexity. Moreover, via bond math I will not detail here, the lower the level of Implied Volatility, the greater the mathematical Convexity (gamma). Similarly, the lower the Yield of such assets, the greater the (negative) Convexity.

The FED has motives for reducing interest rates and suppressing Volatility, but let’s be clear, they are also increasing the Convexity risk.  This is what underpins the notion that the FED is creating a coiled spring that will eventually be a trap. I am not predicting a crash, nor the immediate end of civilization, I will let the bloviating talking heads earn their salaries.

Rather I think the current $120bn a month is fine for now, but a swift rejiggering of that mix would do a lot to signal investors to moderatetheir risk profiles. Remember: For most investments, sizing is more important than entry level.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/27/2021 – 11:49

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/374cbVG Tyler Durden

The U.S. Is Trying To Keep Out Mexicans Who Want To Sell Their Blood Plasma


bsiphotos019554

Among other supply chain issues sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world now faces a shortage of blood plasma, which is used in life-saving therapies for people who have certain chronic illnesses. A new policy implemented by the Biden administration serves to make that shortage worse.

On June 15, Customs and Border Protection announced that Mexicans would no longer be permitted to enter the U.S. on temporary visitor visas to sell their plasma. The new policy now designates Mexican donors “labor for hire,” which makes it illegal for them to sell plasma while holding a B1/B2 visitor visa, as the majority of those donors have previously done.

The Immune Deficiency Foundation estimates that the restrictions on Mexican donors could reduce the U.S. plasma supply by 5–10 percent. Though that may not sound drastic, Georgetown University ethics professor and paid plasma expert Peter Jaworski calls it an “enormous” issue. Jaworski tells Reason that the pandemic had already reduced U.S.-based plasma collection by 20–25 percent. “We are in a medicinal crunch,” he says. “We don’t have enough of these medicines. Already there’s a shortage in Spain…and in other parts of the European Union as well. Unless we figure out a way to increase plasma collection, we’re not going to overcome those shortages.”

Demand for plasma is rising, too—growing annually between 6–8 percent, and tripling during the pandemic. Plasma-for-pay is key to solving this issue, but few nations are willing to acknowledge that reality.

Just five countries allow donors to receive payment for blood plasma—the United States, Germany, Hungary, Austria, and the Czech Republic. That compensation model has led to these five nations having plasma collection surpluses, while countries that have to import plasma constantly grapple with shortages. Countries that allow paid plasma comprise 89 percent of the world’s plasma supply. The U.S. provides over 70 percent, making Biden’s move a potential catastrophe for the global importers of American plasma. In Spain, for example, La Razon reported that therapy providers have already had to space out plasma treatments due to shortages.

There are no alternatives to plasma-based medicines for the patients who use them. According to Jaworski, “they either get immunoglobulin or they suffer and sometimes die.” Roughly 300,000 Europeans and 125,000 Americans rely on plasma therapies to treat chronic illnesses—like Von Willebrand disease and hemophilia—and many more are treated with plasma after traumatic accidents or in preparation for surgeries. Researchers have looked to plasma in their efforts to treat COVID-19 and Alzheimer’s disease, making a reliable global supply all the more important.

Still, critics of paid blood plasma say the practice is exploitative. (A June ProPublica article celebrated Biden’s June policy change with the headline, “The U.S. Is Closing a Loophole That Lured Mexicans Over the Border to Donate Blood Plasma for Cash.”) They claim that plasma centers put Mexican donors at medical risk with the promise of making a quick buck. Beyond the blatant disregard for donor agency, that argument neglects how financially important paid plasma donation can be for people south of the border.

The U.S. caps donations at 104 per year, and with donors paid up to $40 for every donation, a Mexican donor could feasibly make over $4,000 annually from selling plasma. “The average salary in at least some of these border cities in Mexico is estimated to be about $9 a day,” explains Jaworski. “Meanwhile, Mexicans could cross the border and get basically $80 a week donating plasma twice a week.” Knowing that, Mexican donors have decided that selling plasma is a valuable opportunity to make some cash. 

“Take anything that you think is exploitative. You need to look at what the second-best option for that group of people is,” says Jaworski. “In banning the ability of Mexicans to cross the border to sell their plasma, we don’t thereby put money in their pockets. So whatever it is that made them exploitable in the first place still exists.”

“A lot of us were already unemployed and trying to make ends meet,” Geraldo Rivera, a regular plasma donor from Mexico, told Texas Public Radio shortly after the policy change. “Now they say we can’t donate and we don’t know how we’re going to survive.”

“Whether I have a steady job or not, I’m going to go back to donating,” Saul Vazquez, another frequent donor, told the El Paso Times.

Charges of high medical risk may well be overblown, too. The ProPublica article cautions that “frequent donors were underweight and showed low levels of antibodies,” but Jaworski says this is “basically speculation.” Paid plasma centers test potential donors’ protein and hemoglobin levels to ensure collection will go smoothly.

Far from being an exploitative practice, paid blood plasma donation is a lifeline for many Mexicans, and absolutely essential for patients with autoimmune disorders and other immunodeficiencies who rely on these therapies. And yet, the Biden administration has decided to jeopardize the world’s plasma supply, patient well-being, and the financial livelihoods of Mexican donors all at once.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3l2Ndya
via IFTTT

Stocks, Bond Yields, & The Dollar Are All Diving After ‘Delta’-Masking-Mandate Headlines

Stocks, Bond Yields, & The Dollar Are All Diving After ‘Delta’-Masking-Mandate Headlines

Just when you thought it was over… they reel you back in to wearing masks and shrug off all the science they said was settled.

The stock markets do not like the news as growth is slammed (also not helped by contagion from China tech). Nasdaq ansd Small Caps are leading the plunge. This is Nasdaq’s biggest daily drop since early May…

The dollar is diving…

Gold is being tossed around like a ragdoll…

and bond yields are tumbling with 10Y back at 1.22%…

This is not the recovery we were told was coming… but then again it gives The Fed more time to keep the floodgates of malinvestment wide open… so buy the dip?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/27/2021 – 11:34

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/377qV65 Tyler Durden

“Buy The Dip” Insanity: Recovery From Sudden Market Drops Is Fastest On Record

“Buy The Dip” Insanity: Recovery From Sudden Market Drops Is Fastest On Record

Something odd is taking place beneath the market’s calm surface: following up on our recent observations of index Skew hitting an all time high, Bank of America’s derivatives team writes that even as the S&P has made new highs, volatility markets are not sending the same “all clear” signal. Consider that:

  • The VIX has been rising from its 2-Jul closing low of 15.07, even as the S&P 500 has been making new highs, furthering the bank’s call that the summer lows for vol are in and the VIX should average in the mid-to-high teens this year.
  • Comparing vol metrics across the 12-Jul and 23-Jul S&P peaks, risks implied by S&P options / VIX futures have all risen, particularly in the 1-month bucket vs. shorter (e.g., 1-week) and longer (e.g., 3-month) expiries.

A closer look at the volatility term structure reveals that the S&P options market has begun to price in meaningful event risk around the late-August Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium. This risk premium first appeared on 9-Jul following a local low in 10-year US Treasury yields below 1.3%, and has only widened in the last two weeks, suggesting that the S&P options market is trying to price in the risk of a hawkish turn by the Fed at Jackson Hole. This is to be expected: According to the latest BofA Fund Manager Survey, investors expect the Fed to announce a tapering of asset purchases either at Jackson Hole (Aug 26-28, with Powell likely to speak on the 26th) or at the Sep FOMC meeting (22-Sep).

The VIX market is also reflecting increasing concern around Jackson Hole, as seen from the historically wide gap between spot VIX and constant maturity VIX 1m futures  and continues to embed a very robust convexity premium (Exhibit 14) to account for still-elevated fragility risk in US equities/equity vol.

Yet despite the market’s growing nervousness surrounding Jackson Hole, retail investors could care less and as BofA also points out, the popularity of the “buy-the-dip” phenomenon in US equities continues to rise even as markets are recording near a record number of sudden fragility shocks.

Consider that after the most recent 2-sigma S&P decline experienced on July 19 – the one where Goldman infamously advised clients against buying the dip – the S&P 500 recovered its losses the next day and went on to set a new all-time high by the end of the week.

Quantifying this stunning response, it means that the average recovery time following 2-sigma one-day S&P declines in 2021 is ~2.6 trading days, the fastest recovery since 1928.

As shown in the chart below, of the 20 fastest recovery periods in history, 7 have occurred after the GFC. In other words, since 2008, more than 50% of the time when the market experienced a 2-sigma downside move, it recovered in record time, signalling investors’ willingness to jump into the stock market after contractions

Finally, the strength of the buy-the-dip behavior is confirmed by the downward trend of the recovery periods, reaching a new all-time low this year.

The above is self-explanatory, and the only thing we can add is that in a centrally planned “market” where the Fed has effectively outlawed drawdowns, corrections and – heaven forbid – bear markets, the only trading strategy is being the first to buy the dip, any dip.

d

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/27/2021 – 11:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3l2toqE Tyler Durden

The Case for Beaming Internet Into Cuba


upiphotostwo808681

When thousands of Cubans took to the streets earlier this month to protest the failures of the island nation’s communist government, pictures and videos captured on cell phones told the world what was happening.

At least, they did until the Cuban regime cracked down on mobile internet access in an attempt to quell the protests.

It’s a familiar pattern for political upheaval in the iPhone age. Twitter, WhatsApp, and other social media messaging services have been used by dissidents to organize on a scale that their 20th century predecessors could never have dreamed—and in ways that even police states like Cuba have a difficult time combatting. Once the ball is rolling, the same tech can quickly turn a mass demonstration into a worldwide event. Almost inevitably, governments respond by trying to cut off internet service or block the use of certain apps, as the Cuban regime reportedly did on July 14.

When that happens, there’s usually not much the United States can do about it. But Cuba happens to be just 90 miles from Florida.

“Internet access for the Cuban people is of critical importance as they stand up against the repressive Communist government,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, wrote in a letter to the White House earlier this month, urging President Joe Biden to provide “all necessary authorizations, indemnifications, and funding to American businesses” to get Cubans back online. He noted that the crackdown on internet access in Cuba has left many Floridians without the ability to communicate with loved ones on the island.

DeSantis has become one of the leading advocates, along with Reps. Maria Salazar (R–Fla.) and Carlos Gimenez (R–Fla.), both of whom are Cuban-American, for a radical plan to beam mobile internet service into Cuba from balloons anchored offshore that would effectively serve as temporary cell towers. It’s an idea that would rely on the technological know-how of Google and the diplomatic might of the United States—and even then it might be of limited value. But it might, as DeSantis put it in his letter to Biden, also be “the key to finally bringing democracy to the island” without the need for military intervention.

The diplomatic and political dynamics are actually more straightforward than they might appear. There are plenty of precedents for beaming signals across international borders against the wishes of a domestic government. Radio Free Europe is probably the most famous example, but the better comparison here is Radio Televisión Martí, run by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which has broadcast news into Cuba since the 1980s. Clearly, the U.S. has no qualms about whatever international laws it might be violating by sending television signals into Cuba against the Cuban regime’s wishes. Sending mobile internet signals is a difference of degree—a slightly different wavelength of light—but should not require a total overhaul of U.S. policy toward Cuba.

“It is time to build on [the Radio Televisión Martí] model and include the delivery of Internet service,” argues Brandon Carr, one of the five commissioners in charge of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Still, due to the diplomatic issues involved, any effort to beam internet into Cuba would have to be cleared by the White House. Earlier this month, press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration was “actively pursuing measures” to “make the internet more accessible to the Cuban people.”

On Friday, however, Psaki sounded a less optimistic note when asked for an update.

“I wish it was that easy,” Psaki said in response to comments from Salazar suggesting that the White House could restore internet to Cuba “within minutes.”

“We are exploring a range of options,” she added. “And we feel if we can get it done, that would be a great step forward and beneficial to the people of Cuba.”

As Psaki suggests, the technological hurdles are in some ways more complicated than the political ones, but they are not insurmountable.

When DeSantis first called on the White House to deliver internet service to Cuba earlier this month, he nodded towards satellite-linked connections like SpaceX’s innovative Starlink program. Using low-level satellites in stationary orbit, Starlink promises to beam high-speed mobile internet to parts of the world that are inaccessible for traditional cell phone towers. Unfortunately, the service requires small satellite dishes on the ground to act as receivers—not a problem in rural Kansas, but not a viable option in Cuba at the moment.

So the discussion about beaming the internet into Cuba quickly turned to a more Earthbound option: Project Loon.

Originally developed by Google before being partially scrapped for not being economically viable, Project Loon was a pre-Starlink attempt to bring mobile internet to rural areas by attaching antennas to weather balloons that could function as de facto cell phone towers floating more than 10 miles up in the air. The idea has only been tested on a large scale once—in Puerto Rico during the aftermath of the two devastating hurricanes that hit the island in 2017—but showed some promise. A 2018 test showed that a fleet of Loon balloons could maintain a connection over 620 miles, according to the Associated Press.

Again, Cuba is just 90 miles from the United States.

It’s not a slam dunk, of course. Signals could be jammed by the Cuban government, which already tries to block Radio Televisión Martí as much as possible. Many Cubans’ cell phones might not be able to connect due to differences in network protocols. And whatever connectivity is possible will be slow and spotty, at least by American standards.

But it may be worth making the attempt anyway, particularly since the technology already exists and could be deployed for minimal cost. There’s little to lose, and much that could be gained—not just in Cuba, but in other fights against tyrannical regimes.

“Internet shutdowns are increasingly becoming a tool of tyranny for authoritarian regimes across the globe,” says Carr. “America must stand against this anti-democratic tactic and move with haste to provide internet freedom to the Cuban people.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VePP0O
via IFTTT

Watch: Fauci, CNN, White House, Newsom, & Cuomo All Ratchet Up Attacks On Unvaccinated Americans

Watch: Fauci, CNN, White House, Newsom, & Cuomo All Ratchet Up Attacks On Unvaccinated Americans

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Unvaccinated Americans were the talking point of the day on Monday with a slew of figures slamming those who have chosen not to take the coronavirus jabs, assigning blame to them for America ‘going backwards’, likening them to murderers, and suggesting that they are to blame for more deadly variants of the virus emerging.

First up, the White House with Press Secretary Jen Psaki claiming that America is in reverse because “there are still a large population of people in this country who are unvaccinated – and we have the most transmissible variant that we’ve seen since the beginning of the pandemic that more people are getting sick with Covid.”

Psaki announced that travel restrictions will not be lifted because of the Delta variant:

She also declared that a return of the mask mandate is under consideration:

Finally, Psaki did not rule out applying restrictions only to unvaccinated people:

Next up was Fauci, who appeared on his favourite softball network MSNBC to announce that unvaccinated Americans will be to blame for the next deadly variant:

CNN’s Lemon Don declared that the unvaccinated should be prevented from having normal lives.

“Don’t get the vaccine. You can’t go to the supermarket. Don’t have the vaccine, can’t go to the ball game. Don’t have a vaccine, can’t go to work. You don’t have a vaccine, can’t come here. No shirt, no shoes, no service. I think that’s where we should be because we can’t to waste our breath on people that are just not going to change,” Lemon decreed, with Chris Cuomo (imagine my shock) wholeheartedly agreeing:

Meanwhile in New York, Cuomo’s brother proclaimed “we have to get in those communities, and we have to knock on those doors, and we have to convince people, and put them in a car and drive them and get that vaccine in their arm. That is the mission.”

Finally, on the other side of the country, California governor Gavin Newsom likened unvaccinated Americans to murderous drunk drivers:

Newsom’s comments come after he announced that California will require proof of vaccination or weekly testing for all state workers and health care employees.

GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene hit back at Newsom, resulting in the following spat:

The message is clear, ‘we’re all in this together’… except for the unvaccinated.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 07/27/2021 – 10:52

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UUIXFZ Tyler Durden

The Case for Beaming Internet Into Cuba


upiphotostwo808681

When thousands of Cubans took to the streets earlier this month to protest the failures of the island nation’s communist government, pictures and videos captured on cell phones told the world what was happening.

At least, they did until the Cuban regime cracked down on mobile internet access in an attempt to quell the protests.

It’s a familiar pattern for political upheaval in the iPhone age. Twitter, WhatsApp, and other social media messaging services have been used by dissidents to organize on a scale that their 20th century predecessors could never have dreamed—and in ways that even police states like Cuba have a difficult time combatting. Once the ball is rolling, the same tech can quickly turn a mass demonstration into a worldwide event. Almost inevitably, governments respond by trying to cut off internet service or block the use of certain apps, as the Cuban regime reportedly did on July 14.

When that happens, there’s usually not much the United States can do about it. But Cuba happens to be just 90 miles from Florida.

“Internet access for the Cuban people is of critical importance as they stand up against the repressive Communist government,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, wrote in a letter to the White House earlier this month, urging President Joe Biden to provide “all necessary authorizations, indemnifications, and funding to American businesses” to get Cubans back online. He noted that the crackdown on internet access in Cuba has left many Floridians without the ability to communicate with loved ones on the island.

DeSantis has become one of the leading advocates, along with Reps. Maria Salazar (R–Fla.) and Carlos Gimenez (R–Fla.), both of whom are Cuban-American, for a radical plan to beam mobile internet service into Cuba from balloons anchored offshore that would effectively serve as temporary cell towers. It’s an idea that would rely on the technological know-how of Google and the diplomatic might of the United States—and even then it might be of limited value. But it might, as DeSantis put it in his letter to Biden, also be “the key to finally bringing democracy to the island” without the need for military intervention.

The diplomatic and political dynamics are actually more straightforward than they might appear. There are plenty of precedents for beaming signals across international borders against the wishes of a domestic government. Radio Free Europe is probably the most famous example, but the better comparison here is Radio Televisión Martí, run by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which has broadcast news into Cuba since the 1980s. Clearly, the U.S. has no qualms about whatever international laws it might be violating by sending television signals into Cuba against the Cuban regime’s wishes. Sending mobile internet signals is a difference of degree—a slightly different wavelength of light—but should not require a total overhaul of U.S. policy toward Cuba.

“It is time to build on [the Radio Televisión Martí] model and include the delivery of Internet service,” argues Brandon Carr, one of the five commissioners in charge of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Still, due to the diplomatic issues involved, any effort to beam internet into Cuba would have to be cleared by the White House. Earlier this month, press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration was “actively pursuing measures” to “make the internet more accessible to the Cuban people.”

On Friday, however, Psaki sounded a less optimistic note when asked for an update.

“I wish it was that easy,” Psaki said in response to comments from Salazar suggesting that the White House could restore internet to Cuba “within minutes.”

“We are exploring a range of options,” she added. “And we feel if we can get it done, that would be a great step forward and beneficial to the people of Cuba.”

As Psaki suggests, the technological hurdles are in some ways more complicated than the political ones, but they are not insurmountable.

When DeSantis first called on the White House to deliver internet service to Cuba earlier this month, he nodded towards satellite-linked connections like SpaceX’s innovative Starlink program. Using low-level satellites in stationary orbit, Starlink promises to beam high-speed mobile internet to parts of the world that are inaccessible for traditional cell phone towers. Unfortunately, the service requires small satellite dishes on the ground to act as receivers—not a problem in rural Kansas, but not a viable option in Cuba at the moment.

So the discussion about beaming the internet into Cuba quickly turned to a more Earthbound option: Project Loon.

Originally developed by Google before being partially scrapped for not being economically viable, Project Loon was a pre-Starlink attempt to bring mobile internet to rural areas by attaching antennas to weather balloons that could function as de facto cell phone towers floating more than 10 miles up in the air. The idea has only been tested on a large scale once—in Puerto Rico during the aftermath of the two devastating hurricanes that hit the island in 2017—but showed some promise. A 2018 test showed that a fleet of Loon balloons could maintain a connection over 620 miles, according to the Associated Press.

Again, Cuba is just 90 miles from the United States.

It’s not a slam dunk, of course. Signals could be jammed by the Cuban government, which already tries to block Radio Televisión Martí as much as possible. Many Cubans’ cell phones might not be able to connect due to differences in network protocols. And whatever connectivity is possible will be slow and spotty, at least by American standards.

But it may be worth making the attempt anyway, particularly since the technology already exists and could be deployed for minimal cost. There’s little to lose, and much that could be gained—not just in Cuba, but in other fights against tyrannical regimes.

“Internet shutdowns are increasingly becoming a tool of tyranny for authoritarian regimes across the globe,” says Carr. “America must stand against this anti-democratic tactic and move with haste to provide internet freedom to the Cuban people.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VePP0O
via IFTTT