Author: admin

Authored by Wolf Richter via WolfStreet.com,

US Inflation is almost as hot as in Russia, but the Fed is still blowing it off…

Consumer price inflation in Russia is red-hot, having jumped 6.0% in May compared to a year ago, 2 percentage points above the Bank of Russia’s target of 4.0%.

Polls in Russia show that food inflation is a top concern, currently running at 7.4%.

But inflation in the US isn’t lagging far behind: The Consumer Price Index (CPI) jumped 5.0% in May.

Yet the central banks are on opposite tracks in their approach to inflation.

Federal Reserve governors keep jabbering about this red-hot inflation being “temporary” or “transitory,” and likely to disappear on its own despite huge government stimulus and the Fed’s huge and ongoing monetary stimulus, though some doubts are creeping in among a couple of them. So they’ll keep interest rates at near-zero until at least next year, and they’re still buying $120 billion a month in securities to push down long-term interest rates.

Russia has been on the opposite trajectory, “surprising” economists at every step along the way. This trajectory started on March 19 with a 25 basis point rate hike, to 4.5%, against the expectations of 27 of the 28 economists polled by Reuters, who didn’t expect a rate hike. On April 23, the Bank of Russia hiked its policy rate by 50 basis points, to 5.0%. On June 11, it hiked by another 50 basis points to 5.5%. The next policy meeting is scheduled for July 23.

Is a shock-and-awe rate hike next? Bank of Russia Governor Elvira Nabiullina is preparing the markets for this possibility – so it won’t be a shock, but just awe.

At the July meeting, the central bank “will consider” an increase in the range from “25 basis points to 1 percentage point,” she told Bloomberg TV in an interview.

“We see that inflation remains elevated” and that “inflation expectations are quite high,” she said.

The initial factors in this surge of inflation were the weakening ruble last year and commodity and food price increases. They alone might not require a monetary policy intervention, she said.

But now inflation expectations remain elevated, which creates second-round effects, she said.

“That’s why we see that inflation acceleration is not transitory, as in many other countries, but more persistent,” she said. “That’s why we think we should act with rate hikes.”

“We signaled to the markets [at the last meeting] that further policy rate increases can be necessary to curb inflation, and now we see it is warranted,” she said.

The economy has recovered quite fast, she said. Demand growth has been outpacing supply growth. And this gap creates additional inflation pressures, and in combination with elevated inflation expectations provide us the need to neutralize our monetary policy, she said.

“Now policy is still accommodative, if we compare the policy rate [5.5%] with the current inflation rate [6.0%] and with inflation expectations,” she said.

This is the school of thought that negative real interest rates – interest rates below the rate of inflation – are accommodative, or stimulative for the economy. Under this theory for the US, a neutral monetary policy would be with the Fed’s policy rates at least at 3.4% if based on core PCE and at 5.0% if based on CPI.

Nabiullina said that the magnitude of the rate hikes and the trajectory will depend a lot on the incoming data “because there are a lot of uncertainties now.”

The Bank of Russia wants to “prevent the accumulation of inflationary risks,” but it also wants the moves to be “predictable” for the markets because sharp unexpected increases of rates can create some difficulties for markets to adapt, she said.

Hence, the interview with Bloomberg TV. She’s clearly trying to prepare the markets for a hefty rate hike in July, perhaps a Brazilian-type rate hike of 75 basis points, or even a shock-and-awe full percentage point, while the Fed will continue to cling to its doctrine of the moment that this red-hot inflation in the US is just transitory and will dissipate on its own.

There are whole generations who never experienced this type of inflation, this type of destruction of the dollar’s purchasing power.

*  *  *

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? Using ad blockers – I totally get why – but want to support the site? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. 

It was a rough month for seven-time Superbowl champion Tom Brady, who top-ticked the recent collapse in bitcoin almost to the day with his “laser eyes” profile picture change, something he himself mocked yesterday when he tweeted “Alright the laser eyes didn’t work. Anyone have any ideas?”

Alright the laser eyes didn’t work. Anyone have any ideas? https://t.co/43WyShRxr2

— Tom Brady (@TomBrady) June 28, 2021

It retrospect, this was a rhetorical question because just one day later we learned that Tom Brady and his wife Gisele Bündchen – best known for demanding to be paid in euros top ticking the common currency ahead of its all time high in 2008 – have taken an equity stake in crypto exchange FTX (profiled most recently here) and will receive crypto as part of an endorsement deal with the crypto exchange, which includes a bonus that will be paid in crypto.

Stoked to partner with @SBF_Alameda and @FTX_Official as we continue building the future of crypto. I hear we’re headed to the moon? pic.twitter.com/BdReBkNfxg

— Tom Brady (@TomBrady) June 29, 2021

West Realm Shires Services, FTX Trading Limited and Blockfolio, three companies behind major global cryptocurrency exchange business FTX, announced Tuesday a long-term partnership with Brady and Bündchen.

BREAKING: @TomBrady to be paid in crypto.@FTX_Official will partner with Tom in an endorsement deal that will give Tom equity in FTX and a bonus that will be paid in crypto. pic.twitter.com/1cYCNBDD6J

— Blockworks (@Blockworks_) June 29, 2021

“It’s an incredibly exciting time in the crypto-world and Sam and the revolutionary FTX team continue to open my eyes to the endless possibilities,” Brady said in a statement. “This particular opportunity showed us the importance of educating people about the power of crypto while simultaneously giving back to our communities and planet.”

Both Brady, and Bündchen will serve as ambassadors for FTX, according to an announcement Tuesday reported Bloomberg. And while the cryptocurrency exchange declined to disclose their equity stake, but did say they will both receive an unspecified amount and type of crypto. Bündchen will also take on the role of FTX’s environmental and social-initiatives adviser, according to the release.

“Tom and Gisele are both legends and they both reached the pinnacle of what they do,” said Sam Bankman-Fried, 29, founder and chief executive officer of FTX, said in a phone interview. “When we think about what FTX represents, we want to be the best product that is out there.”

FTX, which unlike Coinbase operates outside the reach of US tax authorities and offers both cryptos and derivatives, has become one of the world’s largest crypto exchanges since its launch just two years ago. Bankman-Fried said he’s spoken with others in the past about possible partnerships, but something FTX always comes back to is, “How excited are they about it? How excited are we to deal with them?” When it comes to Brady and Bündchen, “they were both really into it.” Or maybe they were both just into the compensation they will receive for promoting it.

In any case, the duo knows how to play their role well, and Brady has been an advocate for cryptocurrencies for the past few months, notably emerging as a big supporter of bitcoin in May when he changed his Twitter profile picture to show himself with so-called laser eyes.

“This isn’t the first time that they’ve been involved in crypto, not the first time they’ve thought about it or even used it, which I think makes it a much more natural and authentic partnership,” said Bankman-Fried. “They’re examples of audiences we’d really like FTX to be the product for.”

We can only assume this remark was off the cuff: if the target FTX audiences is really multi-millionaire Superbowl winners and Perfect 10 models, it will have a hard time growing.

Bündchen expressed confidence that crypto adoption will continue to grow steadily, noting that the best part of the partnership for her was the technology’s environmental potential. “What attracted me most about this partnership was the potential to apply resources to help regenerate the Earth, and enable people to lead better lives, therefore generating real transformation in our society,” she said, clearly unaware of Elon Musk’s concerns about the electricity consumption of bitcoin.

As Bloomberg further notes, as part of a conversation with Bankman-Fried during a conference earlier this year, brady said he, his coaches and teammates had been talking about cryptocurrencies and their vacillating prices on a daily basis. “It’s on all of our minds because we’re very interested, we’re learning more and more about these emerging markets,” he said. “So I’m a big believer in it, I don’t think it’s going anywhere,” though he added there will “absolutely” be volatility.

Unlike Coinbase, FTX was founded with the goal of donating to charity and has earmarked more than $10 million so far to do so. FTX, Brady and Bündchen have all committed to annual multi-million dollar contributions for the duration of the partnership and Bündchen will play a role in choosing the charities. Her mandate will not be crypto-specific, Bankman-Fried said. She’s been “really involved in giving back basically her whole life and I think this is part of what appealed to her the most,” he said, adding that she’ll likely be working with the FTX Foundation“a fair bit.”

Meanwhile, FTX has fully grasped that to really succeed in the world of crypto it has to constantly be in the headlines and shamelessly self-promote and has done just that, cinching a pact with Major League Baseball earlier this month and renaming the Miami Heat’s National Basketball Association stadium to FTX Arena, the first NBA stadium deal from a crypto firm.

“A lot of what we’ve been looking at is what are the things that we can do that will really stand out and represent us well, fit our brand and really capture people’s attention,” said Bankman-Fried. “We’re going to be doing what we can to try to get news about FTX out there and get more eyeballs on it.”

Hours after the New York City’s Board of Elections released an updated ranked voting tally for the Democratic Primary which showed frontrunner Eric Adams’ lead shrinking considerably, BOE officials acknowledged a ‘discrepancy’ in the ballot count.

At issue: on the day of the primary, the BOE reported just under 800,000 votes with 96.6% of scanners reporting. On Tuesday, however, the tally was 941,832 votes – nearly 20% higher, according to PIX11.

We are aware there is a discrepancy in the unofficial RCV round by round elimination report. We are working with our RCV technical staff to identify where the discrepancy occurred. We ask the public, elected officials and candidates to have patience.

— NYC Board of Elections (@BOENYC) June 29, 2021

The new figures narrows Adams’ lead over former sanitation commissioner Kathryn Garcia to just 51.9% (368,898) to 48.9% (352,990) – while there are still 100,000 absentee ballots which need to be processed, and could tip Garcia over the top.

In response, Adams’ campaign fired off a statement questioning the count, and demanding an explanation for the “irregularities.”

“The vote total just released by the Board of Elections is 100,000-plus more than the total announced on election night, raising serious questions,” reads the statement. “We have asked the Board of Elections to explain such a massive increase and other irregularities before we comment on the Ranked Choice Voting projection.“

Eric Adams says “irregularities” in ranked choice voting results for the New York City mayor race raises “serious questions,” as absentee ballots could sway the election.

Eric Adams: 51.9% (368,898)
Kathryn Garcia: 48.9 (352,990)

Adams +15,908 (≈120k remaining) pic.twitter.com/0uqtIQnsqe

— Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) June 29, 2021

Liberals, in response, accused Adams of going ‘full Trump’ and spreading ‘the big lie’ – that the election isn’t as secure as advertised.

Seems pretty insulting to imply that Eric Adams is somehow following and copying Trump instead of making his own choices.

Seems desperately partisan to blame Trump for a Democratic NYC Mayoral candidate’s actions.

Why are so many liberals rooting for Garcia over Adams? https://t.co/WsksLgYgY2

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 29, 2021

The first transgender woman has been crowned Miss Nevada in Las Vegas on Sunday and will compete for the Miss USA title in November, according to AP News. 

Leading up to the Miss Nevada pageant, Kataluna Enriquez, 27, won Miss Silver State USA in Nevada in late March. 

The 27-year-old winner had been competing in transgender pageants since 2016, while she was working as a model. She started competing in cisgender pageants at the beginning of last year. 

As the mother of a #trans child bearing witness to #KatalunaEnriquez making history in #LasVegas was incredible. This win and her journey to @MissUSA gives hope to the entire gender diverse community. Visibility and representation matter. pic.twitter.com/8ShmzZrjVp

— Krista Whitley (@SocialKrista) June 28, 2021

On Sunday, Miss Nevada USA’s Instagram account said, “Congratulations to our new Miss Nevada USA,” Kataluna Enriquez, adding that “history has been made.” 

In a post on Instagram, she wrote: “Huge thank you to everyone who supported me from day one. My community, you are always in my heart. My win is our win. We just made history. Happy pride.”

Enriquez beat 21 other competitors to represent Nevada in the Miss USA pageant held on Nov. 29.

She calls her victory “a celebration of women and diversity.” 

#LasVegas I present to you our new Miss Nevada USA: #KatalunaEnriquez 👑 Kataluna is the first #trans queen to go to #MissUSA but she did not win because she is trans. She won because she is a remarkable, talented, & poised woman. #TransIsBeautiful @Lavernecox pic.twitter.com/IChz0JMV41

— Krista Whitley (@SocialKrista) June 28, 2021

The win couldn’t come at a better time, as President Biden told Congress in his first joint address in April that “to all transgender Americans watching at home, especially the young people. You’re so brave. I want you to know your president has your back.”

His comments come amid a flurry of state bills targeting transgender people.

How ironic would it be if the pageant that was once owned by former President Trump crowned a biological male as Miss USA (and how appropriate)?

Once upon a time, Goldman Sachs was known as a powerhouse in the world of commodities, a status it attained following its acquisition of J Aron, the commodities brokerage that was once the home of former Goldman chieftains Lloyd Blankfein, Gary Cohn, Harvey Schwartz and others. But Goldman dumped most of its physical commodities business years ago at the start of what was to become a yearslong bear market in oil and other industrial commodities.

Now, after the bank’s strategists have repeatedly (and correctly) called the run-up in crude prices, the start of what the bank believes will become the next major commodities supercycle (with crude expected to eclipse $100 a barrel in the not-too-distant future), Bloomberg reports that the storied Wall Street investment bank is looking to expand its physical footprint in Dallas.

Though Dallas doesn’t have quite the same association with the energy industry as Houston, the notion that Goldman is expanding its physical presence in Texas, a state that’s closely associated with the American energy industry, is making is wonder whether GS is bucking the ESG trend and signaling that energy might be the next “big thing”.

Since the start of the pandemic, Goldman has been aggressively expanding its presence outside of New York. The bank is also looking to increase its headcount in Florida, leading what has become an exodus of major financial firms, including banks and many major buy-side players, to the Sunshine State.

It’s also notable that the bank is upping the headcount in low-tax states like Texas and Florida, while headcount has been flat in New York and Goldman’s other major satellite office in the US – its tower in Jersey City, NJ (another high-tax state).

According to Bloomberg, the Dallas office could become Goldman’s largest presence outside its Manhattan headquarters, part of CEO David Solomon’s plan to “rein in expenses” (read: taxes – though also rent and payroll).

The plan underscores how Chief Executive Officer David Solomon is seeking to reshape U.S. operations geographically as he looks to rein in expenses, placing thousands of jobs in cheaper locales. While the bank has been adding offices and workers for years in a number of strategic locations such as Dallas, the pandemic energized the effort, as managers learned how feasible it is to run businesses remotely.

“We continue to grow our presence in the Dallas area but cannot comment at this time on our future expansion plans,” said Maeve DuVally, a company spokeswoman.
 

Goldman has offices around the world, including “strategic” outposts Salt Lake City, Singapore, Warsaw and Bengaluru. Together, these offices already account for more than one-third of the firm’s 40.5K employees. Like many other companies on Wall Street, the bank also has been developing plans in recent months to expand in low-tax Florida, such as West Palm Beach, where it’s adding hundreds of jobs. Some senior executives have lobbied for an even bolder push there.

But as BBG points out, cutting costs isn’t Goldman’s only reason for opening a bigger office in Dallas. While costs are a driving factor, the Wall Street giant is reportedly “betting it will have advantages in recruiting, too. Not everyone wants to live in a densely populated financial capital such as New York. And it can be easier to lure and retain talent when there isn’t also a slew of major Wall Street banks mere blocks away.”

Dallas has increasingly become a financial hub. Charles Schwab relocated its headquarters to the affluent Dallas suburb of Westlake, where Fidelity also has a campus. Vanguard says it will open an office in the Dallas-Fort Worth area early next year. JPM has built up a campus in nearby Plano.

Motivations aside, it’s pretty clear that rising taxes in New York and New Jersey are helping to shift more jobs away from what has traditionally been America’s financial capital, as states with zero income tax like Texas an Florida beckon.

Last week, SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son made waves when he told shareholders and reporters assembled for SoftBank’s 41st annual meeting that he envisions himself as a “21st-century Rothschild”, explaining that while Rothschild provided the capital to finance the industrial revolution, he and SoftBank are providing the capital to finance the 21st century’s AI revolution. For emphasis, Son shared the following slide from one of SoftBank’s notoriously quirky presentations.

Of course, Son’s obsession with advancing AI technology via the firm’s venture capital investment portfolio has been a notoriously mixed bag – though Son’s returns from a handful of successful bets have helped cushion the firm’s losses from blunders like the eye-popping valuation it assigned to WeWork. Even Son joked during the meeting that some of his backers say they like him “very much” as an entrepreneur, but not as an investor.

Well, in what appears to be the latest setback for SoftBank’s AI efforts, the company has just suspended production of Pepper, a humanoid robot that was me of Son’s favorite pet projects at the conglomerate. According to Bloomberg, the suspension comes as the robot, priced at $1,790 apiece, failed to make an impact with consumers. Inventory has gotten pretty backed up, and it could take a while for the company to clear it – if that ever happens. The suspension might not be permanent, as SoftBank left open the possibility that it might restart production if sales start to pick up. Only 27K Peppers were ever produced.

SoftBank is now in talks with its French robotics unit about potentially reducing headcount at the unit, which employs 330, according to BBG.

Marketed as ‘the first machine endowed with emotions’, SoftBank pushed Pepper aggressively in markets including the US and Japan, promising the gadget was sophisticated enough for tasks usually handled by clerks, receptionists and translators.

Although the robot is capable of expressing human-like body language like maintaining eye contact and engaging in limited small talk, it never caught on. Now, it looks like Pepper (assembled by Taiwanese iPhone-maker Hon Hai Precision Industry Co.) is destined to join Honda’s soccer-playing ASIMO and Sony’s QRIO as the latest impractical Japanese-designed robots that never caught on.

While Pepper was apparently equipped with the ability to perform some clerical work, the biggest complaint fielded by SoftBank was that it couldn’t vacuum, making it, in theory, less useful than a Roomba.

SoftBank has apparently already learned from this failure: it’s already marketing a more practical robot called Whiz which cleans floors for businesses (like an industrial Roomba). The Whiz robot has more “sophisticated” movements than Pepper, according to BBG.

Still, it’s success isn’t guaranteed. And at this point, we can’t help but wonder how much more money Masayoshi Son will sink into AI and robotics investments that, while certainly interesting, aren’t necessarily useful for commercial purposes.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

As we wait for the final cases from the Supreme Court this week, Monday was confined to orders of the Court, including the granting and denial of review of cases. One of the cases that was declined was Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States. That is hardly news on a Court that rejects most petitions for a writ of certiorari. However, this denial was accompanied by an opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas who slammed the current federal policy on marijuana as “a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.” 

He is, of course, correct.

The current position of marijuana criminalization is incomprehensible and conflicted. However, the criticism from one of the Court’s most conservative members was particularly notable. The timing is also notable. This week, the Mexican Supreme Court decriminalized recreational use of marijuana.

The case derived from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and involved a medical-marijuana dispensary, Standing Akimbo, LLC, which was under investigation by the IRS for improper deductions for business expenses arising from a “trade or business” that “consists of trafficking in controlled substances.” 26 U.S.C. § 280E. Peter Hermes, Kevin Desilet, Samantha Murphy, and John Murphy refused to verify their tax liabilities because they feared criminal prosecution.  The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court decision in favor of the IRS and its authority to conduct the audit.

Thomas noted that in 2005 a fractured divided court ruled Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), that the federal government could rely on interstate commerce authority to enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation even when it took place wholly within California.  The Court rationalized that this “fungible commodity” was part of “comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market ” and that “exemption[s]” for local use could undermine this “comprehensive” regime. Thus prohibiting any intrastate use was, according to the Court, “‘necessary and proper’” to avoid a “gaping hole” in Congress’ “closed regulatory system.”

Now however there is widespread legalization of the possession and sale of marijuana, a trend that we have been following with a massive market emerging across the country.  There is also massive public support for legalization that has been building for years.

That has all led to our current nonsensical federal system that criminalizes marijuana while tolerating its sale. That brought Thomas back to Raich and the fact that the opinion now seems facially ridiculous in its logic. Thomas noted “Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning. Once comprehensive, the Federal Government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.”

Thomas noted that the federal authority rests on what is not something of a myth that leaves citizens both confused and at risk:

“This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary though federal law still flatly forbids the intrastate possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana…the Government, post-Raich, has sent mixed signals on its views.”

Thomas noted that the federal government continues to claim the authority while simultaneously saying that it will not enforce it. For its part, Congress has tried to curtail enforcement through budget limits: “Given all these developments, one can certainly understand why an ordinary person might think that the Federal Government has retreated from its once-absolute ban on marijuana,. One can also perhaps understand why business owners in Colorado…may think that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.”

Thomas notes that the “petitioners have found that the Government’s willingness to often look the other way on marijuana is more episodic than coherent.”

Thomas is right.  It is surprising that the case could not garner four votes to allow review. It would have made for an excellent platform to reconsider Raich. As a result of the decision, citizens and businesses will be left to languish in this muddled legal and regulatory status. Marijuana remains a criminal substance tolerated by the federal government and actively supported by many states.

For those of us with libertarian tendencies, legalization of cannabis has long been a cause célèbre. However, even for those who have not held this view, I cannot imagine that the currently self-contradictory position of the federal government is tolerable. Of course, the Court may be hoping that Congress acts to correct this glaring contradiction. The preference is always for the political branches to address such questions with sweeping social and political consequences. However, the patience of the Court may be running short for Congress to show a modicum of responsibility and reason in decriminalizing cannabis.

Notably, the Mexican Supreme Court previously tried to force its own Congress to act with an April 30th deadline to legalized recreational use of marijuana. A bill passed one house but languished in in the Senate. In its decision, the Court again urged its own Congress to act “in order to generate legal certainty.” As it stands, citizens are protected in their recreational use but the government still criminalizes the production and transportation of the product.

Our Court does not dictate such deadlines but the Thomas opinion shows the same growing impatience with our politicians who want to support cannabis use but lack the courage to decriminalize the product on the federal level. I am surprised that none of his colleagues joined Thomas in this opinion. I expect, however, that his statement of frustration is shared by others on the Court and this is a shot across the bow for both Congress and the White House.

Real Vision senior editor Ash Bennington welcomes Real Vision interim managing editor Samuel Burke and Tommy Thornton of Hedge Fund Telemetry to the Daily Briefing to discuss Bitcoin’s rebound and market sentiment as delta variant fears grow. Thornton shares his bullish outlook for Bitcoin and potential explanations for its recent bounce from 6-month lows. In addition, Burke provides a unique perspective on European lockdowns and investor opinions as the delta variant of Covid-19 continues to spread.

Once again, hopes that COVID-19 had finally been defeated in the US, Europe and a handful of other countries are being dashed by hysterical warnings about the “Delta” variant, a COVID mutation so infectious that epidemiologists are now concerned that humanity may never reach herd immunity from SARS-CoV-2 and its genetic heirs.

The Delta variant has inspired another wave of fearmongering from ‘experts’ like Dr. Anthony Fauci, who recently said it’s the biggest threat currently facing the global COVID response. The media has lapped up these warnings, inspiring some local health authorities to revive mask-wearing rules like they just did in LA.

Although the uptick is barely discernible from looking at a graph of daily cases, the seven-day average of new cases in the US, at 12.6K, has just risen off of a record low, potentially marking the end of a steep decline from 69K daily cases in April.

Experts have blamed the spread of Delta, particularly in southern states with lower vaccination rates, for driving the renewed spread. The strain, which was first identified in India, has become the dominant strain in the UK – it’s what inspired PM Boris Johnson to delay the end of England’s lockdown – while also spreading across regions like Southeast Asia and Africa.

A team of analysts at Bank of America wrote in a recent note to clients that the Delta variant is so contagious that even the US might struggle to achieve herd immunity. That’s consistent with warnings from experts like Dr. Scott Gottlieb who believes COVID-19 will likely become endemic, flaring up every winter (in the US) just like the flu.

During particularly bad outbreaks, states may revive social distancing measures, particularly for indoor public spaces like grocery stores, even for those who have recently been vaccinated.

Whether the this uptick ends up being a blip, or the start of something bigger, Dr. Fauci’s warnings about Delta have clearly whipped certain US media outlets into a frenzy. Just take a look at this recent headline from CNN.

CNN is hardly alone.

Meanwhile, some have said that the concerns about the Delta strain are overblown. “Don’t let the fearmongers win,” tweeted Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday. “New public England study of delta variant shows 44 deaths out of 53,822 (.08%) in unvaccinated group.”

Don’t let the fearmongers win. New public England study of delta variant shows 44 deaths out of 53,822 (.08%) in unvaccinated group. Hmmm.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 29, 2021

Roughly 300K new people are getting a COVID jab in the US every day. Now, 54% of the US population has at least one dose. The country’s vaccine campaign has been one of the most successful in the world (even if President Biden is on track to miss his July 4 vaccination target).

Source: Bloomberg

However, newly available county-level data show how the situation on the ground can be very different depending on the local vaccine acceptance rate. The bottom 20% of counties, mostly in the south and American west, have seen only 28% of people receiving a first dose of a vaccine, on average, while 24% are fully vaccinated.

Over in the UK, despite an extension of current restrictions that’s set to expire on July 19, health officials just saw the biggest daily jump in new cases in months, largely driven by the Delta variant. Still, PM Johnson said this week that he expects to lift restrictions entirely when they expire on July 19. Why? Because the UK has shown that the Delta variant isn’t that big of a threat if a population has high vaccination rates.

“The UK has shown that the variant is not such a health challenge if people have been vaccinated. We are concerned that Australasia and the smaller markets in Asean could continue to be impacted. We remain cautious on Asean equities. Watching for any sharp increase in Covid cases in Asean,” said Gary Dugan, chief executive officer at the Global CIO Office in Singapore, according to Bloomberg.

Back in the US, President Biden is preparing a slate of travel and events for the long Independence Day holiday weekend, including a barbecue for more than a thousand people to celebrate his administration’s progress combating the pandemic. He will be declaring “Independence” from COVID, but with some local officials ramping up restrictions once again, is that really accurate?

Authored by Max Eden via RealClear Policy,

Proponents of Critical Race Theory are resorting to semantic gaslighting to defend a dogma that most Americans instinctively abhor.

Some pundits claim that CRT is exclusively a school of thought taught in legal academia. On her MSNBC show, Joy Reid claimed that “law school is really the only place it is taught. NBC has looked into everywhere.” Former Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway tweeted: “I don’t think critical legal studies should be taught in elementary schools, and I am ready to die on that hill[.]”

Some journalists, informed by other “experts,” contend that CRT is synonymous with “talking about racism.” NPR defined CRT as “teaching about the effects of racism”; the New York Times called it “classroom discussion of race, racism.” NBC News labeled it the “academic study of racism’s pervasive impact.” 

These definitions are, of course, mutually exclusive. But they both serve to paint parents into a corner. If CRT is defined just as talking about racism, then parental objections to it must be rooted in racism. If CRT is defined just as a thesis discussed in law schools, then parental objections to it must be rooted in ignorance.

There’s no doubt that CRT has become a politicized term. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo forthrightly explained his strategy on this issue as follows: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”

Liberal writer Freddie DeBoer has argued that CRT is now a “completely floating signifier.” Conservatives label a host of things they don’t like as CRT. Liberals, then, “feel compelled to defend CRT because conservatives attack it,” and defend it by claiming that it has nothing to do with any of the bad things conservatives say.  

But words have meaning. Parents and policymakers should understand CRT not as conservatives or liberals define it, but as it defines itself. Here’s a definition from a 2001 book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefanic, widely credited as key architects of CRT:

The critical race theory (CRT) movement is a collection of activists and scholars interested in studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power. The movement considers many of the same issues that conventional civil rights and ethnic studies discourses take up, but places them in a broader perspective that includes economics, history, context, group- and self-interest, and even feelings and the unconscious. Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.

Although CRT began as a movement in the law, it has rapidly spread beyond that discipline. Today, many in the field of education consider themselves critical race theorists who use CRT’s ideas to understand issues of school discipline and hierarchy, tracking, controversies over curriculum and history, and IQ and achievement testing. Political scientists ponder voting strategies coined by critical race theorists. Ethnic studies courses often include a unit on critical race theory, and American studies departments teach material on critical white students developed by CRT writers. Unlike some academic disciplines, critical race theory contains an activist dimension. It not only tries to understand our social situation, but to change it.  (Emphases added.)

Several points here deserve restatement: CRT defines itself in opposition to traditional civil rights and even Enlightenment rationalism. It defines itself not simply as a “Theory,” but also as movement of activists who seek to transform society. Many educators consider themselves to by Critical Race Theorists, and CRT ideology has had a profound impact on a wide range of education policy and pedagogical issues.

Anybody who tries to peddle the line that CRT is just “talking about racism” is either gaslighting or being gaslit themselves. And anyone who maintains that CRT is simply an academic theory discussed in law school, at best, is ignorant of what CRT really is.

By contrast, parent intuitions about CRT are spot on. Given that CRT informs so many aspects of education policy and pedagogy, the real crux of the issue for parents is, as Andrew Sullivan adroitly put it, “not teaching about critical race theory; it is teaching in critical race theory.” (Emphases in original.) 

Public schools may be commonly assigning Critical Race Theorists like Kimberlé Crenshaw. But they have embraced a host of policies and practices that are rooted in Critical Race Theory. When parents hear terms like: “Equity,” “Anti-Racism,” “Cultural Competence,” “Culturally Responsive Education,” “Restorative Justice,” “Ethnic Studies,” “Equitable Math,” “Whiteness,” they would be fundamentally correct to go to a school board meeting and complain about Critical Race Theory. All of these practices are influenced by and have the same politicized purpose as CRT, which – to reiterate – defines itself not merely as a “theory” but also as an activist practice.

School boards that are implementing CRT-infused programming should not follow the media’s lead and gaslight parents by claiming that they are “not teaching CRT” on the grounds that they are not assigning academic journal articles by self-avowed Critical Race Theorists. Because the more parents look into it, the more may realize that although their schools might not assign canonical CRT academic journal article, they are teaching “in” CRT.

That will further heighten alienation and distrust between schools and families – alienation and distrust that is unavoidable so long as schools educate students through a “lens” intended to train children to oppose the foundations of our liberal order.

Max Eden is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute