Author: admin

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Newsweek published a “fact check” which labeled claims that India had banned the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as “mostly false” despite admitting in the article that India has in fact temporarily banned the vaccine.

Last week, discussion around the issue intensified after it was revealed that Indian health authorities had refused to give permission for the vaccine to be distributed.

“On February 3, 2021, India’s Subject Expert Committee (SEC), a panel that advises the nation’s Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), a national regulatory body focused on pharmaceuticals and devices, ruled that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine should not be recommended for an EUA in the country “at this stage,” reports Newsweek.

The report quotes India’s Subject Expert Committee (SEC), which ruled, “The committee noted that incidents of palsy, anaphylaxis and other SAE’s have been reported during post marketing and the causality of the events with the vaccine is being investigated. Further, the firm has not proposed any plan to generate safety and immunogenicity data in Indian population.”

In response, after the meeting with the regulator, Pfizer Inc. withdrew its application for the vaccine’s use in India.

“The committee noted that incidents of palsy, anaphylaxis, & other serious adverse events have been reported during post marketing… Further, the firm has not proposed any plan to generate safety & immunogenicity data in Indian population.#PfizerVaccine https://t.co/QKDQcV6vYF

— jholmie (@jholmie89) February 16, 2021

The Newsweek report admits all this, including but then asserts that that the claim India banned the vaccine is “mostly false.”

Indian authorities refused to allow the vaccine to be distributed in India. That’s also known as a “ban”.

The ban might be lifted at a future date, but it’s a ban nonetheless.

For Newsweek to claim that this is “mostly false” is completely erroneous.

The Newsweek fact check itself is “mostly false.” The fact checkers have been fact checked.

Fact check: Did India ban the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine? https://t.co/MUtRKI9r5m

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) February 18, 2021

But it gets worse.

Bill Gates owns stock in Pfizer Inc. and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated significant sums of money to help Pfizer’s development of vaccines.

Interesting to note therefore that a message which originally appeared at the bottom of the Newsweek ‘fact check’ article has now disappeared.

The message read; “Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.”

It is not known why that message has now vanished.

This is yet another example of how ‘fact checks’ are often completely devoid of facts and are merely a way of legacy media institutions and giant corporations shutting down narratives they don’t like.

*  *  *

New limited edition merch now available! Click here. In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

A Corpus Christi man has accused the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which manages the state’s primary electric grid, of ignoring repeated warnings that the state’s electric power infrastructure had weaknesses, according to a new lawsuit. In a statement by the Dallas law firm which filed the suit, ERCOT and American Electric Power utility are also accused of causing property damage and business interruptions as last week’s cold snap shattered water pipes and caused widespread power outages to millions of Texans, according to NBCDFW.

“This cold weather event and its effects on the Texas energy grid were neither unprecedented, nor unexpected, nor unforeseen,” states the lawsuit, filed by Donald McCarley. “In fact, similar cold weather events in 1989 and 2011 led to exactly the same type of rolling blackouts that have affected and continue to affect Texas residents and businesses.” The lawsuit also cites a clause in the Texas Constitution which holds that “no person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made.”

“The rolling blackouts ordered by Defendant ERCOT took, damaged, or destroyed Plaintiff’s property without adequate compensation,” the suit claims.

The lawsuit filed Friday in a Nueces County court at law in Corpus Christi alleges the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, manager of the state’s main electric grid, ignored repeated warnings of weaknesses in the state’s electric power infrastructure. –NBCDFW

“The resulting widespread property damage from blackouts was caused by their negligence and gross negligence. In addition, the disruptions rendered private property unusable and amounted to an illegal `taking’ of private property by the government,” the law firm said in a statement.

The lawsuit also claims that utility companies should have winterized their plants and increased generation to meet skyrocketing demand, “but consciously chose not to do so.” Of course, frozen wind turbines in the middle of Texas may fall in the ‘unforseen’ category.

Temporary outages began occurring last week and in the days and hours before the storm actually hit as temperatures across Texas began plummeting well below freezing. AEP Texas has not yet commented about the litigation but did post a series of tweets beginning Feb. 10 and continuing through the emergency offering winter storm preparation tips and urging energy conservation.

ERCOT held numerous news briefings throughout the emergency to explain that the outages, intended to be temporary with power switching off and on for affected customers, were needed to prevent a catastrophic collapse of grid. Several giant generators tripped off line late Sunday and early Monday as demand for power spiked. –Caller Times

Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has issued civil investigative demands to ERCOT, and says he’ll get “to the bottom of this power failure.”

According to the report, the investigation will address power outages, emergency planning, energy pricing and other issues related to the winter storm.

“The large-scale failure of Texas power companies to withstand the winter storm left multiple millions of Texans without power and heat during lethal, record-low temperatures across the state,” Paxton’s office said in a statement.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called on ERCOT leadership to resign, and has vowed to reform the way the Texas grid operates.

ERCOT says it’s reviewing the lawsuit and would not comment on specific allegations.

“Our thoughts are with all Texans who have and are suffering due to this past week,” said spokesperson Leslie Sopko in a statement. “However, because approximately 46% of privately-owned generation tripped offline this past Monday morning, we are confident that our grid operators made the right choice to avoid a statewide blackout.”

Authored by Allen Zhong via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former President Donald Trump likely will make his first post-White House appearance at the end of February.

He will be a keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2021 in Orlando, Florida, CPAC Communications Director Ian Walters confirmed to The Epoch Times.

The former president’s speech is scheduled for the afternoon of Feb. 28, the last day of the conference, Walters said.

It will likely be Trump’s first public appearance since he left the White House on Jan. 20.

American Conservative Union (ACU), the host of the conference, invited the former president to speak at CPAC.

“I’d love to see him come to CPAC,” CAU Chairman Matt Schlapp told the Washington Examiner. Schlapp said he extended the invitation personally.

“I think he deserves to be heard. I think even people who disagree with him will agree that he deserves to be heard. He should be uncanceled,” he added.

An official close to the planning process told The Epoch Times that the invitation was sent out last year.

Trump appears to be more active in the political arena after the conclusion of his second impeachment trial. He issued a lengthy statement confronting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)’s speech against him and appeared on several media outlets to saluting Rush Limbaugh after the death of the iconic conservative radio commentator.

The Senate acquitted the former president with a 57-43 vote in his second impeachment trial. Sixty-seven votes are needed to reach an impeachment conviction.

Most Senate Republicans, 45 out of 60, regarded the second impeachment trial as unconstitutional mostly because Trump has left the White House and no longer holds any official position at that time, The Epoch Times reported.

Trump is frequent of the CPAC, an annual event.

He issued a dire warning to Americans about socialism in his 2020 CPAC speech.

“Far-left radicals have become increasingly desperate and increasingly dangerous in their quest to transform America into a country you would not recognize—a country in which they control every aspect of American life,” he said. “Just as socialist and communist movements have done all over the world, they’re cracking down on all dissent and demanding absolute conformity. They want total control.”

Trump warned that the result of implementing such policies would “turn America very quickly into a large-scale Venezuela.”

CPAC describes itself as the largest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world.

Top conservatives regularly appear at the conference. Scheduled speakers for this year’s conference include a number of officials from Trump’s administration, including former Housing Secretary Ben Carson, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Trump allies like South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and former acting national security adviser Richard Grenell are also slated to speak.

The lineup also includes some lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), and Rep Mo Brooks (R-Ala.).

With reporting from Jan Jekielek.

Zachary Stieber, Bowen Xiao, and Emel Akan contributed to the report.

Nothing is more popular in the world of trendy alcohol right now than Japanese whisky.

And the funny thing is that while normal whisky is usually revered for where it is casked and prepared – with local climates and soils often playing a role in helping shape the unique tastes that come with it – Japanese whiskey doesn’t even have to be made in Japan, as long as it is bottled in the country. 

Stefan van Eycken, author of Whisky Rising: The Definitive Guide to the Finest Whiskies and Distillers of Japan, told Bloomberg: “To say that whisky-­making regulations in Japan are loose is a major understatement. If they were any looser, you’d be able to sell tap water as Japanese whisky.”

But this is all about to change. The Japan Spirits & Liqueurs Makers Association (JSLMA), a nongovernmental trade group of the country’s major producers is about to make sure consumers have a clear understanding of what Japanese whisky is – and, of course, it will mean whiskey actually produced in Japan. 

The new regulations, which take effect on April 1 and are expected to be adopted widely by the Japanese government, is already making shockwaves. Whiskey maker Nikka came right out already and said: “Certain Nikka products don’t meet the requirements of ‘Japanese whisky,’ as some blends contain whiskies from outside Japan, most notably Scotland. Nikka’s priority is creating distinguished and consistent taste profiles, which is likely why they’re deciding not to alter the liquid to fit the new standards.”

Nikka has been popular in Japanese bars for nearly 40 years. It just arrived in the U.S. in 2018 and was almost immediately named the year’s best whisky by Whisky Advocate. 

For some, the news that Nikka whisky didn’t all come from Japan was surprising. Shawn Kim, owner of 58 Wines in Midtown Manhattan, told Bloomberg: “I had no idea it contained whisky from outside of Japan. I was able to get 10 cases at a time before it got popular. I hate whenever something I love is named ‘whisky of the year,’ because then people start treating it like a trophy, and they stop actually drinking it.”

Nikka’s experience with coming to the U.S. has matched that of many other Japanese whiskies. Products from Suntory has been praised for its single malts and blends.

Hideki Kanda, chairman of the JSLMA, said that all major brands sold in the U.S. conform to the new standards. If they don’t they will have to remove the word “Japanese” from their label and will also have to “excise all references to the country, its culture, and language”. For example, a bottle won’t be able to have a photo of a Japanese flag on it. 

In Japan, there isn’t a ton of grain distilleries, making it sometimes easier to import whisky. 

Eli Raffeld, who used to live in Japan before making back to the U.S. to start an importer-exporter for craft beer, said: “In Japan, nobody is really misled by any of this. It’s common practice in Japan, he says, to be bottling and selling whiskies that include a component imported from another country, almost to the point of tradition. So people don’t really think about it.”

Emiko Kaji, international business development manager for Nikka, concluded: “We do not make superior or inferior distinctions of flavor based on geographical indications. If using imported whiskies as a part of the formula is beneficial to create or maintain the flavors of our unique expressions, we will continue this practice.”

Authored by Martin Jones via The Mises Institute,

In recent years a number of economic studies have concluded that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage do not necessarily cause a discernible decline in employment. Social activists have seized on these findings to argue that there are no job losses and that it is possible to increase mandated wages by almost any amount without ill effects.

The result has been a rush to raise the minimum wage to $15 in a number of states and cities and now at the national level.

The reality is that there is little consensus among economists about the effects of the minimum wage on aggregate employment.

In their 2014 book What Does the Minimum Wage Do? Dale Belman and Paul Wolfson survey over two hundred minimum wage studies and conclude that moderate increases can raise the wages of low-income workers without significant employment effects.

A 2019 paper by economist Jeffery Clemens is a shorter survey of many of the same studies. It concludes that the case for large increases (an increase from $7.25 to $15 would qualify) “is either mistaken or overstated” and adds that “[i]n contrast to the research emphasized by advocates, the broader body of work regularly finds that increases in minimum wages cause job losses for individuals with low skills.”

In a January 2021 study, economists David Neumark and Peter Shirley assembled “the entire set of published studies in this literature” and conclude that “there is a clear preponderance of negative estimates“ and that the evidence is particularly strong for teens, young adults, and the less educated—exactly the results economic theory would predict.

In the face of competing complex statistical analyses that may reach contradictory conclusions, voters and legislators should be aware that findings about the effects of wage increases on the unemployment rate often ignore or obscure other significant consequences. For example, small increases don’t always have a discernible effect on employment, because employers try to make other adjustments before laying off workers they are happy with and need. One of the first adjustments is to raise prices, the success of which depends on the competitive environment and the flexibility of demand for their products or services.

Along with price increases, employers may reduce hours, and Belman and Wolfson note that “[i]t has long been suggested that employers may respond to minimum wage increases by reducing spending on training, fringe benefits and working conditions valued by employees.”

Another important finding is that employers often respond to higher mandated wages by replacing low wage workers with those who have more education, skills and experience which make them more productive. This adjustment may have little effect on the observable employment numbers, but the effect is devastating for those who are replaced. Employers can be forced to pay higher wages, but they can’t be forced to hire or retain employees whose contributions don’t match the higher wage.

Some studies (see Clemens 2019) suggest that the pace of job creation slows when mandated wages rise. The increases also accelerate automation, which reduces the number of entry-level jobs and further penalizes those whom the increases are meant to help. In coming years, the combined effect of substitution, slower job creation, and accelerated automation is likely to be a growing core of workers, many of whom are young and poorly educated, who are unemployed and unemployable.

Social activists and progressive editorial boards now regard the minimum wage as another welfare program that can reduce the costs of programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and can reduce inequality. But the minimum wage is very poorly targeted for these purposes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that “roughly 40 percent of workers directly affected by the $15 option in 2025 would be members of families with incomes more than three times the federal poverty level.” If the goal is to aid low-wage households, rather than teenagers and other part-time workers in middle-income and affluent families, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would be far more effective, because it is designed to aid the working poor.

The national minimum wage was established in 1938, and along with periodic increases has become widely accepted as desirable public policy. But it has also become a textbook example of the failure to think separately and equally about ends and means. If there is a public consensus that low-income families should receive additional aid, that policy should be paid for by the public, not by private businesses, many of which will try to offset the higher costs by raising prices to consumers and cutting employee hours and benefits, and some of which won’t survive with higher mandated costs that they can’t adequately offset.

The notion that third parties can pick the right starting wage for every employee, in every job, in every business, in every industry is folly. Those who support increases in the minimum wage do so with the best of intentions, but they should be aware of the substantial hidden costs and negative consequences which are often ignored in the public debate and should be aware that there are much better alternatives for helping those in need.

Another week, another restaurant doomsday story.

According to the latest NYC Hospitality Alliance survey, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for restaurants across the metro area to pay their rent in full and on time. The return of indoor dining couldn’t come soon enough as struggling eateries cling on for dear life. 

The survey found 92% of more than 400 respondents couldn’t pay rent in December, a number that has exponentially moved higher during the pandemic. In June, 80% of restaurants couldn’t afford to pay rent; July 83%; August 87%; October 88%. The trend outlines the struggle Big Apple restaurants have endured since the pandemic began. 

Before the pandemic, more than 25,000 restaurants, bars, and nightclubs employed 325,000 people across all seven boroughs. So far, thousands of eateries have closed permanently, and at least half are at risk of closing if government aid isn’t seen or restrictions aren’t lifted. The industry’s consolidation has been devastating for the labor force, with some 140,000 jobs lost.

NYC Hospitality Alliance survey said 40% of respondents said landlords reduced rent, 36% said landlords deferred rent, and 14% said they could renegotiate leases. 

The report’s release comes as Gov. Andrew Cuomo eased restrictions on restaurants statewide last week. He said restaurants and bars could stay open longer and has allowed for indoor dining at 25% capacity in the city. 

“We’re nearly a year into the public health and economic crisis that has decimated New York City’s restaurants, bars, and nightlife venues,” said Andrew Rigie, executive director of the NYC Hospitality Alliance. 

Cuomo’s ban on indoor dining last fall produced a dark winter for many restaurants who had to build tents on their patios or sidewalks to house guests and protect them from the freezing temperatures. 

In response to the ban, restauranteurs across the city prohibited the governor from dining at their eateries. 

“He should be banned from every restaurant bar etc he’s a scumbag f**k you coumo and di blasio,” one owner said. 

With indoor restrictions in place during the holiday season, many restaurants across the city saw a “dramatic loss of revenue” as New Year’s celebrations were canceled. 

Some restaurants developed new revenue streams by selling frozen dinners. 

OpenTable shows the percentage of restaurants in New York City accepting reservations from diners remains well under the 50% level, even worse than last October. 

NYC Hospitality Alliance survey’s lined up with December’s Alignable Rent Poll, showing that more than half of the country’s restaurants couldn’t pay rent in December. 

More than one year later since the pandemic began and the restaurant industry remains in shambles. No “V-shaped” recovery here. 

Authored by Sean Stein Smith via The American Institute for Economic Research,

Accounting standards developed for the 20th century are not equipped to deal with 21st century crypto assets. Assuming otherwise creates inaccurate and diminished financial reporting. 

Recent headlines by the likes of Tesla, Microstrategy, and BNY Mellon, as well as statements by market titans such as Ray Dalio and Jeff Gundlach illustrate one consistent point; crypto is part of the mainstream financial conversation. 

Bitcoin especially has come a long way from its early days as a cypherpunk-themed movement to create an alternative financial and payment system. In the context of 2021, bitcoin and other crypto are actually starting to become somewhat boring; just another asset class and investment opportunity for institutional investors, financial institutions, and retail investors alike versus a world changing idea.

If the story ended there, well, it would all sound pretty mundane. Unfortunately, that is only the surface, and these headlines obscure an extremely important problem that remains unaddressed; the accounting for crypto as it currently stands makes no business sense. That’s right, something as under-the-radar as accounting standards are quickly becoming a significant issue as crypto adoption and investment accelerates. 

Let’s dig in. 

The Problem 

There is currently no widely accepted authoritative accounting guidance for crypto. Certain specific countries have implemented unique approaches that stand apart, but these are not widely adopted outside of these countries. In the accounting world, the two standard setting bodies are the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). It is true that the IASB has proven more flexible in terms of crypto accounting; there are no authoritative standards to that effect. In the US, and despite worthwhile efforts by the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) to publish non-authoritative research, the FASB has so far refused to consider the issue of crypto-specific accounting guidance. 

In the face of no authoritative standards, a consensus has developed that crypto should be treated as an indefinite lived intangible asset (like goodwill) for financial reporting purposes. At first glance this all seems fine since crypto is intangible and has no fixed expiration date. Peeling back the layers of this treatment, however, quickly reveals how inappropriate this classification is for crypto. 

Following the rules of accounting for indefinite lived intangible assets, these assets are held on the balance sheet at the price paid for them (cost) less any impairment charges. Impairment, without getting overly technical, is a process by which assets are evaluated to see whether or not the book value is reflective of market value. If the market value has decreased, the asset is written down and an expense is recorded. Under US accounting standards, there is one other wrinkle to keep in mind; once an asset has been written down it cannot be written back up no matter what the market valuation becomes. 

This accounting treatment might be fine for goodwill, an asset created due to paying more than the fair market valuation of an organization (think M&A) would imply, but does not work for crypto. Under this current treatment, any organization that invests in crypto will have to record this investment at cost, and mark it down whenever conditions trigger an impairment test, and would never be able to mark this asset back up. 

Crypto is still a volatile market, and even just in 2021 there have been double-digit percentage swings in prices for bitcoin and innumerable other crypto. Treating crypto as the current consensus would indicate creates a situation where economic realities are not accurately represented. 

Think about it, is any other widely traded and free-floating commodity or equity-like instrument treated this way? No. Why? Because it does not make business sense and diminishes the usability of financial reporting. 

Potential Solutions 

There are two possible solutions that could ultimately be implemented given the rapid proliferation of crypto on corporate balance sheets. Again, there is no widely implemented crypto-specific guidance, and these approaches do not align with current market consensus. 

• Option #1 is the simplest approach, and would involve choosing to treat, record, and report crypto investments as a commodity-like instrument. This would allow the changes in market value to be reported as they occur on the balance sheet, and be reported on the income statement (or through other comprehensive income). Implementing this approach, modifying existing standards to reflect an emerging asset class, would increase the transparency and usability of financial reporting. 

• A second option, and one that in a perfect world would already be in the pipeline at standard setters, is the development of entirely new standards for this entirely new asset class. Obviously this would take more time, require more input, and necessitate high levels of collaboration, but the following framework might make sense. Classifying different crypto depending on use case (currency alternative, commodity equivalent, or equity-like instrument) would allow new and more nuanced standards to enter the marketplace. 

As far fetched as this might seem, a similar attempt was made to improve crypto reporting via the proposed (not passed) Token Taxonomy Act of 2019; a refreshing attempt by policymakers to encourage innovation and adoption of new technologies. 

Takeaway

Crypto has rapidly moved from a fringe topic, to a relatively minor investment selection, to an investment being adopted by some of the largest corporations and asset managers in the world. This is fantastic news for wider adoption, but the accounting simply has not kept pace. Accounting professionals need to learn to live and work with crypto, and standard setters need to be proactive in the creation of crypto-specific standards. Applying standards developed for the 20th century economy to 21st crypto assets is already causing issues, and should be rectified to avoid wider market disruptions.

“In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship.”

Those were the prophetic words of Caitlin Johnstone in 2018 warning of the slippery slope that Big Tech and its liberal minions were embarking on as the corporate-sponsored cancel-culture began.

In 2018, representatives of Facebook, Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to “quell information rebellions” and adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment to “prevent the fomenting of discord.”

“Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words,” the representatives were told.

“America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.”

And now, 3 years later, all the ‘behind the scenes’ nods and winks are gone and conspiracy theories proved fact as Reuters reports The White House has been reaching out to social media companies including Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc’s Google about clamping down on COVID misinformation and getting their help to stop it from going viral, a senior administration official said.

“Disinformation that causes vaccine hesitancy is going to be a huge obstacle to getting everyone vaccinated and there are no larger players in that than the social media platforms,” a source with direct knowledge about the cooperation told Reuters.

The White House previously acknowledged working with tech giants like Facebook and Google on the issue, but direct engagement was not confirmed, Reuters said.

“We are talking to them … so they understand the importance of misinformation and disinformation and how they can get rid of it quickly.”

The source told Reuters that the companies “were receptive” as they engaged with the White House. “But it is too soon to say whether or not it translates into lessening the spread of misinformation.”

Every time the dangers of a few Silicon Valley plutocrats controlling all new media political discourse with an iron fist are pointed out, Democratic Party loyalists all turn into a bunch of hardline free market Ayn Rands.

“It’s not censorship!” they exclaim. “It’s a private company and can do whatever it wants with its property!”

Except now, that ‘private’ entity is working directly for the government as the Biden administration is not even trying to hide the relationship.

So, it turns out Johnstone was right: “In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship.”

Be careful what you ‘think’ America… be wary of ‘questioning’ anything, and definitely be careful what you ‘share’.

As John Whitehead warned this week:  This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of free speech as we once knew it.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell