Tesla’s Musk Says “Limited” Full Self Driving Beta To Be Released Next Week

Tesla’s Musk Says “Limited” Full Self Driving Beta To Be Released Next Week

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/12/2020 – 13:45

After taking deposits for Full Self Driving for almost a half decade and just watching Nikola’s Trevor Milton publicly skewered for delivering a semi truck that didn’t have the capabilities he insinuated that it did, perhaps a light bulb has started to go off in Elon Musk’s head that it would be wiser than not to try and deliver on some of the promises of days past he has made.

And now that Tesla has been anointed a $400 billion market cap by Softbank’s options traders and the NY Federal Reserve capital markets, Musk may actually have some firepower to try and tackle problems that seemed “too big to not fail” while Tesla’s valuation was still budding. 

Enter Full Self Driving; the $8,000 vaporware that Musk has been “selling” to Tesla marks customers for years without actually delivering. It now looks like the day has finally come: Musk has said that the company is going to be releasing a “Full Self Driving” beta release on October 20 to a “small number of people”. 

The software is supposed to allow Tesla vehicles to react to stop signs, stop lights and freeway exits. 

Musk had said last week, responding to ARK Invest analyst Tasha Keeney, that a limited beta was coming “in a few weeks”

To us, it seems like a convenient promise; enough of a gesture for Musk to say he fulfilled his previous promise of having Full Self Driving complete by the end of 2020, but a small enough testing size for Musk to not truly have to debut anything of substance on a grand scale.

The sample size is likely going to include Tesla employees and possibly “some customers” that “agree not to share details with the public”, according to Benzinga

“Musk says the latest update will allow the possibility of zero interventions,” Benzinga noted. “While drivers would still need to be ready to take over at any time, it’s possible this means a vehicle could drive from point A to point B without any driver input.”

We’ll believe it when we see it work, in action, without killing drivers – not when we pay $8,000 for it. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36YzWzi Tyler Durden

How Will Reason Staffers Vote in 2020?

VitalVote

Since 2004, Reason has surveyed its staffers on how they plan to vote in national elections. We do this in a spirit of transparency. There is a pernicious idea that if journalists don’t disclose their biases and preferences, then perhaps they don’t have any. But we think it’s better if the people who read, watch, and listen to Reason know where our contributors are coming from, even by the imperfect metric of electoral preferences.

Traditionally, this survey yields a high percentage of nonvoters and Libertarian Party voters, and 2020 is no exception on either score. Our Democratic and Republican voters typically describe themselves as reluctant backers, seeing their candidate as a lesser of two evils; Joe Biden’s showing this year is similar to Barack Obama’s among staffers in 2008.

As each Election Day draws near, Reason receives a bumper crop of emails, tweets, and comments. This year, each day’s harvest includes notes accusing us of being in the tank for Trump and just as many accusing us of stumping for Biden.

Reason is not on anybody’s side in this election or any other. This is, in part, because we are published by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and therefore don’t endorse particular candidates. But it’s also because we don’t think one party or person ever fully embodies the things that are important to us, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law. (As our election-issue cover stories make clear, both of the major candidates fail on that front in important ways.) We continue to look outside of politics for meaning and hope.

Nothing in what follows should be construed as an official endorsement of any candidate or cause. These are the personal views of individual participants and not the institutional views of Reason or Reason Foundation. Legalese aside, we hope what follows is interesting and informative. —Katherine Mangu-Ward

Check out our past voting surveys from 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2016.

MIKE ALISSI
Publisher

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Jo Jorgensen. Some of my libertarian friends plan to vote for Biden because they view Trump to be a unique existential threat to liberty. I think that underappreciates the audacious scope of the Biden agenda, which would bring a daily onslaught of new initiatives and regulations from every corner of the federal bureaucracy aimed at controlling the personal and economic choices we make on virtually everything. These ideas aren’t just rhetoric from a blowhard. Depending on what happens in the Senate, they’re likely to become law, undermining economic growth and moving us backward on First and Second Amendment protections, school choice, property rights, consumer freedom, campus due process, worker freedom, energy choices, and so much more. Expect endless new opportunities for adversarial encounters between citizens and law enforcers on every level. Jo Jorgensen is the only candidate who champions liberty and reflects my views. 

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? Jimmy Carter in 1980, my first vote. That was the most important election of our lifetime, of course. My lefty friends and I viewed Reagan to be a unique existential threat to America. I should have voted for Ed Clark.

PETER BAGGE
Cartoonist

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Jo Jorgensen. I have no problem with her at all. I hope she wins!

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? John Kerry. I’ll never vote for a major party candidate ever again.

ERIC BOEHM
Reporter

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I am currently not registered to vote in Virginia, where I live. If I change that before the election, I will vote for Jo Jorgensen—unless I believe there is a chance that Joe Biden will somehow fail to win Virginia, in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I can’t imagine thinking a single vote is valuable enough to spend time regretting.

CHRISTIAN BRITSCHGI
Associate Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? No one. Both Trump and Biden are awful enough that I can’t imagine voting for either. While I wish Jo Jorgensen well, the cost of figuring out which state I’m still registered in and how exactly I’m supposed to cast my ballot during COVID exceeds any benefit I’d get from supporting her doomed presidential bid.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? My first vote was in local Boise elections in 2011, where I recall ticking the box for a bunch of city council candidates I knew nothing about. It was an irresponsible thing to do, and I was rewarded when the council shortly thereafter passed a sweeping smoking ban. If I could do it over, I would have stayed home that election as well.

ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN
Senior Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I just registered to vote in my home state, Ohio, where I’m living for the next few months. I plan to cast a ballot for Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen this November. As libertarians seem to have less and less in common with either Democrats or Republicans, I’ve started to shed earlier apathy about Libertarian Party politics and become more convinced that we do need a viable electoral vehicle of our own. 

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? This will be my first time voting in a presidential election since 2008, when I voted for Barack Obama. I think that vote was a desperate plea for an end to the Bush era more than anything else. Obama’s presidency did that in some important ways, and failed to in many more. I don’t regret that vote, but the Obama era did become a good lesson in what “hope and change” looks like in practice.

C.J. CIARAMELLA
Criminal Justice Reporter

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Joe Biden. The nationalists said the libertarian-conservative consensus is dead, and I take them at their word. Also, Stephen Miller is a white nationalist.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I haven’t voted in a presidential election since 2004. I guess I would take that one back and not vote, because I was young and dumb instead of old and dumb.

SHIKHA DALMIA
Senior Analyst

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I will cast my ballot for Joe Biden in Michigan, a swing state, because there is no bigger libertarian cause right now than to prevent Donald J. Trump from getting re-elected. He is a proto-authoritarian who digs dictators such as the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte and who glorifies state violence.

Trump launched his first election campaign by stoking racial hatreds, and any hope that the responsibility of governance would temper him was dashed as he dehumanized immigrants and demonized opponents. His zero-tolerance border policies have resulted in unspeakable human rights abuses, his economic nationalism is no better for the cause of free markets than Biden’s supposed socialism, and his fiscal irresponsibility has been worse than his predecessors’. But his most dangerous trait by far is his open contempt for the institutions that check executive power and hold it accountable. Those institutions have contained some of his worst impulses in his first term. They may not be able to withstand another four years of continued assaults.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? If memory serves, I have voted in three presidential elections since I obtained naturalization: for Republican George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004 (against John Kerry), for Libertarian Gary Johnson in 2012, and for Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 (against Donald Trump). Of those, the only one I know I’ll never regret is the one for Johnson.

ZURI DAVIS
Assistant Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I will be voting for the Libertarian Party’s Jo Jorgensen. I will candidly admit that I spent much of my 2019 preparing to vote for certain Democratic candidates should they have won the party’s nomination. In the end, Jo Jorgensen’s principles and empathetic outreach during the emotional yet important Black Lives Matter moment solidified my desire to vote my conscience and not my disappointment with the current president, particularly his poor public treatment of important black figures and his failure to stand firmly on Charlottesville when his condemnations would have made the most impact.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? The 2016 election was the first presidential election in which I qualified to vote. Since I am satisfied with my decision to vote for Gary Johnson over some of the most-hated presidential candidates in modern history, I would probably change the vote I cast for Sen. Rand Paul in the Republican presidential primary. I was excited to vote for the Kentucky senator because of his stance on criminal justice reform, but I was extremely disappointed to see that strong legacy shelved to confirm, of all people, Jeff Sessions.

BRIAN DOHERTY
Senior Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I don’t vote.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? Never having voted, I have no regrets. 

NICK GILLESPIE
Editor at Large

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I’m voting for Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian candidate, because she comes closest to representing my political views.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I would not change any of my votes. In 1984, the first presidential election in which I could vote, I voted for Walter Mondale because I admired his honesty that he would raise taxes to reduce the deficit, which was projected to be the then-massive sum of $184 billion, or about 5 percent of GDP. Since 1988, I have voted for the Libertarian candidate, even when I did not particularly care for the nominee. It’s far more important to me to vote for a third-party candidate, doing whatever small thing I can to help support a wider array of voices in national politics, than to vote for a winning candidate.

KATHERINE MANGU-WARD
Editor in Chief

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I don’t vote, and I won’t this year, even though I am reliably informed by my Instagram and Twitter feeds that this is the most important election of my lifetime. Again. 

I do, however, plan to complain, both pre- and post-election. Because that is my job as a political journalist and my duty as a citizen. It’s important to hold elected officials accountable when they screw up—and no matter who wins in 2020, he’s going to screw up for sure—but a trip to the ballot box every couple of years is a largely ineffective way to do that.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I am not sure whether I have ever voted. If I did, it would have been because I succumbed to peer pressure in 1998, the first year I was eligible. If given the opportunity to travel back in time, I would pop into 1998 to be sure that I did not vote in that election, largely to secure my status as a gold star nonvoter. And then I would kill Hitler, I suppose.

JUSTIN MONTICELLO
Senior Producer

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I’ve come to think of voting as the equivalent of those fake steering wheels on tourist boats that exist to keep children busy with the illusion that they’re steering the ship. Since I have no interest in wasting my time, being laughed at by those in power who are wise to the scheme, or helping legitimize a pointless and fundamentally corrupt enterprise, my mail-in ballot and I will be staying home.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I regret ever having registered to vote. I did so for the first time as a teenager in my home state of New Jersey at the urging of my neighbor, who was running for reelection to our town council. I haven’t lived in the state for over 15 years, and despite my best efforts to have my information removed from local voter rolls and databases, I still get several phone calls every week at 7 a.m. PST from New Jersey political campaigns. I sometimes wonder how much of the spam I have to trawl through every day can be traced back to that original sin of sharing my contact information with the government.

JOHN OSTERHOUDT
Producer

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Political representation is illegitimate in theory and a sham in practice. I don’t plan to vote for anyone.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? In 2016, I took the time to research every candidate for every position on the ballot. What a waste of time that was.

ROBERT POOLE
Director of Transportation Policy

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Because I live in Florida, likely again to be a swing state, I am planning to vote for the lesser evil, though the Libertarian Party candidate would be far better. But our next president will be either Biden or Trump, an even worse choice than Hillary or Trump (and last time I proudly voted for Gary Johnson and William Weld).

This time around, both parties have been transformed. The Democrats are a far more collectivist party whose environmental, transportation, spending, and judicial policies would have devastating long-term effects on this country. The Republicans have become a populist, anti-trade, anti-immigrant, and big-spending party. But despite wishing the Republicans would receive a massive shock that would return them to a more free market approach, I will select GOP/Trump as the lesser evil. This is because of the need to continue with a Supreme Court that upholds the written Constitution, but also because of better environmental, regulatory, and transportation policies and staffing of the relevant agencies.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I don’t regret any previous presidential votes, which have been mostly for the Libertarian Party’s candidates, beginning with a write-in vote for John Hospers in 1972.

MIKE RIGGS
Deputy Managing Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? While I would like to see a President Jo Jorgensen, I will settle for not having to live another four years under President Donald Trump. I will cast my first ever vote for president for Joe Biden in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.

I think Trump is a symptom, not the root cause, of our current dysfunction. I absolutely do not support the Democratic Party writ large. Democratic management of the city of Philadelphia, where I live, is shockingly bad.

But as much as I fear what the Democrats might be able to do tomorrow, what Trump has done the last four years concerns me more. He appears to have no ideology, no patience, and very little wisdom, and I do not get the sense that he understands or appreciates what I love about America. That may all be true of Biden too—I do not know his heart—but the fact that all the Biden voters I know are holding their nose when they punch in his name hopefully means his leash will be shorter.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I voted for the first time in the 2018 midterms, and I do not regret using that opportunity to rebuke Republican xenophobia.

SCOTT SHACKFORD
Associate Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I’m voting for Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen for president and absolutely no other human beings on the ballot whatsoever. As is typical here in California, the ballot initiatives are much more important and impactful than the candidates.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I don’t think I’ve voted for a major candidate who has actually won since Bill Clinton’s second term, so I don’t really have to contend with buyer’s remorse.

STEPHANIE SLADE
Managing Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I am a true undecided: I’ve been vacillating between sitting out this election, as I did in 2016, or voting for Joe Biden. The strongest argument for the latter choice is that it’s an opportunity to support the repudiation of both Trumpism and the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wing of the Democratic Party. That’s a hell of a good value for a single ballot.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I have generally abstained whenever I haven’t seen a clear reason to support one candidate or the other, so I can’t think of a vote I would change if I could.

ROBBY SOAVE
Senior Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I might have voted for Joe Biden if he chose Tulsi Gabbard as his veep, but he didn’t, so I’m voting for Jo Jorgensen. I wish Justin Amash had opted to run, because I would prefer the Libertarian Party to have a candidate with political experience and name recognition. That said, Jorgensen recognizes that the government’s coronavirus response “has been the biggest assault on our liberties in our lifetime,” which is more than sufficient to earn my vote in these insane times.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, but if I could do it over I might be tempted to cast a write-in vote for David French, just as a screw-you to the Drag Queen Story Hour alarmists—and also as penance for all these tongueincheek Twitter jokes.

PETER SUDERMAN
Features Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I do not plan to vote for anyone, for reasons that Katherine Mangu-Ward laid out in her 2012 feature, “Your Vote Doesn’t Count.” But also because I regret the one presidential vote I did cast.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I have voted in a national election only once, in 2004, and thus I have only one possible vote to change. But I would probably change it, if I could. The reason I voted in 2004 was mostly because I failed to vote in 2000—when I was a Florida resident living out of state while attending college. You may remember there was some fuss about Florida during the 2000 presidential election, including a fair amount of concern over absentee ballots. So I felt some pressure not to allow that to happen again. I voted for George W. Bush. That didn’t go so well either. If I had to do it over again, I would decline to vote.

JACOB SULLUM
Senior Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Texas has stringent requirements for absentee ballots, notwithstanding COVID-19, so I may not vote at all. But assuming I do, the choice is obvious: Jo Jorgensen. Given the odds, voting is best viewed as an expressive activity rather than an attempt to influence the outcome, and I have no interest in expressing whatever horrifying message would be implied by a vote for Trump or Biden (although I am morbidly curious to see what a second term for Trump would mean). 

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? After toying with Gary Hart, I for some reason ended up voting for Walter Mondale in New York’s 1984 Democratic primary (the only time I’ve been a registered Democrat). I was young and ignorant.

JESSE WALKER
Books Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I live in Maryland, where trying to have an impact on which candidate carries the state is the ultimate act of futility. I will cast a protest vote for Jo Jorgensen, which is also futile but doesn’t feel as dirty.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? As a high school senior, I was eligible to vote in the 1988 primaries but skipped them. Given which candidate I was rooting for at the time, this was a shame: I lost my chance to be the only Reason staffer who has cast a ballot for Jesse Jackson.

ZACH WEISSMUELLER
Senior Producer

Who do you plan to vote for this year? It makes me a little queasy, but I’ll be voting for Joe Biden, primarily for three reasons: (1) A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge. (2) Trump was an even more selfish and incompetent leader than I thought he’d be, he seems willing to stoke chaos to hold onto power, and I’m sick of talking and hearing about him. (3) The Libertarian Party doesn’t have a clear electoral strategy or even sense of purpose and continually seems to miss golden opportunities.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I’ve always voted for Libertarian presidential candidates and never felt bad about that. I just hope I don’t regret my first lesser-of-two-evils vote this year.

MATT WELCH
Editor at Large

Who do you plan to vote for this year? Jo Jorgensen. If it was going to be close in my state, I might have considered holding my nose and voting for the person most likely to supplant the eminently fireable incumbent. But New York has chosen the Democrat by at least 16 percentage points in every presidential election since the end of the Cold War, so I prefer to add votes to the party that aligns much more with my values.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? In 1988, my first election, I lived in the swing state of…California? (That’s how old I am.) I did not remotely like or even take seriously Michael Dukakis, but I had whipped myself up in a collegiate fever to believe that George H.W. Bush was the real CIA-fabricated Dark Lord and must be stopped at all costs. Silly in retrospect. I vowed then to never vote for candidates I actively dislike, a commitment I’ve mostly kept to since.

LIZ WOLFE
Staff Editor

Who do you plan to vote for this year? I live in New York City, so my vote thankfully does not matter one iota in an ocean of progressives. I will not vote this year, since Jorgensen has squandered her opportunity to win libertarianism new converts––despite this botched pandemic reminding us that politicians are incompetent, self-serving, or both. Trump has been a tremendously terrible president if you care about immigration and free trade, and Biden is just a pliant, unprincipled career politician (and former drug warrior) who will do nothing for freedom. No to everyone.

If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I am very young and have few voting-related skeletons in the closet. I’ll keep it that way by not voting!

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

Platts: 5 Commodity Charts To Watch This Week

Platts: 5 Commodity Charts To Watch This Week

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/12/2020 – 13:30

Via S&P Global Platts Insight blog,

The global oil supply path into 2021 is in focus this week, along with the impact of storms on US  oil output. Away from oil, we also survey the outlook for LNG demand in Asia and the European power mix, and look at the key factors driving the copper market.

1. OPEC+ compliance, Libya output to drive global oil supply growth in Q4

What’s happening? Global oil supply has increased by 3.6 million b/d from July through September after dropping more than 13 million b/d from April to June. This is despite a more active hurricane season in the US Gulf, which has temporarily removed upwards of 100,000 b/d of crude oil production. OPEC+ has carefully managed providing additional barrels to the market as oil demand has recovered from peak pandemic impacts seen in Q2.

What’s Next? Supply increases are set to slow starting 4Q 2020 as OPEC+ pushes for compliance and cohesion. OPEC will meet towards end-November to review market demands and quotas. Production increases in Libya are expected to be choppy and sustainability is uncertain. Geopolitics will take center stage with US presidential elections in November. If the Democrats win the White House some sanctioned barrels (Iran, Venezuela) could re-enter the market. S&P Global Platts Analytics forecasts show non-OPEC supply growth over 2020 and 2021 will be limited to few key areas – Norway (300,000 b/d), Brazil (320,000 b/d), Guyana (120,000 b/d), and Canada (85,000 b/d). Declines will be widespread with the US seeing the biggest falls, of 865,000 b/d in 2020 and more than 1.14 million b/d in 2021.

2. High hurricane count slashes US Gulf oil production

What’s happening? Hurricane Delta is on track to surpass Hurricane Laura as most disruptive so far this season. As of Oct. 9, 92% of crude oil and 62% percent of natural gas production was shut in. Production will begin to return after the storm passes, but it can take as long as 2-3 weeks for full ramp-up, depending on damage and storm severity.

What’s next? With 25 named storms, it is the second most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, behind only the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. It is also only the second tropical cyclone season to feature the Greek letter storm naming system, with the other season again being 2005. Production outages this season will rival peak levels seen in 2005 and 2008. The US hurricane season runs through end-November, though the probability of landfalls and storm intensity is past peak as weather turns cooler and the jet stream pushes deeper south out of Canada.

3. Asian LNG prices hit 11-month high on winter procurement, outages

What’s happening? The Platts JKM for November was assessed at $ 5.535/MMBtu Oct. 9, its highest in 11 months, after spending much of the year languishing in the $2-$3 range. Some buying interest has emerged from North Asian buyers like Japan and South Korea. There was also a flurry of activity from Pakistan, with tenders being issued for at least nine spot LNG cargoes for this winter in a single week. The country’s government has allowed unutilized LNG terminal to be auctioned, and domestic gas production has been on the decline. On the supply side, Norwegian facilities have been affected by strikes and accidents, and US LNG terminals and gas production shuttered last week in anticipation of Hurricane Delta making landfall.

What’s next? Asian LNG markets are expected to continue tightening due to global producer outages and an uptick in winter procurement from regional buyers. There are indications of healthy downstream demand in North Asia, although high storage inventories are capping demand growth and much of the peak winter demand will depend on colder temperatures going forward.

4. European power demand down 6% in 2020, but Q4 tightness in focus

What’s happening? Power demand in Europe’s five biggest markets has fallen 6% in the first three quarters of 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic reduced economic activity, data analyzed by S&P Global Platts show. The 85 TWh demand equates to the entire nine-month consumption of the Netherlands. Nuclear absorbed much of the drop, with generation down 61 TWh, while wind and solar output increased 41 TWh year on year. Coal continues to beat a steady retreat, down 39% or 60 TWh YoY, while gas generation was stable on year and up over a two-year view. Gas-fired generation now accounts for over 20% of power demand in the five markets, becoming a significant swing factor in the traditionally coal-dominated German market.

What’s next? While electricity demand is unlikely to see on-year gains before 2021, all eyes are on supply dynamics going into Q4 2020 after warnings of regional tightness across northwest Europe in September. French nuclear has been ramping up sharply and could soon erase deficits running since November last year, while new wind capacity will feed into the general thesis of greater surpluses at times, but also greater volatility when the wind drops. September price spikes reminded the market that lulls in wind can affect the whole of northwest Europe, prompting price-inflation competition on interconnections between the UK, France, the Netherlands and Belgium. Rising gas and falling CO2 prices have reduced gas generation’s advantage over coal, but clean spark spreads still justify the recent return of CCGT units in Germany and the Netherlands.

5. Copper keeps rising despite inventories, coronavirus woes

What happened? Copper has been on a run higher since the initial pandemic-induced sell-off. Back in April, mine closures boosted the metal, but now there are a variety of factors at play including  Chinese stimulus spending, the reopening of economies and general buoyancy in global equities. Another boost came from the UK government’s announced plan to power every home in the UK with wind power by 2030. The turbines required can have anywhere up to 6 mt of copper in them. This news sent the price even higher over the past week, helping copper to recover from a brutal sell-off linked to an increase of around 100,000 mt of metal in LME-registered warehouses.

What’s next? The bullish factors listed above appear to be negating the fact that global copper stockpiles are up, and a second wave of coronavirus is sweeping across Europe. The metal could go either way, but for now many seem to be positioning for a break towards $7,000/mt.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lEYUI8 Tyler Durden

A Fun Free Speech Opinion I Just Ran Across

Canney v. State (Fla. Ct. App. 1973), in which Robert Benjamin Canney was convicted of “resisting an officer with violence” when he was being arrested for “profane, vulgar or indecent language” (“bring the Goddamned war home” and “the Goddamn pigs”) at a 1970 anti-Vietnam war rally in St. Petersburg, Florida. Canney argued the arrest was unlawful, but the panel majority disagreed, on the grounds that the city ordinance did ban this speech, and had not been expressly invalidated at the time of the arrest (regardless of whether it was unconstitutional under then-recent First Amendment precedents). Chief Judge Robert Mann dissented, in a colorful opinion; here are some excerpts:

If in Stalin’s time, in the St. Petersburg which had by then become Leningrad (saints having fallen from grace in the Soviet Union), a citizen had been arrested for cursing the ‘goddam war’ and calling the visibly present police ‘goddam pigs,’ I could understand it. But Canney was arrested at a peace rally in St. Petersburg, Florida, and I cannot understand it.

The legality of Canney’s arrest for profanity is essential to affirmance of this conviction. The trial judge might have been misled in this regard, but we are not. In the time-honored tradition of the trial bar, the law was researched after the appeal was filed…. The statute requires that the state prove that Canney resisted a Lawful arrest, and that necessarily involves the question whether, in a political context, where there is no disturbance whatever except that created by these two overzealous policemen, and where Canney had finished his vulgar and repulsive speech and sat quietly down before he was arrested, an American citizen can be arrested for invoking divine vengeance upon a war he doesn’t like and a constabulary he regards as repressive….

The trial court did not fully consider Canney’s claim based on discriminatory enforcement. ‘Goddam’ is a word taken into the vocabulary, and infests our literature. It is a bi-partisan epithet: President Roosevelt applied it to a broken voting machine and former Attorney General John Mitchell was quoted by the Associated Press on June 15, 1972, as using it.

It transcends terrestrial boundaries: an astronaut on the moon used it, and I heard no clamor for his prosecution, though I recognize a delicate venue problem. The law seems to be that you can’t use the phrase in St. Petersburg if it offends the police….

Canney spoke to a willing and appreciative audience, and that language the police found offensive has been attributed in recent weeks, in publications of national circulation, to the President of the United States, a former Attorney General and his articulate wife. One of those three is presently under indictment, but not for anything so petty as the offense for which Canney was arrested….

I do not think that Canney is any conservator of American liberty. He is a consumer of our liberties, one of those whose idea is to push his constitutional liberty to the point of provocation…. [I]t would work no hardship on Canney to refrain from uncouth utterance in public. But what is involved is not what they should have done, but what the law requires….

What makes American beautiful is not only its purple mountain majesties and the like, but the fact that a crude person like Canney is at liberty to speak his mind about the nation’s conduct of a war in Vietnam, and is under no compulsion to agree with me or the St. Petersburg police force. I count it a grave reflection on this court that we will not enforce his clear constitutional rights.

Belief in the perfectibility of man consoles me somewhat. I have no cave on whose walls to draw this prophecy, so I entrust it to the ephemeral pages of the Southern Reporter: someday before God in His own good time comes to judge the Vietnam war, vulgar orators, insensitive policemen and—humbling thought—even judges, some anthropologist seeking the missing link between the apes and civilized man is going to discover that we are it….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36YqL1O
via IFTTT

Virus Could Push 150 Million People Into Extreme Poverty  

Virus Could Push 150 Million People Into Extreme Poverty  

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/12/2020 – 13:15

The World Bank suggested upwards of 150 million people could be pushed into “extreme poverty” due to the virus pandemic, erasing nearly three years of progress in global poverty reductions. 

According to the report, for the first time in two decades, the virus pandemic, compounded by the effects of climate change, are slowing poverty reduction progress, resulting in an additional 88 million to 115 million people falling into extreme poverty this year, with total estimates of 150 million in 2021, depending on the economic recovery shape. 

The biennial Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report defines “extreme poverty” as living on less than $1.90 per day, which is likely to affect between 9.1%-9.4% of the world’s population this year. With the world’s poverty rate expected to rise this year, it would mean extreme poverty is at 2017’s 9.2% level, marking the first rise in the poverty rate in two decades. The rate was expected to drop to 7.5% by 2021 before the coronavirus pandemic. 

World Bank President David Malpass stated the virus pandemic and a global recession is a “serious setback to development progress and poverty reduction.”

About 10% of the world’s population lives on less than $1.90 per day, close to 25% live on less than $3.20 per day, and about 40%, or about 3.3 billion people on planet Earth, live on less than $5.50 per day. 

“The current moment of crisis is extraordinary. No prior disease has become a global threat so quickly as Covid-19. Never have the world’s poorest people resided so disproportionately in conflict-affected territories and countries. Changes in global weather patterns induced by human activity are unprecedented,” said the report.

The report estimates by 2030, the global poverty rate could decline to 7%, but as Malpass explained: 

“In order to reverse this serious setback to development progress and poverty reduction, countries will need to prepare for a different economy post-COVID, by allowing capital, labor, skills, and innovation to move into new businesses and sectors. World Bank Group support—across IBRD, IDA, IFC, and MIGA—will help developing countries resume growth and respond to the health, social, and economic impacts of COVID-19 as they work toward a sustainable and inclusive recovery.”

Much of the new poor will be concentrated in countries with already high poverty rates. 

“A number of middle-income countries will see significant numbers of people slip below the extreme poverty line. About 82% of the total will be in middle-income countries,” the report estimates.

A similar World Bank report was released in August when it called for upwards of 100 million people to slide into extreme poverty. Both reports are evident of global poverty rates continuing to worsen. 

A top IMF official recently pointed out that the global recovery could take years – the 2020s could be a lost decade with soaring wealth inequality as governments worldwide are overwhelmed by poverty. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36XWkJp Tyler Durden

A Fun Free Speech Opinion I Just Ran Across

Canney v. State (Fla. Ct. App. 1973), in which Robert Benjamin Canney was convicted of “resisting an officer with violence” when he was being arrested for “profane, vulgar or indecent language” (“bring the Goddamned war home” and “the Goddamn pigs”) at a 1970 anti-Vietnam war rally in St. Petersburg, Florida. Canney argued the arrest was unlawful, but the panel majority disagreed, on the grounds that the city ordinance did ban this speech, and had not been expressly invalidated at the time of the arrest (regardless of whether it was unconstitutional under then-recent First Amendment precedents). Chief Judge Robert Mann dissented, in a colorful opinion; here are some excerpts:

If in Stalin’s time, in the St. Petersburg which had by then become Leningrad (saints having fallen from grace in the Soviet Union), a citizen had been arrested for cursing the ‘goddam war’ and calling the visibly present police ‘goddam pigs,’ I could understand it. But Canney was arrested at a peace rally in St. Petersburg, Florida, and I cannot understand it.

The legality of Canney’s arrest for profanity is essential to affirmance of this conviction. The trial judge might have been misled in this regard, but we are not. In the time-honored tradition of the trial bar, the law was researched after the appeal was filed…. The statute requires that the state prove that Canney resisted a Lawful arrest, and that necessarily involves the question whether, in a political context, where there is no disturbance whatever except that created by these two overzealous policemen, and where Canney had finished his vulgar and repulsive speech and sat quietly down before he was arrested, an American citizen can be arrested for invoking divine vengeance upon a war he doesn’t like and a constabulary he regards as repressive….

The trial court did not fully consider Canney’s claim based on discriminatory enforcement. ‘Goddam’ is a word taken into the vocabulary, and infests our literature. It is a bi-partisan epithet: President Roosevelt applied it to a broken voting machine and former Attorney General John Mitchell was quoted by the Associated Press on June 15, 1972, as using it.

It transcends terrestrial boundaries: an astronaut on the moon used it, and I heard no clamor for his prosecution, though I recognize a delicate venue problem. The law seems to be that you can’t use the phrase in St. Petersburg if it offends the police….

Canney spoke to a willing and appreciative audience, and that language the police found offensive has been attributed in recent weeks, in publications of national circulation, to the President of the United States, a former Attorney General and his articulate wife. One of those three is presently under indictment, but not for anything so petty as the offense for which Canney was arrested….

I do not think that Canney is any conservator of American liberty. He is a consumer of our liberties, one of those whose idea is to push his constitutional liberty to the point of provocation…. [I]t would work no hardship on Canney to refrain from uncouth utterance in public. But what is involved is not what they should have done, but what the law requires….

What makes American beautiful is not only its purple mountain majesties and the like, but the fact that a crude person like Canney is at liberty to speak his mind about the nation’s conduct of a war in Vietnam, and is under no compulsion to agree with me or the St. Petersburg police force. I count it a grave reflection on this court that we will not enforce his clear constitutional rights.

Belief in the perfectibility of man consoles me somewhat. I have no cave on whose walls to draw this prophecy, so I entrust it to the ephemeral pages of the Southern Reporter: someday before God in His own good time comes to judge the Vietnam war, vulgar orators, insensitive policemen and—humbling thought—even judges, some anthropologist seeking the missing link between the apes and civilized man is going to discover that we are it….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36YqL1O
via IFTTT

The Hazards Of 4 More Years Of Jerome Powell

The Hazards Of 4 More Years Of Jerome Powell

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/12/2020 – 13:00

Via Birch Gold Group,

Whether Trump or Biden is elected in November, they will have to decide whether or not to appoint Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to another term.

And if he is appointed again, the way he continues to handle the continuing ripple effects of the COVID-19 “shutdown” economy will be critical.

So let’s examine why the decision to reappoint him is important, then take a quick tour of some of Powell’s recent performance.

piece from Paul R. La Monica provides a take on the importance of Powell’s re-appointment, beginning with the response to the market’s plummet earlier this year:

The Fed quickly lowered rates to zero in March and has since launched trillions of dollars worth of lending programs… Powell’s swift actions have won him praise from many economists and investing experts on Wall Street.

“Powell should get a second term if he wants it. He deserves credit for the speed and magnitude of the Fed’s response to Covid-19,” said Larry Adam, chief investment officer of Raymond James.

Mr. Adam and the article are correct on one point. The Powell-authorized “moon shot” in response to a dramatic market drop was certainly a fast move.

George Calhoun, professor of quantitative finance at the Stevens Institute of Technology, agreed with Powell’s quick decision to print trillions:

When the crisis hit, Powell went all out and opened the spigots. I’m not sure what rationale would be to have someone totally different at the Fed. Monetary policy has been effective.

Any person in Powell’s position could have made the same call, of course. We just have to hope that the long-term ripple effects don’t eventually reveal that his reaction was too much, too fast, or perhaps unnecessary.

A quick look at Powell’s performance since 2018 should, at the very least, raise questions.

Inflation, Confusion, and Repo Market Desperation… Oh My!

Here’s what March’s monetary “moon shot” looks like on the Fed’s official balance sheet:

It’s fairly obvious from this chart that Powell’s attempts starting in 2018 to reduce the balance sheet were not very successful.

Then there’s the yield curve. An inversion of the 2-year and 10-year treasuries has preceded every major recession for the last 50 years. Powell chose to sweep this market signal under the rug in 2018.

The yield curve inverted a second time in June 2019. You can see from the chart above that the St. Louis Fed considers February 2020 to be the start of another recession. So the inverted yield curve seems to have proved accurate once again.

But Powell’s problems in 2019 didn’t end with inverted bond yields. In September 2019, the repo markets went haywire. This forced Powell to make some “QE-like” moves to flood the repo markets with billions of dollars to keep them from freezing up.

In December 2019, it was discovered that four big banks were at the root of the repo market fiasco, so who knows if Chairman Powell “had” to print money in the first place?

Which Brings Us to 2020…

In addition to the Fed’s “moon shot” in March, Powell did an unusual “about face” on his former position regarding the $27 trillion in U.S. debt saying, “Now is not the time to act on those concerns.”

Intervention after intervention by Powell’s Federal Reserve and it remains to be seen what exactly is being accomplished beyond barely keeping the economy afloat (when all market factors are considered).

Just last month it seemed like a “confused” Fed couldn’t find and report the rapidly increasing food price inflation being caused by Powell’s most recent intervention.

(Hint: We found it, and once energy costs start rising again, we could be talking about hyperinflation in the U.S., but that’s a topic for another article.)

So the question remains: Should Federal Reserve Chair Powell be appointed for another term? Only the next President will make the call on that, of course.

But if the U.S. is returning to “inflation nation” again – a process that Powell started – then your retirement could be put at risk.

Hedge Against Potential Inflation With Gold and Silver

Examine your savings now, before it’s too late. Then consider whether to shift some of your assets to make it more resilient to Fed interventions.

Holding assets such as physical gold and silver can help to hedge against an inflationary economy, no matter what the future brings.

*  *  *

After 8 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3nGNs0w Tyler Durden

Nasdaq Explodes Higher Amid Unprecedented Gamma/Futures Double-Squeeze

Nasdaq Explodes Higher Amid Unprecedented Gamma/Futures Double-Squeeze

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/12/2020 – 12:44

Heading into the weekend, we observed that despite the recent drift higher in the Nasdaq last week after its September correction, institutional investors remained skeptical with a near-record number of non-commercial spec shorts in the Nasdaq 100 mini according to the latest CFTC Commitment of Traders report, and after spiking to a historic level just two weeks earlier, the negative bets on the Nasdaq stubbornly persisted…

… perhaps in response to the recent surprisingly bearish note from Morgan Stanley which warned that the tech plunge would accelerate, and which forced many institutions into bearish positions.

But it wasn’t just the painful short in NQ futures that set off today’s harrowing move higher in the Nasdaq: as Nomura’s Charlie McElligott wrote in his morning note when looking at today’s exponential “panic grab” price-action in Equities futures, “the buy flows are being driven by a legacy dynamic in SINGLE-STOCK VOL which you’re now well-familiar with, where we see massive upside call strikes suddenly back ‘in-play” on the meltup this week into their Friday’s expiration in some of those mega-cap Tech stocks (AMZN in particularly, bu ADBE and NFLX as well) that traded back in August, forcing what looks to be “short Gamma” -type buying / hedging this morning from the Dealer short them in order to stay neutral.”

Said otherwise, the same “gamma squeeze” dynamic we observed in mid/late August when Masa Son’s SoftBank ended up buying billions in call spreads, sparking a meltup in tech names is back, and just like in August, liquidity is dismal. As JPMorgan strategist Shawn Quigg wrote last week, the market’s low liquidity environment “lays the groundwork for dealer positioning (i.e., gamma imbalances) that can further exacerbate existing market trends, and volatility dynamics (e.g., prices up/volatility down to prices up/volatility up). As such, market participants now closely follow large dealer gamma imbalances ahead of potentially impactful macro events, primarily in options on the S&P 500, to gauge potentially trend accentuating dealer flows.

Alternatively, if the “Nasdaq whale” so wishes, dealers can be squeezed by a rerun of the August meltup, something which we are seeing in real time today, with the help of a handful of exceptionally large trades in thin markets which as JPM admits, “increase the potential for exacerbated stock moves as dealers hedge exposure.” That said, back in August NQ futs were well in the green, so this time we also have the short squeeze of futures traders to consider as risk explodes higher amid the concurrent gamma squeeze.

As such, the combination of a near-record NQ short and another dealer gamma short is precisely what has sparked today’s massive, 3% meltup in the Nasdaq, which paradoxically takes place even as most-shorted names are sliding.

Two more considerations are adding to the bear’s pain: first a modest unwind of the recent reflation trade which traders agreed had gone too far by Friday, means selling of small caps/Russell 2000 coupled with renewed buying of tech/Nasdaq names.

This unwind appears to have been further catalyzed by a fresh rebound in election uncertainty (contested election) as the Nov-Oct futs spread surges back to all time highs, sparking even more flows into the deflationary/tech space.

Finally, throw in Apple’s unveiling of the iPhone 12 tomorrow, which while probably will end up a dud provides even more squeeze power for the Softbanks of the world, and has left Nasdaq shorts dazed and confused after a week when it finally seemed that value may finally overtake growth as the preferred trade over the last few weeks of the year.

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

Big Divide In The Restaurant Industry

Big Divide In The Restaurant Industry

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/12/2020 – 12:32

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

Independent restaurants skid towards bankruptcy as large chains recover.

Who’s Booming, Who’s Not?

  • Well-capitalized large chains like McDonald’s, Chipotle and Domino’s are booming 

  • Your neighborhood independent restaurant isn’t

The Covid crisis created a Big Divide in the Restaurant Industry

The coronavirus pandemic is splitting the restaurant industry in two. Big, well capitalized chains like Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. and Domino’s Pizza Inc. are gaining customers and adding stores while tens of thousands of local eateries go bust.

Larger operators generally have the advantages of more capital, more leverage on lease terms, more physical space, more geographic flexibility and prior expertise with drive-throughs, carryout and delivery.

A similarly uneven recovery is unfolding across the business world as big firms have tended to fare far better during the pandemic than small rivals. In the retail world, bigger chains like Walmart Inc. and Target Corp. are posting strong sales while many small shops struggle to stay open.

Chain Reaction

Smaller chains and independents often use local farms for supplies including organic foods. 

As independents struggle so does the local specialty farm.

The big chains can get a break or extension from creditors. 

Good luck to the locals once Pandemic relief expires (and that happened at the beginning of September).

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

Brevan Howard Takes 25% Stake In Eric Peters’ One River Hedge Fund

Brevan Howard Takes 25% Stake In Eric Peters’ One River Hedge Fund

Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/12/2020 – 12:17

Eric Peters, perhaps better known to our readers as the “Hedge Fund CIO” of One River Asset Management, has long been one of our favorite market commentators dispensing with weekly insightful, actionable and often contrarian points of view which we dutifully distribute to our readership (his most recent thoughts were posted just this past weekend). After being “discovered” by Zero Hedge more than five years ago, he quickly made the media circuit and has frequently appeared on various podcasts and RealVision interviews:

It turns out that one of those reading his missives was none other than iconic macro hedge fund Brevan Howard which according to Bloomberg has acquired a 25% stake in Peters’ hedge fund, which manages $950 million at the Greenwich, Connecticut-based firm and whose clients have committed at least $500 million more to be invested in the next six months.

Of course, it’s not just his lofty prose that has set him aside from his peers: much more importantly, his stellar returns put him in the top percentile of hedge fund returns in 2020:

One River entered the year positioned for a dramatic turn in financial markets, and its Long Volatility Fund returned 50% during the first three weeks of March. That discretionary strategy has since pared gains and is now up 37%. The firm’s Dynamic Convexity Fund, which systematically bets on equity volatility, has returned 41%.

Entering 2020, Peters had long been a believer that central bank suppression of VIX would backfire spectacularly (read “Why Eric Peters Is Betting All On A Volatility Eruption: “A Historic Reversal Is Coming“”), and having had the tenacity to hold on to what until March was a losing position and refusing to follow the hedge fund herd, he ended up generating tremendous profits when the VIX soared to near record highs in March.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2IhJTO1 Tyler Durden