Category: zerohedge

The Phillipines’ top diplomat, foreign minister Teodoro Locsin, demanded in a Monday tweet that China “GET THE FUCK OUT” of their territorial waters.

In response to the ‘illegal’ presence of hundreds of Chinese boats parked inside the Philippines 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Locsin tweeted:

“China, my friend, how politely can I put it? Let me see… O…GET THE FUCK OUT. What are you doing to our friendship? You. Not us. We’re trying. You.”

Locsin’s screed then veers into a strange analogy involving a uterus and giving birth to a ball of crap.

He doesn’t have a uterus. If he tried to give birth to a Chinese province it would be a ball of crap at best and the end of the regime. What is it so hard to understand about Duterte’s UN declaration that the Arbitral Award made all maritime features Philippines; no one else’s?

— Teddy Locsin Jr. (@teddyboylocsin) May 3, 2021

China’s embassy in Manila did not respond to a Reuters request for comment, but officials have previously said the vessels parked at the disputed Whitsun Reef were fishing boats taking refuge from rough seas.

China claims almost the entire South China Sea, through which about $3 trillion of ship-borne trade passes each year. In 2016, an arbitration tribunal in The Hague ruled the claim, which Beijing bases on its old maps, was inconsistent with international law.

In a statement on Monday, the Philippine foreign ministry accused China’s coast guard of “shadowing, blocking, dangerous manoeuvres, and radio challenges of the Philippine coast guard vessels.” -Reuters

Locsin defended his comments, saying “I get things done, my point across crystal.”

Really? But I get things done. my point across crystal. They can feel the sincerity in the scurrility. Usual suave diplomatic speak gets nothing done; it’s real aim is to find a post-retirement job in a multilateral talk shop for the diplomat when put out to pasture. https://t.co/s0lX1dmM2k

— Teddy Locsin Jr. (@teddyboylocsin) May 3, 2021

On Sunday, the Phillipines announced that it would continue maritime exercises in its EEZ despite a Chinese demand that it stop actions which could ‘escalate disputes.’

Meanwhile, the Phillipines has filed 78 diplomatic protests to China since President Rodrigo Duterte took office in 2016, according to Reuters, citing foreign ministry data.

“Our statements are stronger too because of the more brazen nature of the activities, the number, frequency and proximity of intrusions,” Marie Yvette Banzon-Abalos, executive director for strategic communications at the foreign ministry, said.

Authored by Charles Kennedy via OilPrice.com,

A Supreme Court hearing began this week that could seal the future fate of gas pipelines across the United States. It could also change the balance of power between federal and state authorities in a way that federal authorities would hardly like. The case involves the proposed PennEast pipeline, a 120-mile, 1-billion-cu-m piece of infrastructure that will take natural gas from the Marcellus shale across Pennsylvania and New Jersey. New Jersey is opposing the pipeline. PennEast and FERC want to use eminent domain to condemn the state and private land they need to build the infrastructure.

On the face of it, it is a simple case—just another pipeline dispute of the sort that has been enjoying growing popularity among environmentalist groups and politicians in the past few years. In this case, the politicians want to stop PennEast from receiving easements for 40 parcels of federal land. The only way for PennEast to receive these easements, then, is to sue New Jersey. What makes this case different is that its outcome could have major implications for the industry.

As Forbes’ Christopher Hellman explained in an article from earlier this week, the argument of the New Jersey political pipeline opponents is that under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, states have sovereign immunity against lawsuits brought against them by private parties such as companies. In other words, PennEast simply has no right, under the Constitution of the United States, to sue New Jersey’s politicians on the pipeline issue.

A counter-argument, used by a district court in 2018 to rule in favor of the natural gas project, is that PennEast is not acting on its own with its plans to carry 1 billion cubic meters of natural gas across two states. It is acting, the court ruled, under the auspices of a government authority: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Forbes’ Hellman notes this was not a first, either: since the passing of the Natural Gas Act in 1938, FERC has on more than one occasion delegated its powers to invoke eminent domain to energy companies. From PennEast’s perspective, then, since federal power supersedes state power and since FERC has approved the New Jersey pipeline, it has every right to sue the state for that land.

New Jersey appealed the district court ruling, and the appeals court found in its favor. It said that the state had sovereign immunity against lawsuits brought against it by private entities such as PennEast, noting that the power to invoke eminent domain as delegated to it by FERC was a completely different matter from its right to sue a state.

“Thus, the federal government’s ability to condemn State land … is, in fact, the function of two separate powers: the government’s eminent domain power and its exemption from Eleventh Amendment immunity,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit said in its decision.

“A delegation of the former must not be confused for, or conflated with, a delegation of the latter.”

And this is what makes this case so fascinating and so important for the industry.

• If the Supreme Court sides with PennEast, it would mean that the power to invoke eminent domain supersedes states’ sovereign immunity.

• But if it sides with New Jersey, it would be very bad news for energy companies because it would mean that pipeline projects—federally approved projects, no less—will be banned left and right on the grounds of sovereign immunity from lawsuits seeking to clear the way for eminent domain.

In truth, New Jersey has conceded in its brief to the Supreme Court that the federal government has the constitutional power to seize state property such as land. However, it has been argued that the federal government does not have the right to delegate that power to private parties. According to PennEast, however, this is not true.

“It was well-established at the founding that the sovereign eminent-domain authority was delegable. Thus, conceding federal eminent-domain power but contesting its delegability is not a valid option,” the company said in its own brief to SCOTUS.

It is still in the early days. But for now, the Supreme Court appears to be equally open to hearing both sides of the story. According to media reports, some see a 70-percent chance for the court siding with PennEast, citing one Supreme Court Judge, Stephen Breyer, as saying that gas pipelines had a decades-long history and he was wondering whether a ruling in favor of New Jersey would cause disruption to this existing infrastructure.

Chief Justice John Roberts, however, sees things differently, according to a report by the Engineering News-Record. According to him, based on a previous SCOTUS ruling that corporations are people, New Jersey’s argument that it has sovereign immunity from private party lawsuits has a solid standing: PennEast is registered in Delaware and the 11th Amendment, on which New Jersey’s argument hinges, says that states cannot be sued by citizens of other states.

Things will only get more interesting as court hearings progress. The ruling is expected in mid-summer.

In a model that is surely going to soon be adopted and pushed by AOC and other deep thinkers on the left in the U.S., Peru’s presidential front-runner Pedro Castillo has come out and said he would “seize foreign company profits,” according to Bloomberg.

The candidate has said is going to review contracts with transnational companies “in an effort to increase onshore wealth”. 

Castillo took place in a debate with competing candidate Keiko Fujimori and said multinationals should expect to leave “70% of their profits” in Peru. We’re sure companies will be lining up to do business in Peru, as a result. 

“Enough of looting my people,” he said in the debate ahead of the country’s June 6 runoff.

With the funds, he intends on raising investments in education to 10% of GDP and lowering the pension age to 60. In a rare move that we actually agree with, he’ll also cut lawmakers’ wages in half and wouldn’t take compensation as President. 

Castillo maintains a lead of 44% to 34% on Fujimori, who is the daughter of jailed former President Alberto Fujimori. 11% of the vote remains undecided.

Sounds like it won’t be long until Peru winds up just like socialist utopia Venezuela. And then, the U.S. can follow! Right, Bernie?

Real Vision managing Ed Harrison and editor Jack Farley break down today’s market action in stocks, bonds, and commodities. Farley interprets Warren Buffett’s latest comments at the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholders’ meeting, and he and Harrison discuss Buffett’s statements on inflation and equity performance as well as the announcement of Buffett’s successor. Harrison evaluates recent moves in the bond market and shares his views on whether currencies or interest rates will be the “release valve” for volatility as equities grind higher.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The lawyer for the family of Ashli Babbitt, the woman who was killed by a Capitol Police officer during the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, said that witnesses didn’t hear the officer give a warning before he shot her.

The officer, who hasn’t been identified, was cleared by federal prosecutors of any wrongdoing in the shooting, saying that it was reasonable that the officer fired in self-defense. The officer’s attorney Mark Schamel has told news outlets his client did, in fact, warn Babbitt and others who were behind the door attempting to get into the Capitol.

“It’s a false narrative that he issued no verbal commands or warnings,” Schamel told news outlets last month, adding that witness statements corroborate his account.

“He was screaming, ‘Stay back! Stay back! Don’t come in here!’”

However, Babbitt family lawyer Terrell Roberts appeared to dispute that account.

“We’ve interviewed several witnesses on the same side of the door with Ashli Babbitt,” Roberts told journalist Sharyl Attkisson on May 2.

“They didn’t hear any kind of warning. I think a reasonable officer would know, given the noise on the other side of the door, that anything that he’s saying would not be heard.”

According to video footage of the incident, the officer appears to issue no commands to stop or any verbal warning that he would fire.

“In fact, if you watch the video carefully,” Roberts said, “there’s an officer in a suit that strolls across the hallway at the time that he is supposedly yelling an announcement, who doesn’t even seem to react to that. So those are three important factors why we think he didn’t give an announcement.”

Video footage recorded by Capitol breach participants shows the officer taking a defensive position in a doorway before aiming his weapon and shooting Babbitt, who appeared to be trying to climb through a broken window in the door. Officials later said that Babbitt, a U.S. Air Force veteran, reportedly had no weapon.

Roberts noted that Babbitt was part of a crowd that was starting “to hit the door, break some of the windows.” The footage, he said, then shows three officers “move out of the way” of the rioters.

“At the time that this officer shoots, there’s no member of Congress in that lobby,” the lawyer noted on May 2.

“So I think all this adds up to a situation where the officer did not need to shoot and kill the lady.”

In previous media interviews and in a statement to The Epoch Times, Roberts said he plans to file a lawsuit against the U.S. Capitol Police, arguing that the officer violated the constitutional rights of Babbitt. Last week, he said the family will seek $10 million from the agency.

The Epoch Times has contacted the U.S. Capitol Police and Schamel for comment.

An Israeli delegation of top officials has been in Washington seeking to persuade the White House to drop its pursuit of the JCPOA nuclear deal. Most notably among them is Mossad chief Yossi Cohen, who reportedly told Biden directly on Friday that any return to an unimproved deal would be a mistake.

Biden’s response was reported by Axios on Sunday as being that “the US has a long way to go in talks with Iran” before it would restore participation in the 2015 agreement. This after the president was said to have “dropped by” a one hour meeting that had been in progress. “Cohen was the only person to attend it from the Israeli side. Biden, Sullivan and CIA director Bill Burns attended from the US side,” Axios said.

Ironically Biden had previously sought to assure the world and the American public that he wouldn’t let Israel dictate the course of Iran nuclear talks; and yet Biden “assured” the Mossad director that Israeli input during future Vienna Iran talks would be welcomed and persistent. 

Biden’s prior “warning” against Israeli interference came in response to alleged Israeli sabotage of the Islamic Republic’s Natanz nuclear site on April 11 just as the Vienna process kicked off. It’s widely perceived that Tel Aviv has stepped up covert attacks on Iranian assets in the region, including against Iranian tankers and vessels, in the hopes that an Iranian “reaction” will earn condemnation from Western allies and ultimately disrupt the Vienna talks.

Meanwhile Iranian officials were very optimistic as to progress of the talks over the weekend while National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said talks remained in an “unclear place”.

“Senior Israeli source” to @BarakRavid: “@POTUS told Mossad director Yossi Cohen that he’s happy to hear Israel’s position, but emphasized that an agreement with #Iran is a long way off.” https://t.co/ZxSScNRPpI

— Shalom Lipner (@ShalomLipner) May 2, 2021

One US media report indicated “sanctions on Iranian oil and banks will be lifted, Iran’s top negotiator told Iranian state media Saturday, based on agreements made at talks in Vienna.”

“Sanctions… on Iran’s energy sector, which include oil and gas, or those on the automotive industry, financial, banking and port sanctions, all should be lifted based on agreements reached so far,” Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was cited in state media as saying.

The Biden administration has since last week strongly suggested it’s mulling a “wholesale rollback” of Trump-era sanctions – something which has angered national security hawks as well as Israeli leaders. But at this point nothing is certain, except for Tehran’s insistence that its patience is limited, and doesn’t want talks to “drag on”.

Vaccine passports (or passes or certificates) are being deployed at over 60 US stadiums and other venues this summer to get the economy “back to normal,” according to Reuters. 

Major League Baseball’s San Francisco Giants and New York Mets are some of the first teams demanding fans present proof of vaccination or a recent negative test via an app called Clear to verify their COVID-19 status. The teams will accept medical paperwork as proof, but they encourage all sports fans to download the Clear app for convenience.

Clear already streamlines the process of traveling through airports by securing all travel documents into an app. It allows travelers to expedite their way through security. Now Clear is being applied outside airports to over 60 US stadiums and other venues. 

“Clear powers fast, touchless experiences that keep you moving at airports, sports stadiums, and other venues nationwide. No crowds, no waiting, keep moving,” the company said on its website. 

Besides MLB stadiums, Clear also partnered with NBA teams “to help get fans back to the game by verifying health insights for a safer and touchless entry at select venues for the 2020 – 2021 season,” the company said.

A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that almost half of Americans support the introduction of health passports to reopen the economy. 

As the use of vaccine passports snowballs from airports to sporting venues, concerns about the app’s potential reach and implications are growing. 

Privacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation fears Clear will hold sensitive medical data of users and transform it into consumer trackers. Clear said users control their health records.

As of April, Clear has about 142k downloads. 

Clear users upload a driver’s license and take a selfie, which the system matches them before connecting to COVID-19 test results from hundreds of labs. 

Some sporting venues also require additional symptom questionnaires that can be quickly filled out on Clear or an automated temperature check at a Clear kiosk. Once they pass, users get a “green” pass with their headshot and a QR code that venue staff scan at entrances. 

Health passports have already migrated from airports to sporting venues within a year – we wonder what is next?

Will passports be needed at shopping malls, gyms, schools, government buildings, supermarkets, and or any other mass gathering event or indoor area? 

Also, how does a vaccine passport help if the vaccine is impotent in protecting an individual from infection and its furtherance through transmission, particularly when there are increasing mutant forms of the virus? 

Already, several US states have shown a resolve against the premise of the vaccine passports. They include Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi at the moment. We’re assuming more will follow. 

These health passports are nothing more than creeping totalitarianism and dictatorship by the government that wants to control and track everything we do. 

Those wondering if Joe Biden is just a figurehead for the progressive/socialist wing in the Democratic party may have gotten their definitive answer today when Joe Biden announce that he will set the number of refugees who can enter the U.S. through September at 62,500 following cries of outrage from the progressives who blasted his earlier abandonment of that goal.

Biden’s capitulation ends a dizzying policy reversal by sticking with Biden’s original plan to dramatically increase the number of refugees that can be admitted into the U.S.

“Today, I am revising the United States’ annual refugee admissions cap to 62,500 for this fiscal year,” Biden said in a statement.

“This erases the historically low number set by the previous administration of 15,000, which did not reflect America’s values as a nation that welcomes and supports refugees.”

“It is important to take this action today to remove any lingering doubt in the minds of refugees around the world who have suffered so much, and who are anxiously waiting for their new lives to begin,” Biden said.

The announcement comes two weeks after the White House said Biden would raise the limit by May 15, but signaled his initial target was not achievable. Biden said his decision to meet his original goal conveys his commitment to creating a more welcoming immigration system, which some of his supporters questioned after his backtracking.

At the same time, Biden said the U.S. would not meet its target of admitting 62,500 refugees this year. “We are working quickly to undo the damage of the last four years. It will take some time, but that work is already underway,” he said.

“The sad truth is that we will not achieve 62,500 admissions this year,” Biden wrote.

“We are working quickly to undo the damage of the last four years. It will take some time, but that work is already underway. We have reopened the program to new refugees. And by changing the regional allocations last month, we have already increased the number of refugees ready for departure to the United States.”

As The Hill notes, the administration initially called for raising the refugee cap to 125,000 by the end of Biden’s first year in office — a target that would require allowing 62,500 refugees fleeing war and natural disasters to enter the United States. The high figure was set to be a dramatic turnaround from the Trump administration, which limited the number of potential refugees allowed to enter the U.S. to 15,000 during their last year in office.

Bill and Melinda Gates announced on Monday that they are ending their marriage after 27 years, “after a great deal of thought and a lot of work on our relationship,” according to a statement.

The Twitterverse is already abuzz with speculation…

Microsoft Co-Founder Bill Gates and Melinda Gates are splitting up

Could this split have anything to do with Bill’s relationship with Epstein? https://t.co/DRNXO6wtis

— JC Oviedo (@JCOviedo6) May 3, 2021

She didn’t get the vaccine? https://t.co/29GM73cEeA

— HedgedIn (@noalpha_allbeta) May 3, 2021

Are they ending their marriage or just marriage in general? We have given Bill a lot of authority in the past 12 months so who knows what he’s an expert in now.

— Michael Landsberg (@m_landsberg) May 3, 2021

Billy Gates bout to clap cheeks https://t.co/mbrji6zYLo

— litquidity (@litcapital) May 3, 2021

Developing…

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Events that devastate the majority financially greatly enrich the few who bet on non-linear dynamics.

I see the same question in forums, threads, articles and emails: what can I do to protect myself and my family from whatever lies ahead?

Given the uncertainties and extremes that are so evident, recognizing risk is a useful first step, a recognition that is very much out of fashion. If we glance at the charts of margin debt (loans taken against one’s stock portfolio) which is at record highs…

…and short interest (bets that stocks will drop) which is at record lows…

…, it seems the primary risk on investors’ minds is FOMO (fear of missing out) of all the fat, juicy guaranteed gains just ahead.

For the few still asking about the source of risk, the general answer takes one of two paths: inflation leading to hyper-inflation or a deflationary collapse of defaults and popping asset bubbles.

It’s easy to find pundits arguing for one or the other, but do we have the initial conditions, variables and functions we need to solve this problem and get a clear answer, inflation or deflation?

Consider two variables that are rarely visible in pundits’ arguments:

1) What will benefit the banks?

2) What will benefit the nation’s place in the geopolitical pecking order?

The inflationary camp holds that the soaring debt, public and private, can only be serviced if incomes inflate so households, companies and governments have enough income to make the payments on their soaring debts.

Since this is a self-reinforcing spiral–more inflation leads to more inflation–central banks will be forced to print their currencies into oblivion, i.e. hyper-inflation.

If they ever stop printing, the house of cards (soaring debt) will collapse.

This logic seems sound enough, but once hyper-inflation takes off and people are earning $250,000 a month and a loaf of bread is $250, how will banks profit from households paying off their once-stupendous mortgage (that required 30 years of monthly payments to pay off) with a single month’s pay?

Hyper-inflation will destroy not just the currency but the entire banking sector, which is politically powerful. Will the banks just sit by passively watching their wealth and income being destroyed by high inflation? One suspects they will use their political power to avoid being ground into dust by hyper-inflation.

The banks would much prefer defaults that they can shift to the government (via bailouts) and deflation, where every monthly credit card/mortgage payment has greater purchasing power than the previous month.

Next, consider the consequences of hyper-inflation on the nation’s currency: it loses virtually all its value in terms of buying food, oil, semiconductors, autos, etc. from other nations. Nobody will want to trade real goods for worthless dollars. Imports paid with dollars will plummet to zero in hyper-inflation.

In terms of a nation’s economic power, its currency is the foundation, because if the currency plummets to near-zero then everything denominated in that currency also loses value on the global stage.

A reserve currency–a national currency that is widely held globally because it it’s expected to hold its value, and the market for everything denominated in that currency is extremely large and liquid–is the crown jewel of whatever nation (or entity, in the case of the EU) issues it.

Who would benefit from the destruction of a nation’s reserve currency? Virtually no one. The nation would be impoverished. So why is hyper-inflation–the destruction of the currency– so broadly accepted as inevitable?

It’s also widely assumed that the Federal Reserve and other central banks control all the variables in setting bond yields, interest rates and inflation. But what if some variables are outside the Fed’s control? What if their claim of controlling all variables is mere PR?

We also don’t know what function inflation or deflation might manifest. Will it be arithmetic– 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3, etc.–or geometric– 1 + 1 = 2 + 2 = 4 + 4 = 8 + 8 = 16?

This makes an enormous difference: arithmetic inflation is predictable–5% a year, for example– but geometric increases lead to hyper-inflation and complete destabilization of the economy and society.

Very few pundits reckon the central banks and governments will choose default and deflation because these will be painful–but what could be more painful than wiping out the value of the currency?

If the wealthy elite own precious metals, farmland, manufacturing, government bonds, etc., then the default of zombie households and corporations (zombies defined as entities that have to borrow more to remain among the living), then why would they care? Corporate bondholders and marginal lenders would be destroyed, but again, the wealthy need only avoid owning marginal debt to avoid the debacle of default losses.

The politically powerful elites have their ace in the hole: they can demand politicians (who need their contributions to fund their re-election campaigns) bail out the banks, transferring the losses from defaults from private banks to the public sector, exactly what happened in 2008-09.

But once again, are the elites and government fully in control of all variables, or could they be assuming arithmetic functions when geometric functions might actually manifest? Deflationary defaults can destroy bank assets just as quickly as hyper-inflation, as once buyers vanish (markets go bidless) then the value of assets pledged as collateral plummets to levels no one believes possible.

Entire highrise buildings are sold for the value of the elevator system. Yes, it happened in the Great Depression.

A little inflation or deflation is a good thing, manageable by the government and elite, but geometric inflation or deflation undermines the entire financial system, including the finances of governments and elites.

How do we calculate the probability and potential intensity of destabilizing social disorder? It’s widely assumed that the U.S. could never experience the sort of massive, widespread social disorder that occurs in developing-world nations during crises. But humans are humans, and when put under pressure by high inflation / deflation and declining prosperity, people respond in ways that can very quickly escape the control of authorities.

Is a Cultural Revolution Brewing in America?

If the consequential variables and functions are not measurable, then seemingly small disorders can spread throughout the entire society–or supply chain.

Where does all this leave us? We know from studies of human psychology that humans don’t feel comfortable with uncertainty and seek a haven of certainty as quickly as possible. They will cling to anchored beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence and strengthen their attachment to beliefs when challenged. We’re wired for a decisive commitment to a belief structure.

Sustained indecision and ambiguity is uncomfortable. We want an answer, and if there isn’t one, then we’ll make one up or commit to an answer proposed by a pundit, even though that person has no better grasp of the initial conditions, variables and functions as anyone else.

Alternatively, if we can’t possibly answer the question of what happens next, we have to accept that this era’s uncertainties may not be resolvable.

This is an exceedingly valuable insight, as if we embrace this uncertainty, we can avoid defaulting to a rigid, brittle false certitude that can only lead us astray if events don’t follow the path we’ve committed to.

In other words, we all want certainty, but this isn’t possible because 1) the variables are invisible 2) the functions are unknown and 3) the “solution” (predicted path) depends entirely on the initial conditions, in which small changes completely change the outcome.

Faced with the knowledge that so-called fat tail risk (i.e. a geometric function replacing an arithmetic function, and small events triggering large consequences, i.e. non-linear dynamics) is real but unpredictable, then we’re forced to think through these supposedly low-probability risks and devise a response that we can implement because we already thought it out.

This is the difference between having a pre-planned response and panic.

Mike Tyson’s memorable quote offers great insight into risk and uncertainty: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

The average person considers the odds of getting punched in the face as very low. The martial arts student doesn’t follow the line of thinking that because the odds appear low, there is no need to learn self-defense. Rather, being prepared to defend oneself is a permanent state of readiness, perhaps rusty and imperfect, but there nonetheless.

Events that devastate the majority financially greatly enrich the few who bet on non-linear dynamics. This 2002 profile of Nassim Taleb by Malcolm Gladwell offers an enlightening perspective on this approach.

Blowing Up: How Nassim Taleb turned the inevitability of disaster into an investment strategy

Very few of us can pursue Taleb’s mathematically sophisticated strategies. But that doesn’t mean we can’t embrace uncertainty and fat-tail risks and think through responses in advance, and plan a hedging strategy that accounts for possibilities from 1) nothing changes to 2) everything changes.

We don’t have to respond perfectly to be successful. We simply need to have prepared responses for contingencies from whatever we consider most likely to whatever we consider very unlikely but still possible.

The point here is that embracing uncertainty means we accept that the market might still punch us in the face, and we might make mistakes or fail to perform as we’d hoped, but the process of planning layers of response may well help protect us from irreversible losses and bad decisions made in the chaos of fear and panic.

*  *  *

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

*  *  *

My recent books:

A Hacker’s Teleology: Sharing the Wealth of Our Shrinking Planet (Kindle $8.95, print $20, audiobook $17.46) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Will You Be Richer or Poorer?: Profit, Power, and AI in a Traumatized World (Kindle $5, print $10, audiobook) Read the first section for free (PDF).

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($5 (Kindle), $10 (print), ( audiobook): Read the first section for free (PDF).

The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake $1.29 (Kindle), $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

Money and Work Unchained $6.95 (Kindle), $15 (print) Read the first section for free (PDF).