Category: zerohedge

By Mexican News Daily,

With the government having clamped down on fuel theft, criminals in Guanajuato and Querétaro are increasingly turning to freight trains. Last year an average of two railcars were robbed each week, but in the first six months of 2020 that number has increased to three per day, the newspaper Reforma reports. 

 

The shift in targets is likely due to the pressure inflicted on the Santa Rosa de Lima Cartel, notorious for fuel theft in the area. Its leader, José Antonio Yépez Ortiz, alias El Marro, was arrested on August 2 on charges of kidnapping, organized crime and fuel theft after an 18-month manhunt.

Freight companies and cargo transportation experts have identified hot spots for train robberies in Mexico’s Bajío central lowlands region: El Ahorcado in Querétaro and Empalme Escobedo and Apaseo El Alto and Apaseo El Grande in Guanajuato. 

The exact number of train robberies that have occurred is unknown, as many go unreported, said security expert Marcos Solórzano Cataño, and the problem is not likely to go away anytime soon. Fuel thieves have the infrastructure and the protection of local residents already in place, making the transition from gas to cargo relatively easy.

Solórzano said thieves mainly target train cars carrying auto parts, grains, seeds, consumer goods and construction material. 

Nationally, the number of train robberies has been declining. In 2016, 9,042 train robberies were reported whereas the first three months of 2020 have seen just 1,306. The majority of train robberies occur in Puebla, Veracruz and Tlaxcala, government officials say. 

Everybody knew that once the government trough was replete with newly-printed Fed money that it was only a matter of time until the pigs would line up.

Such appears to be in the case in New York. According to Bloomberg, The New York State Department of Labor has now rejected more than $1 billion in fraudulent unemployment insurance claims dating back to the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. 

The agency has paid out an estimated $40 billion in benefits, the report says. And we’d be willing to bet that more than a couple of those aren’t exactly legitimate, either.

More than 42,200 fraudulent claims for unemployment have been identified since mid-March, leading to New York to refer more “more unemployment fraud cases to federal prosecutors than it has in the last 10 years combined”.

State Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon said: “Unfortunately, we have to fight unemployment fraud every day—not just during pandemics—but attempting to defraud the government during a global public health emergency when millions are filing legitimate claims for benefits is particularly shameful.”

More than 3.4 million claims have been filed in NY since the start of the pandemic and there were 52,642 claims filed just last week, Bloomberg notes.

You can color us not surprised. Such is the case when the government attempts to “help” its people by creating more newly printed fiat than it can possible watch over and regulate. In addition to increasing the stresses of inflation on the lower class, the government enables those with means to fraudulently obtain funds they don’t need, further skewing an already uneven playing field. 

And people wonder why libertarians want less government and claim that politicians aren’t good capital allocators…

Submitted by Sovereign Man

Education funds would follow each student under proposed bill

What happened:

Currently, federal education funds are distributed to state governments, which then distribute those to local schools. But under legislation proposed by Senator Rand Paul, called the Support Children Having Open Opportunities for Learning (or SCHOOL) Act, those funds would actually follow each individual student.

It would be up to the parents if they would like to spend the money sending their child to public school, or if they would rather use the money for a private school, charter school, or even homeschool supplies. For instance, the money could go towards homeschool curriculum materials, technology necessary for learning, tutoring, and even certain extracurriculars.

“As the impact of the ongoing pandemic and the government response efforts continue to place parents in situations requiring greater flexibility in balancing working and providing for their families’ critical needs, especially when educating their children at home, my SCHOOL Act grants them that flexibility by empowering them to use their own tax dollars to find the option that best fits their family’s needs and allowing them to reclaim a bit of stability in uncertain times,” said Dr. Paul.

What this means:

More choice is always a good thing.

If the federal government is going to be in the business of spending money on education, this at least gives the recipient more control to direct their tax dollars where they see fit.

It’s a small step towards defunding something you disagree with, if you aren’t happy with local schools. Plus it will give more options to low income people, who could use these resources to divorce themselves from a failing and dangerous school system.

This sort of proposal would usually be dead on arrival. But in the times of Covid-19, with more parents than ever considering homeschooling, this might actually get the consideration it deserves.

* * *

South Dakotans forced to sue after Health Department guts food freedom law

What happened:

In 2017, South Dakota passed one of the best food freedom laws in the country. It allowed small-scale food produced in a home kitchen to be sold to the public. This was especially helpful to small farmers, and rural or lower income people looking for a side income. Not to mention that it introduced high-quality food products like pickles, pies, bread, canned goods, homemade meals, jams, and even fresh entrees into far flung, underserved markets across the state.

And literally no one became sick from consuming products from this cottage food industry.

But then at the start of 2020, South Dakota Health Department regulations went into effect, which essentially gutted the law, and heavily restricted what could be sold.

Cottage foodies sued, challenging the regulations’ legality. The Health Department responded by attempting to have the lawsuit dismissed, and force the food producers to appeal to the Health Department.

Luckily, the courts refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

What this means:

So it’s great that these people’s rights weren’t entirely trampled by the court. But they now have to waste valuable time and resources just to fight the state to be able to exercise basic freedoms. Freedoms which were codified into law, no less.

But a handful of unelected bureaucrats have the power to change laws.

Seriously, who are these psycho bureaucrats with the energy to harass homemakers who just want to earn a living or a side income? It’s really pathetic when you think about it. So many people are lurking out there, just waiting to step in and tell two adults that it is illegal to sell food to one another.

* * *

2 million people impersonated in comments on Net Neutrality rulemaking

What happened:

Remember when the repeal of net neutrality got everyone fired up, believing the end of a free and open internet was nigh?

When a government agency changes regulations, they allow the public to comment. And no Federal Communications Commission rulemaking got the public more riled up than the repeal of net neutrality.

But it turns out, of the 23 million people who commented on the regulation– for or against– 2 million of those people were not who they said they were. These comments came from stolen identities, some of them from dead people.

What this means:

This is an important lesson in the age of Twitter rule. Even in official government rulemaking, the mob isn’t necessarily real.

So as businesses and governments bow to the Twitter mobsters, it makes you wonder, who exactly is pulling the strings behind the scenes?

* * *

How about attempted murder charges for not wearing a mask?

What happened:

By now, plenty of cities and states have threatened possible jail time for not wearing masks in public. But a city councilwoman from Nashville, Tennessee wants to take it further.

Not wearing a mask, she suggested at a recent virtual council meeting, should perhaps carry attempted murder charges.

What this means:

As another councillor responded, the city does not have the power to pass criminal laws, thankfully. But just the fact that elected officials seriously suggest this is pretty scary.

Sadly, it’s not a far cry from the other draconian measures that have swept across the nation, in the same of safety.

Since the U.S. Constitution was first instituted, there have been 48 vice presidents. They’ve supported presidents in seeing the country through wars, economic expansions and contractions, a global pandemic – and much more.

A president’s success depends on the strength of their team, so it’s only natural that as second-in-command, the pick for a VP carries significant weight; and, as Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh notes, in some cases, they can even make or break the race to secure a spot in the White House.

In this graphic, we take a look at the hand-picked running mates of presidential hopefuls since 1940, including the upcoming November 2020 elections.

Running More Than Once

The graphic highlights 33 running mates, out of which nine have ran for VP more than once. Here’s how their number of terms compare, and who continued on to become an eventual presidential candidate:

Of the running mates since WWII, Republicans Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush are the only two to have served as president after being vice presidents for two previous terms—unless Joe Biden wins in November 2020.

Prior Gigs

What career paths did aspiring VPs take before running on the big ticket?

Interestingly, 2 of 3 running mates profiled in today’s graphic had a prior background as a lawyer before choosing to enter politics.

A curious exception to the typical career path is that of former professional football player Jack Kemp, who was chosen as the running mate for Bob Dole’s unsuccessful presidential bid in 1996.

At the President’s Right Hand

The vice president is the first in line of succession for the Oval Office, in the event that the sitting president dies, resigns, or is removed from office. Throughout history, nine VPs have ascended to presidency this way, of which three occurred since 1940.

• After Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death in 1945, Harry S. Truman ascended to the presidency.

• Lyndon B. Johnson became the President upon John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.

• Following evidence of political corruption, Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973. He was replaced by Gerald Ford, who then became President after Nixon’s post-Watergate resignation in 1974.

Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump are three Presidents who have been through the impeachment process, but were later acquitted by the Senate. Otherwise, the list of VPs ending up as the commander-in-chief might look much more different.

The Youngest and Oldest Running Mates

Based on the first time they ran on the ticket, the average running mate is 54 years old. In contrast, the average presidential candidate is 58 years old.

Comparing the age difference between presidential candidates and their running mates paints a unique picture. The biggest age gaps both occurred in 2008:

There was a 28-year difference between older candidate John McCain (72) and younger VP pick Sarah Palin (44) on the Republican ticket. On the Democratic side, younger candidate Barack Obama (47) and older VP pick Joe Biden (66) saw a 19-year gap.

Harry S. Truman’s historic win in 1948 was considered a surprising political longshot. His running mate, Alben W. Barkley was the oldest running mate ever picked, 71 years at the time.

Meanwhile, Richard Nixon was one of the youngest running mates to be chosen, 39 years in 1956—second only to John C. Breckinridge (36 years old in 1856). Finally, at age 92 years in 2020, Walter Mondale is the oldest living former VP.

Cracking the Glass Ceiling

Last but not least, there have only been three women selected as VP running mates to date.

• Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman VP nominee for the Democratic Party in 1984.
• Although she had only two years of political experience as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin was the first female Republican VP nominee in 2008.
• Kamala Harris, a former prosecutor with almost four years of experience as a Senator, is the first woman of color to be nominated on any major party’s ticket in 2020.

Palin herself shared a few words of wisdom for Harris across the aisle:

Congrats to the democrat VP pick  Climb upon Geraldine Ferraro’s and my shoulders, and from the most amazing view in your life consider lessons we learned…

– Sarah Palin (via Instagram)

Could Harris become the first ever right-hand woman? We’ll find out in a few months.

 

Authored by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

How safe is your job?

Because despite the “Everything is Awesome!” mirage the financial markets are desperate to project, the real economy — you know, where people actually live their lives — is telling us a far darker story.

Tens of millions of US workers have lost their jobs since covid-19 arrived on America’s shores. Over 28 million people right now are currently filing to receive state & federal unemployment benefits:

And despite extraordinary measures to aid these impacted households, many are slipping into hardship as the prospects only grow dimmer.

The $2.2 trillion CARES Act created the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program which added an additional $600 per week to those receiving unemployment benefits. It also sent a tax credit check of up to $1,200 ($2,400 for joint filers) to households making under a certain income threshold.

But the extra $600 payments have now expired, and Congress is deadlocked on what will follow. The current proposal is to re-start the extra benefit payment at the reduced sum of $400/week, with $300 paid out of the federal government’s Disaster Relief Fund and the rest funded by the individual states. Another $1,200 payment seems likely, as well.

This plan has it challenges, though. At $300/week, the Disaster Relief Fund will be drained after 5 weeks. And many states are claiming they can’t afford to foot the $100/week bill they’re being asked to.

So it’s little wonder, with tens of millions of jobs lost and over 3,500 businesses declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy so far this year, Americans are increasingly worried for the future:

POLL-Three of ten Americans laid off in coronavirus crisis worried about food, shelter (Reuters)

Three of 10 Americans who lost work during the coronavirus pandemic said they may have trouble paying for food or housing after a $600-per-week enhanced unemployment payment expired last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday(…)

(…) Three out of 10 people surveyed by Reuters/Ipsos reported that they will have “a very difficult time meeting basic needs,” which includes paying for rent or buying groceries. Half said they are under some stress “but we will be able to meet our basic needs.”

And it’s only going to get harder for these folks from here.

The unemployment rate is currently reported at 10.2%, which is high — but still under-emphasizes the reality of today’s job seeker.

Applying for a job in the post-covid world is a real challenge. Companies are busy trying to figure out how to manage the staff they have as they adapt to a remote workforce. And many are downsizing or closing shop completely.

Simply put: there are many less jobs. And a LOT more people competing for them now.

This imbalance will worsen as the extraordinary government benefits dry up, as they are highly likely to do after the November presidential election. Sure, politicians will try to curry votes by being as generous as they can leading up to it. But everyone knows there’s no way the country can sustain what it’s spending now, so expect the pursestrings to snap shut once the results are in.

And, if the markets should experience another major correction, as they are definitely due for — then Katie, bar the-door. If the flotilla of zombie US companies currently kept afloat by Federal Reserve stimulus are allowed to sink, then the unemployment rate will go bonkers as tens of millions more workers lose their jobs.

In Servitude To The Top 1%

Speaking of the markets, for years we’ve been loudly warning that the price bubble in financial assets blown by the Federal Reserve has resulted in tremendously unfair wealth disparity between the already-rich and everyone else:

This is resulting in a neo-feudal economy, where increasingly companies target and tailor their services to the elites who have all of the money. The rest of us are increasingly becoming cogs in that machine, worker drones toiling away to keep a few queen bees fat and happy.

Here’s a perfect example. This is an actual current job listing on CareerBuilder.com offering a staggering salary and benefits to serve as a ‘life coach’ to this Apen couple’s three children, who are all under the age of six:

So, this is basically a gussied-up nanny job for an insanely ambitious power couple with money to burn.

Given the precarious state of millions of US households right now, I expect thousands will apply for this single position. The compensation package is just too sweet, and there are just too many laid off workers in need.

And so we should expect to see much more of the economy head in this sad direction; more and more of the masses competing for the chance to be a servant to America’s aristocracy.

But hopefully, that doesn’t have to be you.

What To Do If Covid Threatens Your Job

If you’ve already been laid off due to the pandemic, or fear that you could be, are there important steps you should be taking now?

Absolutely.

We published The Layoff Survival Handbook not long before the coronavirus hit, and it is absolutely more relevant than ever in today’s environment.

The bankruptcy wave has just started. And if the stock market bubble pops, as history tells us is inevitable? Both promise more layoffs AND fewer jobs in the foreseeable future.

So take smart action now to increase your odds of maintaining an income.

In Part 2: The Layoff Survival Handbook, we detail out the steps to take now to reduce your vulnerability to a layoff, and the critical steps to take should you become laid off.

Many of these will enhance your career trajectory and satisfaction even if a pink slip never arrives. But should one do, you’ll be far better off for having taken them.

The stakes are simply too high now to leave your future to chance.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

It was about about nine years ago when consulting company BCG first suggested that in a time of out of control spending and soaring debt loads, the only fiscally sustainable “solution” was to implement a wealth tax (see “There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis“).

While the idea was well ahead of its time in 2011, and was quickly shut down in the court of public opinion, several years later none other than the IMF resurrected the idea of a wealth tax, which has only gained momentum in recent months, and despite widespread grassroots pushback, the concept of a “wealth tax” has moved front and center and most recently the chairman of Capital Economics, Roger Bootle, said that the world’s wealthiest could be subjected to higher tax rates as governments scramble to fund spending and repair their economies amid the coronavirus crisis.

Fast forward to today when the ultra-liberal state of California is now ready to take this “socialist” idea from concept to the implementation phase, with the SF Chronicle reporting that a group of CA state lawmakers on Thursday proposed a first-in-the-nation state wealth tax that would hit about 30,400 California residents and raise an estimated $7.5 billion for the general fund.

The proposed tax rate would be 0.4% of net worth (most likely ended up far higher), excluding directly held real estate, that exceeds $30 million for single and joint filers and $15 million for married filing separately.

Oakland Democrat Rob Bonta, who is the lead author of the wealth tax proposal AB2008, justified the wealth expropriation by saying that California is facing a big budget deficit because of the health and economic crisis brought on by the coronavirus, and “we can’t simply rely on austerity measures,” to close it. It wasn’t immediately clear why austerity doesn’t work considering that California has never actually tried it, but in any case the Democrat’s proposal was clear: “We must consider revenue generation.”

And in doing that, California will trigger an exodus of billionaires who will be the first to realize which way the wind is blowing, and end up hurting the state far more than helping it as hundreds of ultra wealthy taxpayers leave for places like Florida or – for that matter – any other place in the world.

Bonta said that the union-sponsored bill will not be heard before the Legislature adjourns Aug. 31, but “it can be reintroduced on day one of the next session.”

Now what most normal Americans (i.e. those not living in California) may not know, is that this would be the second wealth tax set to pass in California. Bonta said he would like to see a wealth tax passed in addition to the “millionaires tax” proposed in a bill introduced in late July. AB1253 would add surcharges of 1% to incomes (joint or single) between roughly $1 million and $2 million, 3% on income between $2 million and $5 million, and 3.5% on income greater than $5 million, bringing the top rate to 16.8%.

California’s top rate today, at 13.3%, is already the highest in the nation, and it’s only going higher.

The millionaires (and soon to be hundred thousandaires, then ten-thousandaires and so on) subject to the wealth tax would report it to the Franchise Tax Board along with their income taxes. They would have to report all assets including stock in publicly and privately traded corporations; interests in partnerships, private equity or hedge funds; cash, bonds and savings accounts; mutual funds, futures and options; art and collectibles; offshore financial assets, pension funds, non-mortgage debt, real property and mortgage debt. Which of course is idiotic because some of that wealth is extremely illiquid and evaluating it will not only take material time and effort, but also result in drastic costs. Furthermore, just how will the government confirm that whatever wealth is reported represents reality. But such is life in a half-baked socialist utopia where every idea is for lack of a better word, idiotic.

There was some good news: “Directly held real property, and mortgages and other liabilities secured by directly held real property,” must be reported, but would not be considered in calculating the taxpayer’s worldwide net worth, the bill said. How wonderful… oh wait, someone realized that this would simply be double taxing the same assets: “Real estate would be exempt from the wealth tax because it’s already subject to property tax, at a higher rate”, Bonta said.

Among those handful of rational voices who call out this sheer idiocy for what it is was Jared Walczak, a vice president with the Tax Foundation, a think tank, who said that “it is far easier to call for a state-level wealth tax than it is to actually design an enforceable one.” Maybe that’s why no state has imposed one.

However now that California is on the verge of passing a wealth tax, every other insolvent state will follow suit, staring with New York.

“Some New York legislators are floating the idea, but Governor Cuomo has poured cold water on the notion, rightly concerned that it would lead to an exodus of high net worth individuals from the state,” Walczak said via email. Somehow California believes it is exempt from such an exodus. Spoiler alert: it isn’t, and the state’s wealthiest residents won’t think twice to up root and move their tax residence to a state which treats their wealth with respect.

There is of course the possibility that this idiotic idea will somehow die before it is enacted. Walczak said that implementing a wealth tax at the state level “would be extremely complex, with questions of how to value illiquid assets and whether residents’ out-of-state wealth — including their investment holdings — can be taxed.” He added that “any tax that is actually effective at taxing wealth, however, would be equally effective at driving wealth out of state.”

Emmanuel Saez, a UC Berkeley economics professor, i.e., a socialist, said income tax is not an effective way to tax the ultra-wealthy, because they can avoid the income tax as long as they don’t cash in their investments. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg could avoid the income tax as long as he doesn’t sell his Facebook stock, and if he moved to Florida before realizing his gains, he may never owe tax to California, Saez said during a call announcing the bill.

Saez, like any other socialist who has a terminal inability of grasping who the world really works and that every idiotic action by the state will have an appropriate reaction by the population, said the bill would not deter startups because it would let entrepreneurs defer the wealth tax for a period of time. Brilliant.

“Liquidity-constrained taxpayers with ownership interests in hard-to-value assets and business entities, such as startup businesses, shall be able to elect for an unliquidated and deferred tax liability to be attached to these assets instead of the net value of these assets being assessed at the end of a tax year.” The taxpayer would have to sign a contract with the state specifying when the tax would be paid.

Well, Emmanuel, instead of signing a “contract” with the state when the tax will be paid, all those entrepreneurs that keep the state afloat will simply… leave. And guess what happens to the already dismal tax collections then.

None of this matters to the Berkeley socialist, and instead he pointed to a paper he co-authored, saying that California has 12% of the U.S. population but 17% of all U.S. millionaires and 25% of its billionaires. In 2011, California had only 15.5% of the nation’s millionaires and 21% of billionaires. The wealth tax, he said, would hit about 0.15% of California tax filers.

We can’t wait for the paper’s second edition published in 2025 when the “professor” finds that California has none of the US’ billionaires.

Until then, the rare voices of reason such as that of Robert Gutierres, president of the California Taxpayers Association, will become increasingly rare:

“The state approved $9.2 billion in business tax increases in the new budget, but Sacramento politicians and special interests continue to seek income tax increases, property tax increases, a ‘headcount tax’ on in-state employees, and this new annual tax on money that was left over after all the other taxes were paid,” Gutierrez said, adding that “a very small number of Californians pay the vast majority of state income taxes. When the constant drumbeat for outrageous tax hikes drives them away, who will pick up the tab?”

Why, the Fed of course.

By Michael Zezas, chief political strategist at Morgan Stanley

The benign market reaction last week might lead you to believe that the failure to reach a deal on another round of fiscal stimulus in the US means more aid isn’t required to keep markets and the economy on their V-shaped recovery path. On the contrary, it remains crucial, and the stakes are now even higher.

Consider the following:

• The risks to stimulus action have risen, but so has its size if enacted: The lead-up and subsequent reaction to the stalled negotiation by Republicans and Democrats delivered two important insights. The first is that the size of a deal, if it comes together, is likely higher than we and many investors expected. That’s because there’s bipartisan agreement on another round of stimulus checks to households, which we estimate has a price tag of US$300-600 billion. Additionally, we’d assumed Democrats would settle for US$250 billion of state and local aid, a number in the zone of what Republicans have already offered per various media reports. That a deal hasn’t materialized suggests that Democrats are holding out for more. Taken together, the price tag for stimulus appears more in the US$1.5-2 trillion range, rather than our initial US$1 trillion estimate. The second is that risks to the deal have risen. The president’s executive orders attempting to extend supplemental unemployment benefits, temporary payroll tax relief, and eviction moratoriums have likely created an incentive for both parties to watch and wait for how public opinion is shaped by them. Hence, it would not be surprising if negotiations remained stalled into September, given the passage of many of the catalysts for action (expiry of unemployment benefits, moratoriums, etc.). As anyone who prices options knows, time equals uncertainty.
• The V-shaped recovery is under way, but a lack of stimulus could interrupt that progress: As our global economics team points out, there has been a solid V-shaped rebound so far and the US economy has already made up a lot of lost ground. However, prolonged delays in stimulus could weigh on household consumption and prompt state and local austerity, where we estimate that, without aid, states are facing US$180-375 billion of revenue shortfalls through FY21.
• The sharp rally in risk markets leaves less obvious upside: At current levels, we’re near price targets in key asset classes, like US equities and credit, which our colleagues set on the assumption of a V-shaped recovery. Accordingly, the easy gains of reopening the economy may be largely priced in, and the uncertainty about whether economic growth can continue apace without fiscal support may not be.

Hence, another round of stimulus is the difference between ensuring that the economic recovery continues uninterrupted and a meaningful short-term pullback in growth. It may also be the difference between a confident 6-12- month view on a variety of risk assets and a meaningful near-term correction.

From our perch, we expect Congress to hammer out a deal in time, and hence maintain confidence in the V-shaped recovery. This is largely because of the executive orders issued last weekend. We detail our arguments here, but in short, the mechanics of the orders raise significant questions about how quickly unemployment benefits can be delivered and in what size. They also raise questions about if payroll tax benefits can be delivered at all. Hence, we expect building political pressure to address these deficiencies to bring Congress back to the negotiating table.

What would make us change our view and flag a more cautious market outlook? Time and money. If talks remain stalled deep into September, and reports are that Republicans and Democrats remain far apart on top-line numbers for the deal, it may be too close to the election to get it done. The policy disagreements on stimulus may have hardened and politicians may be eager to get on the campaign trail and away from DC ahead of the November election.

Disney’s series, “The Owl House”, is now the first official animated show to feature a bisexual main character. Both Variety and the Daily Mail described the introduction of the character as “making history”.

The show’s 14 year old main character, Luz Noceda, is portrayed as a normal teenager who goes to another world to become a witch. On the show, she has shown both attraction to male characters and recently with a recurring female character named Amity. 

It is revealed that Luz had intentions of asking the other female character to a prom-style event and the series shows the two of them sharing a dance together in an episode. 

The creator of the series, Dana Terrace, confirmed that the show was, in fact, alluding to an LGBTQ relationship.

She wrote on Twitter: “In [development] I was very open about my intention to put queer kids in the main cast. I’m a horrible liar so sneaking it in would’ve been hard. When we were greenlit I was told by certain Disney leadership that I could not represent any form of bi or gay relationship on the channel.”

She says that Disney, who once pushed back on the idea, is now offering its support. 

I’m bi! I want to write a bi character, dammit! Luckily my stubbornness paid off and now I am VERY supported by current Disney leadership. (Thank you @NashRiskin and team!) Not to mention the amazingness of this crew.

— Dana Terrace (@DanaTerrace) August 9, 2020

Terrace Tweeted: “I’m bi! I want to write a bi character, dammit! Luckily my stubbornness paid off and now I am very supported by current Disney leadership.”

The show’s former animation supervisor Tweeted out the storyboards for the dance scene and said it was his “first time getting to do anything even remotely queer.”

The storyboards for the dance. This was a collaboration between Hayley Foster and myself. At some point I got carried away and timed it to Veo Lu Sluice by Kumi Tanioka.

This was my first time getting to do anything even remotely queer, and I’ve never been prouder of any board. pic.twitter.com/r0ljIGRxTV

— Spencer Wan (@SpencerWan) August 9, 2020

Authored by Bryce Coward by Knowledge Leaders Capital blog,

Over the last few weeks there has been quite a bit of chatter among strategists about whether the market is undergoing a sustainable rotation into “value” stocks from “growth” stocks. It’s a bit surprising to us to see the outpouring of commentary on the issue, since by our work value has only outperformed growth by 3% or so since mid-July. Nevertheless, it is what it is, and so we thought we’d throw our hat into the ring on this issue.

When it comes down to it, there are a few key macro variables that are highly correlated with the relative performance of value vs growth – most of them measuring the reflationary impulse in the system in different ways. As reflation (or expectations thereof) plays out, it tends to be beneficial for the relative factor performance of value. This of course is due in part to the relatively higher degree of operating leverage among the value constituents. After all, a reflation that lifts all boats would tend to be highly accretive to the earnings of companies with relatively more levered income statements and balance sheets. The improvement in earnings subsequently actually reduces balance sheet leverage among value continents to the extent that those earnings are retained, which provides a second-order reflexive dynamic as well.

As the reader can see in the table below, financial statement measures that are indirectly related to operating leverage like PP&E turnover and net debt are significantly different for value and growth companies. Value firms, having relatively higher levels of fixed assets, would stand to have a more pronounced improvement in PP&E turnover than growth firms in an across-the-board reflation. Value firms also have higher net debt levels than growth firms. As top lines improve in a reflation scenario, the debt servicing drag becomes relatively less for value vs growth firms.

So what are our market-based measures of the reflation dynamic saying currently? Are they telling us to get ready for a more durable move into value?

The best we can say at this point is…maybe.

Let’s start with the yield curve. The 10-year minus 2-year Treasury yield spread is one of the best market-based reflation/disinflation measures out there since it factors directly into the profitability of bank lending, and therefore the velocity of money. To the extent that Treasury yields continue to have signaling value, the message coming from they yield curve is that there has been no mechanical change in the reflation dynamic since March. What we would need to see from the yield curve to signal a wholesale shift in value vs growth would be a pronounced widening of the 10-2 spread, which has yet to play out.

Next are inflation expectations. In charts 2 and 3 we should TIPS breakeven inflation expectations and 5-year 5-year forward expectations. The latter measures what 5-year inflation expectations are 5-years from now, which is a preferred indicator of the Fed. They are currently both sending a similar message, which is that market-based measures of inflation have moved up a lot since March, which should be supportive of value vs growth.

But, we note that those inflation expectations remain anchored below average levels of the last cycle, which explains why value stocks have continued to underperform growth for most of the year. The recent experience suggests that we will need to see inflation expectations actually break above trend to get a more durable rotation into value.

In the next two charts we highlight the how the relationship between industrial and precious metals informs, or at least reacts coincident to, the value/growth dynamic.

Lasting reflations are typically associated with rising fixed capital formation and production, which requires rising usage of industrial metals such as copper or even silver. The metals with more industrial uses tend to outperform stores of value (gold) in reflation scenarios. The message we are getting from the metals space currently is mixed.

Copper stopped underperforming gold earlier in 2020, but has made no real relative progress to speak of since then.

Silver, on the other hand, has shown a more pronounced improvement vs gold.

Value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by a few percent since July, but at this stage we lack confirmation from market-based measures of reflation that the move is more than transitory.

What we need to see more of is incentive for money growth (steeper yield curve), above trend inflation expectations, and confirmation from industrial metals that nominal growth is expanding. There is of course a policy mix that could usher in those things, like another round of fiscal and monetary expansion, but we are not there yet.

With more people telecommuting than ever due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it appears that the allure of cramped, expensive urban housing, poo-covered sidewalks and homeless people shooting up in Starbucks has worn off.

According to online real estate company Zillow, there is a mass exodus of people looking to get out of San Francisco real estate – as the housing market is on fire in the Bay Area suburbs, all the way to Lake Tahoe.

According to the company’s “2020 Urban-Suburban Market Report,” home prices in the city have fallen 4.9% year-over-year, while inventory has jumped 96% during the same period, as a flood of new listings hit the market. Zillow notes that they aren’t seeing the same trend in cities such as Miami, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. or Seattle.

Via Zillow:

When comparing the principal city to its surrounding suburbs, the San Francisco metro area does break the mold. Higher levels of inventory, up 96% YoY following a flood of new listings during the pandemic, are sitting on the market in the city proper, a significantly larger jump than the surrounding suburbs. Whereas in similar cities like Los Angeles, Miami, Boston, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., declining or flat inventory is a consistent trend within and outside the city limits. Relatively higher inventory has different causes by city, and is not clearly attributable to either supply or demand. In San Francisco, though, the softening is clear as sellers inundate the market and buyers have not changed their pace to match — newly pending sales in the city are up only 1.7% YoY. 

Meanwhile, both urban and suburban markets nationally are seeing homes sell more quickly than they were in February, while “most areas have seen price cuts decelerate relative to February, and slightly more so in the suburbs,” according to the report.

That said, Zillow is seeing about the same percentage of people searching for urban vs. suburban listings YoY, which would suggest that at least as of June, the ongoing BLM protests which have turned urban cities into Escape From [insert your city here].