As the saying goes, all professors are mortal. From time to time, faculties will deal with tragedy. Due to various health situations, a professor may be unable to finish a class as planned. Perhaps the situation will last a short time. For example, a professor needs a few weeks to recover from surgery. In such cases, colleagues can cover a few classes. Or, perhaps, the professor can pre-record lectures which the students can watch. Or, in more recent times, the professor can teach a class remotely from home. (Yes, Zoom existed before March 2020). Other situations are permanent. Professors may suddenly be forced to retire. Or Professors may pass away in the middle of a semester, perhaps with little advance notice. In such cases, colleagues will have to teach the remainder of the class–that includes preparing an exam, and grading it.
Over my career, these sorts of tragedies have been quite rare. But going forward, these occurrences may become more common. And these concerns are not limited to universities with in-person or hybrid classes. Even professors who are teaching strictly online classes may still be affected by COVID-19. Colleges need to recognize these eventualities, and establish continuity of operations plans in advance. Administrations should try to ensure minimal disruption in teaching and grading. This post will highlight four factors to consider.
First, no two classes are identical. Every professor teaches a topic in his or her own way. That diversity of thought is ideal. Students should be exposed to as many different types of pedagogy as possible. Indeed, I applaud the standard that 1Ls cannot select their own schedules; they should be given a wide variety of teaching styles, whether they like it or not. But that diversity of approaches creates significant difficulties if a professor is unable to finish the semester.
In such a case, a colleague would be asked to jump in, perhaps in the middle of the semester. A diligent colleague would watch all the lectures to figure out what was taught, and what was not taught. (You cannot take the students’ word for it.) And invariably, a thoughtful colleague would recognize that some things were not taught up to her standards, and would want to revisit those areas. (Or more precisely, the former teacher taught things differently that the current teacher would have.) And before you know it, the colleague will decide to reteach much of the class, on top of teaching all the remaining material. That catchup may require additional classes on evenings or weekends. Or, perhaps, the colleague will simply ask the students to watch her prior recordings from this semester, or another semester, to catch up.
The students, no doubt, will get very frustrated, no matter what path is chosen. They will be sympathetic to the fact that their original professor can no longer teach. But that sympathy will quickly give way to the students’ sense that the situation is unfair to them. I don’t have a magic bullet here. Changing a professor mid-stream creates a very difficult situation for students. Perhaps one ideal approach would be for all professors that teach the same class should synchronize their syllabuses and use the same books. That approach would minimize disruptions. I am skeptical professors could achieve such collective action.
Second, what to do about grades? In most required classes, grades are based on a single final exam. From the beginning of the semester, students prepare for a class with an eye towards the exam. You will prepare your outline one way for an open-book exam and another way for a closed-book exam. If an exam is all multiple choice, you focus on multiple choice questions. If an exam is all essay, you hone your writing skills. And so on.
But what if a professor passes away mid-semester? The replacement colleague would then be put in a tough spot: she cannot possibly write an exam in the exact same fashion the original professor would have. Perhaps the solution is to administer an old exam. That approach has problems. Old exams invariably leak out. (I put all of my exams online, and always write new questions every semester.). Even then, an old exam may involve topics that are no longer covered. (From year to year, most professors revise their syllabuses, and add and remove issues).
Even if the new professor can replicate the style and substance of the old professor’s exam, the students will still feel the situation is unfair: a different person is grading it. Every professor has a different internal rubric, and external curve. Some professors are generous, and other professors are not generous.
Indeed, many students will register for a class precisely because it is known as an easy class. Such actions are completely rational. All things being equal, most students will prefer an easy A to a hard B. (I was a masochist in law school, and I deliberately sought out the hardest professors who would challenge me.) To adjust, the new professor may try to replicate the curve her predecessor used. But some students still will not be happy–every curve has a left-tail. And the students will insist they would have done better with their original professor. Prove that counterfactual wrong!
So far I have focused on classes with exam. The dynamics are even more complicated with a “paper” class. Generally in a writing seminar, a professor will work closely with students throughout the semester. She will approve the topic, refine an outline, and read a draft. Students will generally get a sense of their expected grade along the way. There are seldom surprises. But the situation changes when a new professor is asked to grade an already-written paper. Those old expectations would be unsettled.
Perhaps the solution is to give the students an option of pass/fail. That option could be elected before or after the student sees her score. (We considered the pros and cons to both approaches in the spring). A pass/fail option eliminates some unfairness, as a student’s GPA would not decrease. But, in theory at least, it could increase.
Third, administrations should adopt a continuity of operations plan before the semester starts. It should be published, so faculty and students know what is expected of them. I think it is a mistake to create ad hoc plans as the situations arise. There is much uncertainty for the fall, but at least we can plan for this sort of eventuality.
Fourth, I raise an issue that should be promptly dismissed: some professors who are asked to cover a colleague’s class may seek additional compensation. Get over it. We are living in tough times, and budgets are strapped. Sure, it is a burden and extra work. But if a colleague becomes ill, or incapacitated, the least we can do is to chip in, and spread the work.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eIFYVc
via IFTTT
As the saying goes, all professors are mortal. From time to time, faculties will deal with tragedy. Due to various health situations, a professor may be unable to finish a class as planned. Perhaps the situation will last a short time. For example, a professor needs a few weeks to recover from surgery. In such cases, colleagues can cover a few classes. Or, perhaps, the professor can pre-record lectures which the students can watch. Or, in more recent times, the professor can teach a class remotely from home. (Yes, Zoom existed before March 2020). Other situations are permanent. Professors may suddenly be forced to retire. Or Professors may pass away in the middle of a semester, perhaps with little advance notice. In such cases, colleagues will have to teach the remainder of the class–that includes preparing an exam, and grading it.
Over my career, these sorts of tragedies have been quite rare. But going forward, these occurrences may become more common. And these concerns are not limited to universities with in-person or hybrid classes. Even professors who are teaching strictly online classes may still be affected by COVID-19. Colleges need to recognize these eventualities, and establish continuity of operations plans in advance. Administrations should try to ensure minimal disruption in teaching and grading. This post will highlight four factors to consider.
First, no two classes are identical. Every professor teaches a topic in his or her own way. That diversity of thought is ideal. Students should be exposed to as many different types of pedagogy as possible. Indeed, I applaud the standard that 1Ls cannot select their own schedules; they should be given a wide variety of teaching styles, whether they like it or not. But that diversity of approaches creates significant difficulties if a professor is unable to finish the semester.
In such a case, a colleague would be asked to jump in, perhaps in the middle of the semester. A diligent colleague would watch all the lectures to figure out what was taught, and what was not taught. (You cannot take the students’ word for it.) And invariably, a thoughtful colleague would recognize that some things were not taught up to her standards, and would want to revisit those areas. (Or more precisely, the former teacher taught things differently that the current teacher would have.) And before you know it, the colleague will decide to reteach much of the class, on top of teaching all the remaining material. That catchup may require additional classes on evenings or weekends. Or, perhaps, the colleague will simply ask the students to watch her prior recordings from this semester, or another semester, to catch up.
The students, no doubt, will get very frustrated, no matter what path is chosen. They will be sympathetic to the fact that their original professor can no longer teach. But that sympathy will quickly give way to the students’ sense that the situation is unfair to them. I don’t have a magic bullet here. Changing a professor mid-stream creates a very difficult situation for students. Perhaps one ideal approach would be for all professors that teach the same class should synchronize their syllabuses and use the same books. That approach would minimize disruptions. I am skeptical professors could achieve such collective action.
Second, what to do about grades? In most required classes, grades are based on a single final exam. From the beginning of the semester, students prepare for a class with an eye towards the exam. You will prepare your outline one way for an open-book exam and another way for a closed-book exam. If an exam is all multiple choice, you focus on multiple choice questions. If an exam is all essay, you hone your writing skills. And so on.
But what if a professor passes away mid-semester? The replacement colleague would then be put in a tough spot: she cannot possibly write an exam in the exact same fashion the original professor would have. Perhaps the solution is to administer an old exam. That approach has problems. Old exams invariably leak out. (I put all of my exams online, and always write new questions every semester.). Even then, an old exam may involve topics that are no longer covered. (From year to year, most professors revise their syllabuses, and add and remove issues).
Even if the new professor can replicate the style and substance of the old professor’s exam, the students will still feel the situation is unfair: a different person is grading it. Every professor has a different internal rubric, and external curve. Some professors are generous, and other professors are not generous.
Indeed, many students will register for a class precisely because it is known as an easy class. Such actions are completely rational. All things being equal, most students will prefer an easy A to a hard B. (I was a masochist in law school, and I deliberately sought out the hardest professors who would challenge me.) To adjust, the new professor may try to replicate the curve her predecessor used. But some students still will not be happy–every curve has a left-tail. And the students will insist they would have done better with their original professor. Prove that counterfactual wrong!
So far I have focused on classes with exam. The dynamics are even more complicated with a “paper” class. Generally in a writing seminar, a professor will work closely with students throughout the semester. She will approve the topic, refine an outline, and read a draft. Students will generally get a sense of their expected grade along the way. There are seldom surprises. But the situation changes when a new professor is asked to grade an already-written paper. Those old expectations would be unsettled.
Perhaps the solution is to give the students an option of pass/fail. That option could be elected before or after the student sees her score. (We considered the pros and cons to both approaches in the spring). A pass/fail option eliminates some unfairness, as a student’s GPA would not decrease. But, in theory at least, it could increase.
Third, administrations should adopt a continuity of operations plan before the semester starts. It should be published, so faculty and students know what is expected of them. I think it is a mistake to create ad hoc plans as the situations arise. There is much uncertainty for the fall, but at least we can plan for this sort of eventuality.
Fourth, I raise an issue that should be promptly dismissed: some professors who are asked to cover a colleague’s class may seek additional compensation. Get over it. We are living in tough times, and budgets are strapped. Sure, it is a burden and extra work. But if a colleague becomes ill, or incapacitated, the least we can do is to chip in, and spread the work.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3eIFYVc
via IFTTT
It is time to take the bull by the horns to conquer the Wuhan virus. Drastic action is necessary, like on December 8, 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
President Trump should order immediate public access to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) by making the medication available over-the-counter (OTC). Liberals have interfered with public access to this medication for COVID-19 through the old-fashioned route of requiring a prescription and then having a pharmacist fill or reject the prescription.
Millions of Americans do not visit physicians, and cannot obtain a prescription for HCQ if they did. Even if you have been exposed to COVID-19, you cannot obtain a prescription for HCQ in most states because regulators prohibit dispensing it without a positive test result, which typically cannot be obtained until late in the progression of the disease.
No one credibly doubts that HCQ is safe, and safer than many medications currently available OTC. No one credibly doubts the dozens of studies showing that early use of HCQ, pre-exposure and immediately after exposure to COVID, has helped many overcome this dreaded disease.
Americans do not need a prescription to obtain hundreds of medications which once required a prescription. Nexium, Prevacid, Prilosec, Claritin, Flonase, and Primatene Mist are medications that have been shifted from Rx to OTC in recent years, not because the medical establishment pushed for the change, but because of public demand for it.
No demand is higher at this time than for a medication which helps prevent against COVID. Yet Americans are not being allowed to access the medication which they want and need, and instead are being told by FDA and state officials that they cannot have it.
Last month the Oregon pharmacy board, for example, blocked HCQ access as follows:
“Prescription orders for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 infection may only be dispensed if written for a patient enrolled in a clinical trial by an authorized investigator.”
They based their ban on an improper statement issued by FDA, which is controlled by opponents of Trump’s reelection. Of course, many government officials in Oregon are against Trump, too.
Every state board of pharmacy or medicine is controlled by left-leaning government workers who, by and large, despise President Trump and hope he loses in November. They are accomplishing their dream by choking off public access to HCQ.
Gotta start with this chart many of you have seen by now
In early June after months of following articles, treatment protocols, declarations, etc. I was curious about how the countries lined up. For the most part, it’s accurate pic.twitter.com/BjQ14XV7x2
The mortality rate from COVID-19 in the United States is far higher per case, and per million of residents, despite how we have the finest hospital system in the world. We don’t currently have public access to HCQ to protect against the disease, however, and that is what is needed at this time.
An executive order by President Trump, through use of his full emergency authority, could give Americans the same rights to HCQ for COVID which some of the poorest people in the world enjoy. Trump could even dispense HCQ at his rallies, which would both restore their massive numbers and help safeguard against spread of the virus.
But the medical establishment, such as Dr. John Fleming who is advising Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, is impeding this solution to the crisis. As a physician, Dr. Fleming is instinctively trained to oppose OTC status for most medications, and he is beholden to the mindset of requiring people to see physicians first.
Americans are accustomed to being advised to consult a physician before starting a weight-loss plan, an attorney before writing a will, and an accountant before filing a tax return. In ideal situations, recommending use of a professional is non-controversial.
When there is a crisis, however, the dynamic is different. When thousands are dying unnecessarily, and millions are paralyzed by fear, directly alleviating that mortality and fear becomes paramount.
There is no valid reason to deny public access to low-dose HCQ, which studies show can protect against COVID, just as there is no legitimate reason to require a prescription for low-dose steroid cream (Cortisone) and many other over-the-counter medications. The political motivation to block access to HCQ justifies making it publicly available.
This is not a decision for Anthony Fauci or the medical establishment or FDA to make during a national crisis. This is for President Trump to decide, and make HCQ available quickly to the public.
If an intruder is discovered in one’s home in the middle of the night, no responsible father tries first to call an expert to get an opinion about what to do. Instead, quick and decisive action is taken, and that means OTC status for HCQ to conquer COVID.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CNAjQt Tyler Durden
“He Tried To Run”: Arrest Made In Gruesome Murder Of Decapitated Tech CEO Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/18/2020 – 15:00
The personal assistant of murdered tech CEO Fahim Saleh has been charged with second-degree murder, after Saleh was found decapitated and dismembered in his $2.2 million Manhattan luxury apartment on Tuesday, after a cousin stopped by to check on him.
21-year-old Tyrese Haspil of Brooklyn was arrested on Friday morning in the lobby of a different luxury apartment building several blocks from where Saleh lived. On Saturday, two detectives walked Haspil out of the 7th Precinct in a white Tyvek suit, face mask, handcuffs and leg shackles – ignoring question from reporters, according to the report.
“He tried to run,” the building superintendent told the New York Times, adding that Haspil had arrived at the apartment sometime on Wednesday, and said he was planning to leave on Monday.
Haspil, who handled Saleh’s finances and personal matters, is believed to have owed his boss a “significant amount of money,” according to the Associated Press citing the NYPD. The NY Daily News reports that Saleh discovered that Haspil had allegedly embezzled $90,000 from him, and had set up a repayment plan after firing him, instead of reporting it to authorities.
Tyrese Devon Haspil, 21, is walked out of NYPD 7th precinct after been charged with second-degree murder in the death of the 33-year-old tech CEO Fahim Saleh, in New York, on July 17, 2020. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez)
Saleh, the 33-year-old co-founder of Bangladeshi ride-share app Pathao and CEO of Nigerian motorcycle ride-sharing company Gokada – had been seen entering his apartment elevator around 1:40 p.m., followed by a man wearing a suit, latex gloves, hat and ninja mask, who was carrying a duffel bag.
According to law enforcement officials, after the elevator arrived on the 7th floor, the suspect could be seen firing a taser into Saleh’s back, immobilizing him. Saleh was then stabbed to death, sustaining multiple wounds in the neck and torso, with the assailant returning the next day to dismember him with an electric saw and clean up when he was interrupted by Saleh’s cousin.
Haspil reportedly used a credit card to buy the electric saw found at the scene, while a taser prong recovered from Saleh’s body contained a serial number connecting Haspil to the murder, NY Daily News sources indicated. What’s more, he was seen on surveillance video purchasing the saw and cleaning supplies at a local Home Depot, according to Manhattan Assistant DA Linda Ford at Haspil’s Saturday morning arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court.
When the cousin got to the apartment, the police said, she discovered a horrifying scene: Mr. Saleh’s head and limbs had been removed, and parts of his body had been placed in plastic bags designed for construction debris. An electric saw was plugged in nearby.
Investigators have concluded that Mr. Saleh had been killed the day before, according to a fourth official with knowledge of the inquiry. –NYT
Haspil began working for Saleh at the age of 16
Cops said Haspil returned to the apartment Tuesday, intending to dispose of the butchered body and clean the gore. But a cousin of the victim instead came by and discovered the body — with no arms, legs or head — as the suspect fled down a staircase, sources said.
The power tool was left inside the E. Houston St. condo where the victim’s mutilated remains were left in the living room. The killer “left before he finished the job,” a source said earlier in the week. –NY Daily News
“To think the guy who may have done this lived two floors below me,” said 53-year-old photographer and neighbor, Lisa Hancock. “It was just so brutal, and it sounds like it was planned … It’s shocking. It’s crazy.“
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/32vOlkl Tyler Durden
If this chart doesn’t make you think the crash is coming soon, then probably nothing will:
The Nasdaq is going vertical
The Nasdaq is on its final run and is going vertical, a classic end of bubble move. This is trader heaven and turns into speculator hell for those who think that markets do grow to the skies. It could go up a long way in price but it won’t go for long in time. It could last to Christmas, it could fold tomorrow, but my feeling is that unless this bubble is cut down by the Fed, the final move will be large and quick.
You can refer to the dotcom crash for the general shape of what looks possible next.
The attempts by the government to pump up the economy with new money is resulting in it going straight into equities and straight into the tip of the equity spear, the giant high beta story stocks. This is a malfunction of the QE mechanism that supports asset prices and slowly trickles the benefits of this support down the pyramid of wealth. Now the game is up because the new money is going straight into this bubble of financial assets that are spiralling up out of control.
If we now get a Nasdaq bull vertical that is the end of the chapter of the process, it will be followed by a devastating crash as everyone dashes to the exit in a blaze of wealth destruction.
[ZH: Notably Nasdaq reversed hard this week relative to the S&P – biggest relative underperformance since 2009]
The Federal Reserve needs to get a lid on this fast and it appears to be trying to by tapering its balance sheet, but the bubble is still fizzing and if it does not stop soon it will do what bubbles generally do, erupt then collapse. The final eruption before collapse looks to be underway and we should only hope it doesn’t happen.
If it does enter the terminal bubble phase and then collapse, it will be the second blow to the U.S. and world economy, which repeats the 1930 narrative of the one-two punch of twin crises. In the Great Depression it was “stock market crash” followed by “banking crisis.” Here it will be “lockdown” followed by “stock market crash.”
It won’t be hard to see it coming because if the Nasdaq goes vertical it will be hard to miss. Therefore, let’s hope the Federal Reserve can keep a lid on it because if they can’t we are in deep trouble.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jibrBa Tyler Durden
Rouhani Drops Coronavirus Bombshell: “25 Million Iranians Have Been Infected” Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/18/2020 – 14:00
From the start of the coronavirus outbreak in Iran, which for a time had the second highest infection rate after China during the early phase of the global pandemic, it was widely believed that authorities there were severely downplaying the true number of cases. But it was also understood the country’s already hurting and strained health system would lack for testing and proper care, given also there was a world shortage of test kits.
President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday confirmed much of this prior skepticism toward Iran’s official case count. He dropped a bombshell statement which if true means Iran far surpasses America’s case count (at over 3.6 million), currently the most infected country in the world.
Rouhani saida whopping 25 million Iranians have likely been infected with the coronavirus, in the first such statement of its kind affirming that Iran’s true numbers are far higher than the official current figure of 271,606.
EPA/Iranian President’s office handout
His office did admit, however, that his 25 million figure is an “estimated scenario”. If this estimate is anywhere near accurate, it would mean Iran infections alone would surpass the global total of over 14 million.
Given the Islamic Republic’s total population is at 80 million people, this would mean about 1 in 3 citizens in Iran have contracted the virus.
In his statement during a televised speech he further said 35 million are at risk of contracting the virus. He cited this as the rationale for rolling out new shutdown and restriction measures in Tehran and across the country.
“Our estimate is that until now 25 million Iranians have been infected with this virus and about 14,000 have lost their dear lives,” Mr Rouhani said in the speech. “There is the possibility that between 30 and 35 million other people will be at risk.”
He said more than 200,000 people had been hospitalized and that the ministry expected that number to double in the coming months.
His new shutdown orders include a new one week lockdown on the Iranian capital and many other cities, which includes a ban on all public events and spaces where crowds gather, including schools, restaurants, pools and even religious functions.
#BREAKING
25 million Iranians have contracted the novel #coronavirus, says Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
The world’s most advanced countries have a death rate of over two percent.
This also includes lockdowns of 22 cities and towns especially areas in the hard-hit southwest of the country.
The Health Ministry currently reports a total of 13,979 deaths, but if actual COVID-19 total infections are really anywhere near 25 million, its likely the true death count is far higher as well.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hcYdnd Tyler Durden
It seems like a reset of an economy should work like a reset of your computer: Turn it off and turn it back on again; most problems should be fixed. However, it doesn’t really work that way. Let’s look at a few of the misunderstandings that lead people to believe that the world economy can move to a Green Energy future.
[1] The economy isn’t really like a computer that can be switched on and off; it is more comparable to a human body that is dead, once it is switched off.
A computer is something that is made by humans. There is a beginning and an end to the process of making it. The computer works because energy in the form of electrical current flows through it. We can turn the electricity off and back on again. Somehow, almost like magic, software issues are resolved, and the system works better after the reset than before.
Even though the economy looks like something made by humans, it really is extremely different. In physics terms, it is a “dissipative structure.” It is able to “grow” only because of energy consumption, such as oil to power trucks and electricity to power machines.
The system is self-organizing in the sense that new businesses are formed based on the resources available and the apparent market for products made using these resources. Old businesses disappear when their products are no longer needed. Customers make decisions regarding what to buy based on their incomes, the amount of debt available to them, and the choice of goods available in the marketplace.
There are many other dissipative structures. Hurricanes and tornadoes are dissipative structures. So are stars. Plants and animals are dissipative structures. Ecosystems of all kinds are dissipative structures. All of these things grow for a time and eventually collapse. If their energy source is taken away, they fail quite quickly. The energy source for humans is food of various types; for plants it is generally sunlight.
Thinking that we can switch the economy off and on again comes close to assuming that we can resurrect human beings after they die. Perhaps this is possible in a religious sense. But assuming that we can do this with an economy requires a huge leap of faith.
[2] Economic growth has a definite pattern to it, rather than simply increasing without limit.
Many people have developed models reflecting the fact that economic growth seems to come in waves or cycles. Ray Dalio shows a chart describing his view of the economic cycle in a preview to his upcoming book, The Changing World Order. Figure 1 is Dalio’s chart, with some annotations I have added in blue.
Figure 1. New World Order chart by Ray Dalio from an introduction to his theory called The Changing World Order. Annotations in blue added by Gail Tverberg.
Modelers of all kinds would like to think that there are no limits in this world. Actually, there are many limits. It is the fact that economies have to work around limits that leads to cycles such as these. Some examples of limits include inadequate arable land for a growing population, inability to fight off pathogens, and an energy supply that becomes excessively expensive to produce. Cycles can be expected to vary in steepness, both on the upside and the downside of the cycle.
The danger of ignoring these cycles is that researchers tend to create models of future economic growth and future energy consumption that are far out of sync with what really can be expected. Accurate models need to include at least some limited version of overshoot and collapse on a regular basis. Models of the future economy tend to be based on what politicians would like to believe will happen, rather than what actually can be expected to happen in the real world.
[3] Commodity prices behave differently at different stages of the economic cycle. During the second half of the economic cycle, it becomes difficult to keep commodity prices high enough for producers.
There is a common belief that demand for energy products will always be high, because everyone knows we need energy. Thus, according to this belief, if we have the technology to extract fossil fuels, prices will eventually rise high enough that fossil fuels resources can easily be extracted. Many people have been concerned the we might “run out” of oil. They expect that oil prices will rise to compensate for the shortages. Thus, many people believe that in order to maintain adequate supply, we should be concerned about supplementing fossil fuels with nuclear power and renewable energy.
If we examine oil prices (Figure 2), we see that at least recently, this is not the way oil prices actually behave. Since the spike in oil prices in 2008, the big problem has been prices that fall too low for oil producers. At prices well below $100 per barrel, development of many new oil fields is not economic. Low oil prices are especially a problem in 2020 because travel restrictions associated with the coronavirus pandemic reduce oil demand (and prices) even below where they were previously.
Figure 2. Weekly average spot oil prices for Brent, based on data of the US Energy Information Administration.
Strangely enough, coal prices (Figure 3) seem to follow a very similar pattern to oil prices, even though coal is commonly believed to be available in huge supply, and oil is commonly believed to be in short supply.
Figure 3. Selected Spot Coal Prices, from BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy. Prices are annual averages. Price for China is Qinhuangdao spot price; price for US is Central Appalachian coal spot index; price for Europe is Northwest European marker price.
Comparing Figures 2 and 3, we see that prices for both oil and coal rose to a peak in 2008, then fell back sharply. The timing of this drop in prices corresponds with the “debt bust” in late 2008 that is shown in Figure 1.
Prices then rose to another peak in 2011, after several years of Quantitative Easing (QE). QE is intended to hold the cost of borrowing down, encouraging the use of more debt. This debt can be used by citizens to buy more goods made with coal and oil (such as cars and solar panels). Thus, QE is a way to increase demand and thus help raise energy prices. In the 2011-2014 period, oil was able to maintain its price better than coal, perhaps because of its short supply. Once the United States discontinued its QE program in 2014, oil prices dropped like a rock (Figure 2).
Prices were very low in 2015 and 2016 for both coal and oil. China stimulated its economy, and prices for both coal and oil were able to rise again in 2017 and 2018. By 2019, prices for both oil and coal were falling again. Figure 2 shows that in 2020, oil prices have fallen again, as the result of all of the demand destruction caused by all of the pandemic shutdowns. Coal prices have also fallen in 2020, according to Trading Economics.
[4] The low prices since mid-2008 seem to be leading to both peak crude oil and peak coal. Crude oil production started falling in 2019 and can be expected to continue falling in 2020. Coal extraction seems likely to start falling in 2020.
Figure 4 shows that world crude oil production has not grown much since 2004. In fact, OPEC’s production has not grown much since 2004, even though OPEC countries report high oil reserves so, in theory, they could pump more oil if they chose to.
Figure 4. World crude oil production (including condensate) based on data from BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy. Russia+ refers to the group Commonwealth of Independent States.
In total, BP data shows that world crude oil production fell by 582,000 barrels per day, comparing 2019 to 2018. This represents a drop of 2.0 million barrels per day in OPEC production, offset by smaller increases in production for the US, Canada, and Russia. Crude oil production is expected to fall further in 2020, because of low demand and prices.
Because of continued low coal prices, world coal production has been on a bumpy plateau since 2011. Prices seem to be even lower in 2020 than in 2019, putting further downward pressure on coal extraction in 2020.
Figure 5. World coal production based on data from BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy.
[5] Modelers missed the fact that fossil fuel extraction would disappear because of low prices, leaving nearly all reserves and other resources in the ground. Modelers instead assumed that renewables would always be an extension of a fossil fuel-powered system.
The thing that most people do not understand is that commodity prices are set by the laws of physics, so that supply and demand are in balance. Demand is really very close to “affordability.” If there is too much wage/wealth disparity, commodity prices tend to fall too low. In a globalized world, many workers earn only a few dollars a day. Because of their low wages, these low-paid workers cannot afford to purchase very much of the world’s goods and services. The use of robots tends to produce a similar result because robots can’t actually purchase goods and services made by the economy.
Thus, modelers looking at Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI) for wind and for solar assumed that they would always be used inside of a fossil fuel powered system that could provide heavily subsidized balancing for their intermittent output. They made calculations as if intermittent electricity is equivalent to electricity that can be controlled to provide electricity when it is needed. Their calculations seemed to suggest that making wind and solar would be useful. The thing that was overlooked was that this was only possible within a system where other fuels would provide balancing at a very low cost.
[6] The same issue of low demand leading to low prices affects commodities of all kinds. As a result, many of the future resources that modelers count on, and that companies depend upon as the basis for borrowing, are unlikely to really be available.
Commodities of all kinds are being affected by low demand and low selling prices. The problem giving rise to low prices seems to be related to excessive specialization, excessive use of capital goods to replace labor, and excessive use of globalization. These issues are all related to the needs of a world economy that depends on a high level of technology. In such an economy, too much of the output of the economy goes to producing devices and to paying highly trained workers. Little is left for non-elite workers.
The low selling prices of commodities makes it impossible for employers to pay adequate wages to most of their workers. These low wages, in turn, feed through to the uprisings we have been seeing in the last couple of years. These uprisings are part of “Revolutions and Wars” mentioned in Figure 1. It is difficult to see how this problem will disappear without a major change in the “World Order,” mentioned in the same figure.
Because the problem of low commodity prices is widespread, our ability to produce electrical backup of all kinds, including the ability to make batteries, can be expected to become an increasing problem. Commodities, such as lithium, suffer from low prices, not unlike the low prices for coal and oil. These low prices lead to cutbacks in their production and local uprisings.
[7] On a stand-alone basis, intermittent renewables have very limited usefulness. Their true value is close to zero.
If electricity is only available when the sun is shining, or when the wind is blowing, industry cannot plan for its use. Its use must be limited to applications where intermittency doesn’t matter, such as pumping water for animals to drink or desalinating water. No one would attempt to smelt metals with intermittent electricity because the metals would set at the wrong time, if the intermittent electricity suddenly disappeared. No one would power an elevator with intermittent electricity, because a person could easily be trapped between floors. Homeowners would not use electricity to power refrigerators, because, as likely as not, the food would spoil when electricity was off for long periods. Traffic signals would work sometimes, but not others.
Lebanon is an example of a country whose electricity system works only intermittently. It is hard to imagine that any other country would want to imitate Lebanon. Lack of reliable electricity supply leads to protests in Lebanon.
[8] The true cost of wind and solar has been hidden from everyone, using subsidies whose total cost is hard to determine.
Each country has its own way of providing subsidies to renewables. Most countries give wind and solar the subsidy of “going first.” They are often given a fixed rate as well. Both of these are subsidies. In the US, other subsidies are buried in the tax system. Recently, there has been talk of using QE to help wind and solar providers lower their cost of borrowing.
Newspapers regularly report that the price of wind and solar is at “grid parity,” but this is not an apples to apples comparison. To be useful, electricity needs to be available when users need it. The cost of storage is far too high to allow us to store electricity for weeks and months at a time.
If we were to use intermittent electricity as a substitute for fossil fuels in general, we would need to use intermittent electricity to heat homes and offices in winter. Sunshine is abundant in the summer, but not in the winter. Without storage, solar panels cannot even be counted on to provide homeowners with heat for cooking dinner after the sun sets in the evening. An incredibly huge amount of storage would be needed for storing heat from summer to winter.
China reports that it has $42 billion in unpaid clean energy subsidies, and this amount is getting larger each year. Countries are now becoming poorer and the taxes they are able to collect are lower. Their ability to subsidize a high cost, unreliable electricity system is disappearing.
[9] Wind, solar, and hydroelectric today only comprise a little under 10% of the world’s energy supply.
We are deluding ourselves if we think we can get along on such a tiny total energy supply.
Figure 6. Hydroelectric, wind, and solar electricity as a percentage of world energy supply, based on BP’s 2020 Statistical Review of World Energy.
Few people understand what a small share of the world’s energy supply wind and solar provide today. The amounts shown in Figure 6 assume that the denominator is total energy (including oil, for example) not just electricity. In 2019, hydroelectric accounts for 6.4% of world energy supply. Wind accounts for 2.2%, and solar accounts for 1.1%. The three together amount to 9.7% of world energy supply.
None of these three energy types is suited for producing food. Oil is currently used for tilling fields, making herbicides and pesticides, and transporting refrigerated crops to market.
[10] Few people understand how important energy supply is for giving humans control over other species and pathogens.
Control over other species and pathogens has been a multistage effort. In recent years, this effort has involved antibiotics, antivirals and vaccines. Pasteurization became an important technique in the 1800s.
Human’s control over other species started over 100,000 years ago, when humans learned to burn biomass for many uses, including cooking foods, scaring away predators, and burning down entire forests to improve their food supply. In my 2018 post, Supplemental energy puts humans in charge, I wrote about one proof of the importance of humans’ control of fire. In the lower layers of a cave in South Africa, big cats were in charge: There were no carbon deposits from fire and gnawed human bones were scattered around the cave. In the upper layers of the same cave, humans were in clearly charge. There were carbon deposits from fires, and bones of big cats that had been gnawed by humans were scattered around the cave.
We are dealing with COVID-19 now. Today’s hospitals are only possible thanks to a modern mix of energy supply. Drugs are very often made using oil. Personal protective equipment is made in factories around the world and shipped to where it is used, generally using oil for transport.
Conclusion
We do indeed appear to be headed for a Great Reset. There is little chance that Green Energy can play more than a small role, however. Leaders are often confused because of the erroneous modeling that has been done. Given that the world’s oil and coal supply seem to be declining in the near term, the chance that fossil fuel production will ever rise as high as assumptions made in the IPCC reports seems very slim.
It is true that some Green Energy devices may continue to operate for a time. But, as the world economy continues to head downhill, it will be increasingly difficult to make new renewable devices and to repair existing systems. Wholesale electricity prices can be expected to stay very low, leading to the need for continued subsidies for wind and solar.
Figure 1 indicates that we can expect more revolutions and wars at this stage in the cycle. At least part of this unrest will be related to low commodity prices and low wages. Globalization will tend to disappear. Keeping transmission lines repaired will become an increasing problem, as will many other tasks associated with keeping energy supplies available.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30nqsJb Tyler Durden
US Defense-Readiness Increasingly A Concern As Troop COVID-19 Cases Surpass 20,000 Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/18/2020 – 13:00
Months ago the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier disaster which saw over 1,000 crew members infected with COVID-19, cutting short its mission in the western pacific also amid public controversy and division within the Navy’s ranks over the handling of the crisis, made it clear that the Pentagon is keenly aware that US national security could be deeply impacted by the pandemic.
During that prior saga China even boasted that its own warships in the region were coronavirus-free, prompting US generals to issue their own statements of continued full military readiness.
But new infected case numbers put out by Military Times reveals the Department of Defense (DoD) is continuing to fight an uphill battle on this front: “Coronavirus cases are up more than 20 percent in service members this week, to 20,212, as the military’s battle against the pandemic continues to mirror the challenges civilian leaders are facing across the country.”
US Army file image
Military officials have downplayed this grim milestone of over 20,000 US military cases, including three deaths and 425 hospitalizations, as reflective of the rest of the general population.
Like the civilian population, military cases have more than doubled since April. “From the first soldier diagnosed in South Korea at the end of February, it took until early June for the military to see 10,000 cases. The next 10,000 cases took six weeks,” Military Times writes.
It’s likely that similar to what was observed in USS Roosevelt cases, most military personnel with coronavirus are asymptomatic, but the DoD has struggled to break this down and provide public data.
One likely explanation for the rise in military cases is that most major installations are located in states like Texas, which has seen spiking numbers across the population. The Military Times report continues:
Defense officials have pointedto local spikes in states like California, Arizona, Texas, Georgia and Florida, all home to multiple military installations, as a possible reason for the increase. After numbers of new cases stabilized in May, the Defense Department has seen a steady increase going back to June, when “re-opening” plans began to roll out across the U.S.
In April, when tensions with China in the East and South China Seas were growing, also after the Roosevelt supercarrier was temporarily taken out of commission by outbreak among the crew, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley issued a stern warning to enemies.
“We’re still capable and we’re still ready no matter what the threat,” Milley said at the time. “I wouldn’t want any mixed messages going out there to any adversaries that they can take advantage of an opportunity, if you will, at a time of crisis,” he added. “That would be a terrible and tragic mistake if they thought that.”
It’s believed his message was directed mainly at Beijing and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZFrvot Tyler Durden
In this week’s edition of Straight Talk Guy, Dan and I are discussing a wide range of issues, tech, $NFLX, $TSLA, $AMZN, the sustainability of the sudden rotation trade, the $VIX, and vaccine optimism and its potential to propel markets even higher.
$SPX closed near the top of the range of the past 7 weeks aided by the machinations of OPEX week, a renewed expanding Fed balance sheet and incessant headlines of vaccine optimism, non stop Fed speakers, hope for fiscal stimulus and hope for a coming rotation trade on the heels of positive bank earnings, banks that benefitted tremendously from the Fed’s helping hand during the crisis.
As such the glaring cliff between Main Street and Wall Street continue to widen. Over 50 million Americans may have been forced to file for unemployment during this crisis but the banks have made out like bandits as have the tech billionaires having seen their stocks skyrocket to a disconnect versus the broader market not seen since the year 2000 bubble.
The rotation trade argument was supported buy a sudden flight from tech as key tech stocks reversed hard from their Monday opening highs and meandered for most of the week at lower levels.
But is the rotation trade a false flag signal? Rather does the tech reversal signal something more ominous in light of some key technical developments? As I highlighted last night:
Quick market update:
These 2 charts may be critically important in the days ahead. pic.twitter.com/2fahrVhzWD
Note the rotation trade argument has a lot to prove. Take banks and small caps who remain below the June highs with yields continuing to signal no V recovery::
Notable also this week: Several Fed speakers started to signal words of doubt about a V shape recovery and former Fed Chairs Bernanke and Yellen pleaded with Congress to sign off on another massive stimulus package. To not do so would be “catastrophic” according to Janet Yellen who, like Powell, is now declaring that all deficit spending concerns of previous years should now be ignored. Trillion dollar deficits bad, $4 trillion deficits no problem. Don’t worry about it and don’t worry about what we said just last year (Fed Chair Powell: ‘The U.S. federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path).
However a glimmer of truth made its way into the public sphere. As readers well know I’ve been harping about the historic disconnect between stock markets and the economy for some time. Recessions typically see a cleansing of asset prices, not this time, as markets continue to flirt with historic highs.
On Friday US markets closed at 151.4% market cap to GDP close to all time highs:
This issue was suddenly acknowledged by non other than Fed Vice Chair Quarles:
That market cap to GDP disconnect I keep harping about?
The Fed knows:
“We may be seeing significant pricing disconnects between the market & economic fundamentals, which could result in sudden & sharp repricing,” – Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Quarles.https://t.co/4lAmMiniE6
The message: The Fed knows. The Fed knows markets are sitting on the very disconnect they have brought about with their liquidity injections (but refuse to publicly acknowledge), but the Fed is also trying to cover its butt in case things go astray.
So be aware, we’re in a bubble and the Fed has pretty much just acknowledged it without saying it.
Without further ado, please join us for edition number 10 of our Straight Talk series:
* * *
Also I’ll be posting a separate Market Video focusing on the latest technical implications this weekend (For those not already signed up for these videos please see link to sign up). For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hgRtF8 Tyler Durden
White Helmets Co-Founder Defrauded Organization To Fund Lavish Wedding Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/18/2020 – 12:00
A little more than eight months after former British army officer and military contractor, then 43-year-old James Le Mesurier, who co-founded the shadowy ‘White Helmets’ (known as Syria Civil Defence), committed suicide, a new report details how he defrauded Mayday Rescue. This organization fundraised from Western countries to support the anti-government rescue group in Syria.
RT News quotes a report via Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, who says Le Mesurier informed an accountant during an audit that he “forged receipts” for tens of thousands of dollars. At the time, he listed the funds as lined items to support efforts in evacuations for refugees in war-torn Syria, though the money was actually expensed for his lavish 2018 wedding.
Le Mesurier was paid a generous salary of €24,000 ($27,414) per month. It was noted he issued loans to his wife, former diplomat Emma Winberg, using funds from the organization.
The accountant, instructed by Western countries to investigate Mayday, found “tens of thousands of dollars in cash” were used to pay for Le Mesurier’s “fairytale wedding.”
Shortly afterward, a number of countries that had donated to Mayday demanded an accountant have another look over the organization’s books. According to De Volkskrant, this probe found that most of Mayday’s financial records are “missing.” Donations were not just handed to the organization in Amsterdam and forwarded to Syria, but distributed through a network of commercial organizations in Turkey and Dubai. -RT
A Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ 2018 report showed Mayday received $127 million from mostly Western state donors between 2014 and 2018.
Le Mesurier’s White Helmets promote themselves as ‘first responders’ to emergencies in Syria, the group has been accused of staging multiple chemical attacks – including an April 2018 incident in Duma, Syria, which the White House used as a pretext to bomb Syrian government facilities and bases.
White Helmets have been accused of partnering with Al-Qaeda and even seen operating in rebel-held territory.
At the time of the audit, Le Mesurier wrote a letter to donors explaining the mishap but maintained the fraud was not committed on purpose.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said last November that Le Mesurier’s death was no suicide, suggesting he was killed because he “knew major secrets.”
