iftttwall

Now that the Netherlands has announced plans for a month-long lockdown, it appears another wave of (government-funded) lockdowns are coming in Europe, especially since Germany’s new Chancellor Olaf Scholz has suggested he would be open to more extreme measures, and Dutch PM Mark Rutte has ordered the shutdowns to begin Sunday.

Back in the UK, which has been arguably the most proactive among its neighbors at detecting cases of the new omicron variant, PM Boris Johnson is facing a rebellion of Tory backbenchers. Meanwhile, the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, warned during an interview on Sunday that more restrictions, including lockdowns, are “inevitable”.

Speaking to BBC Sunday, Khan insisted that new restrictions are “inevitable”, and he called for a “major package of financial support for our hospitality, culture, and retail [sectors]”.

The mayor argued that if the authorities failed to impose tougher restrictions “sooner rather than later,” the capital would see an even worse surge in positive cases, which would in turn leave “potentially public services like the NHS on the verge of collapse, if not collapsing.”

The British capital alone has reported nearly 30K new cases over the past 24 hours.

Khan’s comments come less than 24 hours after he declared a “major incident” in London amid rising COVID cases and the relatively rapid spread of the omicron strain in particular, which is well on its way toward becoming the dominant strain in England and Scotland.

Khan added that 1,534 people were currently hospitalized with COVID in the capital, a nearly 30% rise compared to last week.

When announcing the decision on Saturday, Khan pointed out that the “vast majority” of patients being treated in hospitals haven’t been vaccinated. For those who haven’t already been vaccinated, Khan urged Londoners to get the jab as soon as possible (not that it will necessarily stop them from getting infected).

Weirdly, Khan decided to frame his pleas for Londoners to accept the vaccine in racial terms.

“In some pockets of London there are black Londoners, there are Muslim Londoners, there are Jewish Londoners, there are Eastern European Londoners, who still haven’t had a vaccine,” he said.

But pretty soon, all that racial stuff isn’t going to matter so much as whether Londoners have their vaccination papers, or not. And for those who might once again be put out of work by the lockdown, Mayor Khan also told the BBC that there would be a “major package of financial support” for workers in the “hospitality, culture and retail sectors.”

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A new poll has found that Donald Trump is more admired than Pope Francis or Joe Biden.

The survey, conducted by YouGov, places Trump at number 13 for the world’s most admired man, while the Pope is below him at number 16 and Biden further down in 20th place.

Trump’s relatively high placing is all the more impressive given the sustained media campaign against him and the former president being blamed for the January 6 “siege.”

The most admired man in the world remains Barack Obama, despite the fact that compared to many others on the list he is rarely even that much of a public figure these days.

World’s Most Admired Men 2021 (1-10)

1. Barack Obama 🇺🇸
2. Bill Gates 🇺🇸
3. Xi Jinping 🇨🇳
4. Cristiano Ronaldo 🇵🇹
5. Jackie Chan 🇨🇳
6. Elon Musk 🇿🇦
7. Lionel Messi 🇦🇷
8. Narendra Modi 🇮🇳
9. Vladimir Putin 🇷🇺
10. Jack Ma 🇨🇳https://t.co/oBV8X1gh6E pic.twitter.com/IedkTP2d7c

— YouGov (@YouGov) December 14, 2021

Indeed, the top three remains unchanged, with Chinese President Xi Xinping at number 3 and Bill Gates at number 2, despite the fallout from Gates’ notorious divorce.

Michelle Obama remains the world’s most admired woman, with actress Angelina Jolie bizarrely keeping her place at number 2 above the likes of the Queen of England and Malala Yousafazi.

Perhaps emphasizing the dubious nature of the survey, Kamala Harris, who has an favorability rating of just 40 per cent, is in 11th place just above Hillary Clinton, who is in 12th position.

Trump is once again expected to run for president in 2024, with Hillary Clinton complaining that another win for the Donald would mean “the end of democracy.”

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has just killed his party’s $2 trillion “Build Back Better” plan, announcing on Sunday that he won’t support it. This means that unless he changes his mind, or at least one Republican Senator crosses the aisle to vote with every other Democrat in the chamber, the bill is dead.

“This is a ‘no’ on this legislation,” Manchin told Fox News Sunday. ” have tried everything.”

BLOW TO JOE: Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin says he can’t vote for a $2 trillion social safety net bill, dealing a potentially fatal blow to President Joe Biden’s signature legislation – @AP pic.twitter.com/FWSeVNOFDu

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 19, 2021

Manchin released a Sunday statement further explaining his position.

“My Democratic colleagues in Washington are determined to dramatically reshape our society in a way that leaves our country even more vulnerable to the threats we face,” it reads. “I cannot take that risk with a staggering debt of more than $29 trillion and inflation taxes that are real and harmful to every hard-working American at the gasoline pumps, grocery stores and utility bills with no end in sight.”

Manchin also pointed to the Omicron Covid-19 variant and cases rising “at rates we have not seen since the height of this pandemic,” along with “increasing geopolitical uncertainty as tension rise with both Russia and China.”

Further, he says the bill would “also risk the reliability of our electric grid and increase our dependence on foreign supply chains.”

Also, the bill would “risk the reliability of our electric grid and increase our dependence on foreign supply chains.”

“The energy transition my colleagues seek is already well underway in the United States of America … we have invested billions of dollars into clean energy technologies so we can continue to lead the world in reducing emissions through innovation. But to do so at a rate that is faster than technology or the markets allow will have catastrophic consequences for the American people like we have seen in both Texas and California in the last two years.”

Manchin had set a $1.75 trillion top line for the bill over a decade, prompting Democrats to bargain by setting expiration dates for various programs which would lower the cost. He also opposed pairing of temporary programs and permanent revenue streams, calling it a gimmick that hid the true cost, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Lawmakers have shown flexibility all year. They eyed a $3.5 trillion package but slimmed that to please Mr. Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D., Ariz.). They abandoned a free community college proposal, a plan for a 12-week paid leave benefit and a program pushing utilities to rely on clean energy to cut the price tag. They dropped a planned increase in top tax rates opposed by Ms. Sinema.

On Sunday, Mr. Manchin said Mr. Biden had been “wonderful” to work with, but that he couldn’t explain a “yes” vote to the people he represented in West Virginia. -WSJ

“I’ve tried everything humanly possible,” said Manchin on Fox, adding “I can’t get there.”

Sen Bernie Sanders slammed Manchin on CNN‘s “State of the Union” Sunday morning, saying that Democrats should bring the bill to the Senate floor and force Manchin to publicly vote against it.

“I hope that we will bring a strong bill to the floor of the Senate as soon as we can, and let Mr. Manchin explain to the people of West Virginia why he doesn’t have the guts to stand up to powerful special interests,” said the socialist from Vermont.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) responds to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) coming out against President Biden’s Build Back Better plan:

“Well, I think he’s gonna have a lot of explaining to do to the people of West Virginia.” pic.twitter.com/448VFowzPC

— The Recount (@therecount) December 19, 2021

Somehow we don’t think Manchin will have a problem doing that.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

But when the Fed’s fundamental powerlessness is revealed and the buy-the-dippers have been forced to liquidate, the true meaning of “mild” contagion will become apparent.

Since I’d rather not be renditioned to a rat-infested, freezing cell in an unnamed ‘stan, I’m circumspect about viruses in general. (The WiFi signal is probably weak due to all the masonry walls and metallic torture devices, and as for the food–grilled rat, anyone?)

My essay Virus Z: A Thought Experiment (July 1, 2021) encapsulates my thoughts on viruses (reading between the lines recommended).

But as a punter–oops, I mean investor–I’m free to discuss risk and consequence in markets. Yes, yes, I know there’s there’s no risk “because the Fed,” but last I checked the Fed’s god-like powers didn’t extend to the natural world, and so the chart below of how viral contagiousness can affect the consequences as measured in hospitalizations and deaths may be worth a glance.

Note that the chart explicitly states that the data is a simplified, hypothetical scenario that isn’t based on any specific viral variant. It is a generalized depiction of the consequences of big numbers: a virus that is terrifically contagious but not terribly lethal (i.e. “mild”) still ends up killing far more people than the more severe but less contagious variants because the number of infected people becomes consequentially large very quickly.

To demonstrate the basic concept, consider a hypothetical Variant A that is only mildly contagious, i.e. each infected person ends up infecting 1.2 other people, but with high lethality, i.e. 1% of those infected die within a few months of contracting the pathogen.

If 10 million people eventually contract the disease, 100,000 (1%) will lose their lives.

Now consider a severely contagious Variant B, i.e. each infected person ends up infecting 3.5 other people, that is “mild” in terms of lethality, killing 0.5% of all those infected.

If this far more contagious variant eventually infects 100 million people, 500,000 will die–five times the number of those who died from the much more lethal variant A.

These outsized consequences of a highly contagious “mild” virus manifest not just in deaths but in hospitalizations and long-term disabilities generated by the viral disease.

Right now the stock market is wafting gently on the feel-good buzz of the word “mild”, which is taken to mean not just mild consequences of the illness on individuals but near-zero consequences for the economy and markets.

It doesn’t take much imagination to project human behavior should a highly contagious variant start spreading with alarming speed through a population. Traveling in sealed metal tubes and ships and joining indoor crowds loses appeal, and risk-off precautionary behaviors take precedence over risk-laden “fun,” especially should the body count start climbing a few weeks into the “mild” contagion.

Any systems-level analysis should incorporate three principles: 1) ask cui bono, to whose benefit? For example, does what passes as “public health” in the U.S. actually benefit the many or does it mostly benefit the few reaping gargantuan profits from the system? 2) does maximizing the private gains of the few at the top of the power pyramid trigger immense losses for the powerless majority? and 3) what are the system’s constraints?

In healthcare, one constraint is the number of hospital beds and ICU facilities, and another is number of healthcare staff who have the requisite experience and energy to treat not just those suffering from the viral disease but all the patients with other conditions which can no longer receive care due to overcrowding.

Once the staff is burned out or ill themselves and the beds are filled, the system cannot treat any other patients, and care for those patients drops to near-zero. As I have noted many times here, the Fed can conjure dollars out of thin air but it can’t conjure well-trained doctors and nurses out of thin air, or new ICU units out of thin air.

Put another way, risk-off is also contagious and can spread very quickly, with very large consequences for assets based on the permanence of risk-on euphoria. Consider a simple example: passive index funds start getting redemptions, i.e. owners start selling the funds and ETFs.

Index funds and ETFs that hold a basket of stocks must sell all the equities that make up the index or ETF by proportional weight, so the most heavily weighted (i.e. Mega-Tech) stocks get hit the hardest by selling.

Since margin debt is at nosebleed levels, and much of this debt is leveraged on risk-on meme stocks and “can’t lose” Mega-Tech stocks, as these start slipping, margin calls start hitting punters who have only experienced brief dips that generate Pavlovian buy the dip recoveries within hours. Selling at a loss–and being forced to liquidate positions that one intended to hold with diamond hands–will be a new experience.

Since the smart money already liquidated their positions while touting stocks at all-time over-valuations, there’s nobody left to buy as over-margined and over-leveraged retail punters are forced to sell.

Screaming that “this is the greatest company in the world” won’t stop that company from losing $1 trillion in market cap as its outsized heft in passive funds and ETFs causes mass liquidation as everyone tries to lock in profits at the same time.

As for the Fed, rising supply-side inflation is a systemic constraint for which the Fed has no answer, supply-side inflation which will only increase should harbors, etc. close down under the relentless spread of a highly contagious variant. If supply dries up faster than demand, inflation can double overnight and the Fed has zero power over the supply-chain constraints.

Those slavishly worshiping at the altar of the Fed will discover they have been worshiping false gods, and the karmic reversal of all that falsity and fraud will be both monumental and richly deserved.

The political blowback as the bottom 90% are eviscerated and hung out to dry by inflation will put the Fed’s usual financial trickery (free money for financiers and corporations) on the chopping block, and everyone who thought they had an easy field goal of gains will realize they’re now deep in their own end zone and several large, fast and very aggressive linebackers are chasing them down.

Risk off begets risk off, and once the “buy the dip” crowd runs out of cash and gets hit with margin calls, the leak of selling turns into a flood. Those with no experience of cascading declines will naturally hold on as their margin calls pile up, expecting the Fed to save the day or the buy-the-dippers to rescue everyone with yet another manic rally.

But when the Fed’s fundamental powerlessness is revealed and the buy-the-dippers have been forced to liquidate, the true meaning of “mild” contagion will become apparent, too late for those who thought being fully invested was a can’t-lose strategy.

*  *  *

My new book is now available at a 20% discount this month: Global Crisis, National Renewal: A (Revolutionary) Grand Strategy for the United States (Kindle $8.95, print $20). If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Nothing says “desperate ploy for excuses” to us more than claiming your favorite basket of barely-cash-generative bubble stocks are in “deep value” territory in the midst of one of the largest asset bubbles in history.

But alas, this is the nonsense explanation that ARK’s Cathie Wood has chosen to deploy in order to explain her poor performance in 2021 and dangle a carrot on a string for potential investors into 2022. 

With her flagship fund down about 22% on the year, Wood said in a blog post on Friday that innovation stocks are in “deep value territory”. 

“After correcting for nearly 11 months, innovation stocks seem to have entered deep value territory, their valuations a fraction of peak levels,” she wrote. “We take advantage of volatility during corrections and concentrate our portfolios toward our highest conviction stocks.” 

She included this chart, showing massive declines for 3 of her top holdings and attempting to justify their respective valuations. Curiously, the chart leaves out basic metrics like price/sales and price/earnings ratios. 

Wood also claimed that investors see things the way she does: “Year-to-date, our inflows have outweighed our outflows significantly, suggesting that on balance, investors understand our active management investment process and long-term investment time horizon.”

She blamed her underperformance on “quants and algorithms”, stating “…quants and algorithms have dominated trading activity amid surging inflation and favored low-multiple stocks in energy and financial services,” according to Bloomberg. 

Wood also hilariously trashed traditional benchmarking methods that she claims are “holding her strategies hostage”: “We will not let benchmarks and tracking errors hold our strategies hostage to the existing world order. The coronavirus crisis permanently changed the way the world works, catapulting consumers and businesses into the digital age much faster and deeper than otherwise would have been the case.”

In other words, it’s the rest of the world’s fault for not recognizing how great her strategies are. Right, Cathie?

Then, for kicks, Wood estimates that her strategy could deliver a 40% compounded annual rate of return for the next 4 years: “According to our current estimates, our more concentrated flagship strategy today could deliver a 40% compound annual rate of return during the next five years. Only one other time in ARK’s history, at the end of 2018, has the five-year return projection been that high.”

She concluded her reasoning by explaining that we are heading into an “innovation age” like the world has never seen. Wood wrote: “These Pavlovian responses will prove just as wrong as those in the early days of the coronavirus crisis. They are backward-looking and do not recognize that companies investing aggressively today are sacrificing short term profitability for an important reason: to capitalize on an innovation age the likes of which the world has never witnessed.”

Via SchiffGold.com,

Gold looked very strong through mid-November. Recent trends in September and October had been pointing to a breakout. The market delivered sending gold up through $1870. Unfortunately, hard resistance kept the bulls in check, despite repeated attempts to breakthrough. The previous price analysis presumed that a Brainard nomination at the Fed would be the catalyst needed to break through $1880. It also assumed that a Powell nomination, though expected, would bring gold back down some.

Unfortunately, the gold market took the Powell news harder than expected. It dropped like a rock. The announcement occurred prior to market open which is when liquidity is lighter. This caused the price to fall quickly. Newly formed and fragile support was shattered and by the time the market opened, gold was falling quickly. Eventually, it settled back into the $1750-$1800 range where it has been trapped for months.

Late this week, gold made another attempt to break through but failed to hold gains in the face of a rising dollar and closed the week just a shade under $1800 at $1798 (note: official Comex close was $1804). Will gold regain its footing and finally put $1800 in the rearview mirror or will it stay range-bound in the near term?

Current charts are fairly neutral. This could be the quiet before the storm really hits in 2022!

Resistance and Support

Gold

As mentioned, gold has been stuck around $1800 for months. A “buy the rumor sell the fact” unfolded this week as the Fed had its most hawkish meeting in years. Gold bounced hard off the $1750 area but has now gotten trapped at $1800. It needs to break through soon or will face selling pressure. Hedge Funds are driving the price, but will only make so many attempts before retreating and closing longs.

Outlook: Neutral

Silver

Silver is lagging gold and is at the lower end of the consolidation pattern between $22 and $25. The current downside looks limited, but there is nothing that is showing strength. Aside from a sharp rebound off the Fed meeting. The market must build on this move or see the gains lost.

Outlook: Neutral

Figure: 1 Gold and Silver Price Action

Daily Moving Averages (DMA)

Gold

A golden cross formed on Dec 3 as the 50 DMA crossed above the 200 DMA. While this is technically bullish, it lacks conviction. The chart below also shows the current range-bound period. The blue and green lines haven’t been this close for this long since 2014. At the time, gold was consolidating from a big down move before another leg lower. It’s possible the opposite is occurring now (consolidation before an up move) but needs confirmation.

Outlook: Slightly Bullish

Figure: 2 Gold 50/200 DMA

Silver

Silver has an uglier chart. The 50 DMA is still trapped well below the 200 DMA. The 200 DMA is now following the 50 DMA lower, which is not usually a good sign based on history (2011, 2013, 2014, and 2017).

Outlook: Bearish

Figure: 3 Silver 50/200 DMA

Comex Open Interest

The two charts below show the open interest compared to the price in both gold and silver. The overlap is not perfect, but major moves in one generally occur in tandem with the other as speculators push and pull the price around with paper contracts.

Gold

Traders got excited about gold, but then bailed at the first sign of trouble. Now open interest sits at the lower range compared to recent history. This would indicate there are more longs on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to jump in.

Outlook: Bullish, if gold regains momentum traders will be ready to follow

Figure: 4 Gold Price vs Open Interest

Silver

Silver open interest is much lower than its recent history. Some of this is due to the higher price. The chart below has been modified to show notional open interest (accounts for price). As shown, it’s hovering right around the 4-year average but well below the more recent average. Based on the pattern, it looks more likely the market sees an increase in OI that could push the price higher.

Outlook: Slightly Bullish

Figure: 5 Silver Price vs Open Interest

Margin Rates

Most traders use margin to maximize their leverage. When Comex margin requirements are lower, it means the same dollars can get greater exposure. This tends to create more contracts and drive the price higher. Conversely, when requirements are raised, it forces traders to liquidate their positions which keeps a lid on prices. Generally, when margin is low, it can be assumed that any rally will be met with higher margin requirements to slow down a price advance.

This can be seen in the chart below, specifically in 2016 and 2020. As the gold price moved up, margin requirements increased which prompted a sell-off. Margin requirements are currently higher than the 10-year average but have come down quite a bit from recent highs and sit at $7,500. Recent drops in margin have not been enough to push gold higher, but it has come down enough that any big price move up could be met with higher margin requirements, keeping a lid on prices.

Outlook: Neutral

Figure: 6 Gold Margin Dollar Rate

The situation in silver is similar to gold, but the negative correlation looks much stronger. Margin requirements spiked again in February of this year which took the wind out of silvers sail during the Q1 silver squeeze. Requirements have come down some, giving ample room for them to be raised again in the face of a big move (see 2011). If margin requirements continue falling though, it should support silver prices.

Outlook: Neutral

Figure: 7 Silver Margin Dollar Rate

Gold Miners

The price movement in mining companies tends to precede a move in the metal itself. Stocks are forward-looking and the sell-off or price spike in the miners indicate the market anticipating the future movement in gold. Below are two charts showing the historical and more recent trends.

Historically, the HUI is extremely undervalued. The HUI would have to increase 4x to reach the highs seen in the 1990s and 2000s. The sector has never really recovered from the gold price sell-off in 2008.

Figure: 8 HUI to Gold Historical Trend

Looking at the more recent trend shows how the miners typically lead the price movement in gold (e.g., Mar 2020, July 2020, Mar 2021, May 2021, Aug 2021, Oct 2021). There are exceptions such as April 2020, but lately the gold stocks are front-running the price moves in gold.

The current ratio has recovered some in recent days after a big move down. Perhaps the miners were a bit too bearish going into the Fed meeting. That being said, if the miners cannot recover in the coming weeks, it could mean momentum in gold is stalling.

Outlook: Bearish until the ratio improves more

Figure: 9 HUI to Gold Current Trend

Trade Volume

Love or hate the traders/speculators in the paper futures market, but it’s impossible to ignore the impact they have on price. The charts below show that the more active they are, the more prices tend to move up.

After the November run-up, trade volume spiked down hard and fast. It now sits back at the lower range over the past two years. This is the case in both gold and silver. Given there is less room to go down, it means there is more room to go up.

Neutral to slightly bullish in both

Figure: 10 Gold Volume and Open Interest

Figure: 11 Silver Volume and Open Interest

Other drivers

USD and Treasuries

Price action can be driven by activity in the Treasury market or US Dollar exchange rate. A big move up in gold will often occur simultaneously with a move down in US debt rates (a move up in Treasury prices) or a move down in the dollar. This relationship can also be seen over longer time periods as the chart below demonstrates. While gold magnifies the move, the pops and dips tend to move in the same direction.

Please note: IEF is the 7–10-year iShares ETF (a move up represents falling rates) and the Dollar return is inverted in this chart to show a positive correlation. They are also plotted on the right y-axis to better show the price movement.

Figure: 12 Price Compare DXY, GLD, 10-year

Last month highlighted how the dollar and gold were moving together (shown above as the blue and green lines converge in November). This was raised as the biggest area of caution across all the metrics because it was more likely the currency markets were correctly pricing the next move. The two are now back in sync which means if the dollar weakens further in the aftermath of the December Fed meeting, gold should benefit.

Outlook: Neutral

Gold Silver Ratio

Gold and silver are very highly correlated but do not move in perfect lockstep. The gold/silver ratio is used by traders to determine relative value between the two metals. Historically, the ratio averages between 40 and 60, so outside this ban can indicate a coming reversion to the mean.

Silver closed the gap some in the November run-up but has since given up all its gains relative to gold. On Dec 15 (Fed meeting day), the ratio (81.9) was the highest it had been since the silver price spike last July. Silver still has more ground to make up relative to gold.

Outlook: Silver Bullish relative to Gold

Figure: 13 Gold Silver Ratio

Bringing it all together

The table below shows a snapshot of the trends that exist in the plots above. It compares current values to one month, one year, and three years ago. It also looks at the 50 and 200 daily moving averages. While DMAs are typically only calculated for prices, the DMA on the other variables can show where the current values stack compared to recent history.

Almost all the charts above painted a neutral picture. Not bearish, but not immediately bullish either. Below, the one-month and one-year views show nearly every variable as being worse in the current period. Given that gold has held up relatively well and is still challenging $1800 is a good sign. It means there is dry powder on the sidelines should gold and silver regain their momentum.

Other takeaways:

• Gold and silver prices are down 3.5% and a massive 10.5%
  • Silver led the sell-off in gold which differed from last month
• The HUI gold ratio collapsed by 6.6% this month and is off 12.7% from one year ago
  • Either the miners need to catch up or gold needs to fall
• Volume is down by 23% in gold and 40% in silver compared to last month
• The open interest ratio in silver actually increased. This is because OI only fell by 7.8% but the price fell by 10.5%
  • Gold only fell 3.5% compared to a fall of 17.7% in open interest
• Most current values are also below the 50 day and 200-day averages
  • In gold, the 50 DMAs are all above the 200 DMAs. The opposite is true in silver.

 

Figure: 14 Summary Table

The analysis last month concluded noting that the bullish setup was so extreme it could almost be viewed as bearish. Looking back, it appears the market was hoping for a big move higher on an unexpected Brainard nomination. Trades were unwound when this failed to materialize.

This month is very different. Almost all metrics look neutral. Does this mean gold will continue its range bound moves around $1800? Or is this the quiet before the storm? The data shows a market looking for a catalyst. The new year should bring an abundance of new catalysts (Inflation/Jobs data, USD, Fed meetings, etc.) The market has become entirely Fed-dependent, and the Fed is beating a hawkish drum now. Thus, upside action may be limited in gold until the market realizes the Fed will not actually be hawkish.

With a total GDP of $432.3 billion, Nigeria has become the biggest economy on the African continent over the last 30 years. While the five highest spots on this ranking have been more or less constant over the last three decades, Statista’s Florian Zandt notes that the rest of the top 8 are subject to bigger fluctuations as our chart shows.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Libya, for example, managed to come in sixth in 1990 and 2005, but dropped out of the top 8 and only made the 17th rank in 2020. One of the most probable reasons for this dropoff is the Second Libyan Civil War. The multi-sided conflict started in 2014 in the aftermath of the election results of 2012 putting the General National Congress into power. Kenya, on the other hand, passed a new constitution in 2010 which limited the power held by the country’s president and enabled business and technology centers like Nairobi to grow. The city is now home to the African offices of Google, Coca-Cola, IBM and Cisco, among others.

Nigeria’s first place is largely attributable to its rapidly expanding financial sector, which grew from one percent of the total GDP in 2001 to ten percent in 2018, and its role as one of the world leaders in petroleum exports. The growing tech hub of Lagos, the second-largest metropolitan area in Africa and among the largest in the world, is also likely to further bolster Nigeria’s growth in the coming years, even though the divide between the part of the population living in slums without access to basic sanitation and its upper class making the city one of the most expensive in the world is likely to grow as well. This is also reflected in its comparably low GDP per capita of $2,100. When considering this indicator, Nigeria doesn’t even make the top 10 in Africa.

Of the 54 countries in Africa, only four countries made the top 50 of all nations with the highest GDP according to data from World Bank. The top spots on this list are reserved for the US, China, Japan and Germany, whose residents generate a combined GPD of $45 trillion, a whopping 50 percent of the global GDP.

Authored by Mimi Nguyen Ly via The Epoch Times,

A study published in the British Medical Journal late Thursday suggests Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine is up to four times more likely to cause heart inflammation—myocarditis or myopericarditis—than Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccination with [Moderna’s vaccine] was associated with a significantly increased risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis in the Danish population,” and the rate was “threefold to fourfold higher” with the Moderna vaccine compared to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, authors said in the study, which spanned almost 85 percent of Danes, or 4.9 million people aged 12 and older.

The increased risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis with the Moderna vaccine was “primarily driven by an increased risk among individuals aged 12-39 years,” said the researchers, from Denmark’s Statens Serum Institute.

The population-based cohort study, published Dec. 16 in the British Medical Journal (the BMJ), also corroborated previous studies and reports such as those from Israel and the United States that say there is an increased risk of myocarditis or myopericarditis with taking the mRNA-based Moderna or Pfizer vaccines.

Absolute Number of Cases ‘Low,’ Most Were ‘Mild’

Authors of the study wrote that the absolute rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis the mRNA-based vaccine “was low, even in younger age groups.

“The benefits of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination should be taken into account when interpreting these findings,” they added.

“Larger multinational studies are needed to further investigate the risks of myocarditis or myopericarditis after vaccination within smaller subgroups.”

In the study, researchers analyzed nationwide registers in Denmark that show the country’s population data on vaccination, hospital admissions, and results of laboratory assays of blood samples.

Within 28 days of vaccination, they found an absolute rate of myocarditis or myopericarditis for the Pfizer vaccine at 1.4 per 100,000 people (or about 1 case per 71,400), and for the Moderna vaccine at 4.2 per 100,000 people (or about 1 case per 23,800), according to the study results.

Most of the cases were “predominantly mild,” the authors wrote.

They noted that Pfizer’s vaccine “was only associated with a significantly increased risk among women,” which contrasts with results of studies from Israel and the United States. The discrepancy could be explained by the average age of the vaccinated population, the time span between the first and second shot, or because fewer Danes had tested positive for COVID-19, they said.

The authors also noted that the Pfizer vaccine was found “to be significantly associated with myocarditis or myopericarditis event when using a narrowed 14 day time window.”

In a statement, study author Anders Hviid said the findings of the study “do not generally overshadow the many benefits that come with being vaccinated.”

He added, “One must keep in mind that the alternative of getting an infection with COVID-19 probably also involves a risk of inflammation in the heart muscle.”

The researchers said they found both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were associated with around a 50 percent reduced risk of cardiac arrest or death compared with unvaccinated people.

The observational study cannot establish any causal relationships, and there may be some sources of bias, such as increased public awareness of potential side effects of the mRNA-based vaccines that may have affected the results, the authors said.

In the United States, vaccine manufacturers are immune from liability for any adverse reactions unless there’s “willful misconduct” involved.

Health care providers who administer COVID-19 vaccines are required by law to report any serious adverse effects or vaccination administration errors to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

On Friday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry published a document detailing security proposals it put forward to the US and NATO as Moscow is eager to begin negotiating for guarantees from the Western powers. The requests reflect statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials that have been made over the past month as tensions have been simmering over Ukraine. One of Moscow’s main concerns is over NATO’s eastward expansion.

According to Russia’s TASS news agency, the document says the US should “take measures to prevent further eastward expansion” of NATO and ensure no more former Soviet states, such as Ukraine, join the military alliance. The Russians want the US to pledge not to build any bases or use military infrastructure in former Soviet states that are not NATO members.

The proposal calls for the US and Russia to refrain from deploying military forces to areas where such deployments can be viewed as a threat. The document reads: 

“The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.”

Over the past year, the US and its NATO allies have stepped up military activity in the Black Sea, near Russian territory. In November, Moscow said US bombers were rehearsing attacks on Russia and came within 12.4 miles of the country’s borders.

Russia repeated a call in its proposal for a moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range missiles that were previously banned under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which the US withdrew from in 2019.

The proposal also addressed the deployment of nuclear weapons. “The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed outside their national territories,” the document says.

Western media reports portrayed Russia’s proposals as “tough demands” that will almost certainly be rejected. NATO officials told The New York Times that the proposal concerning NATO expansion was “unacceptable,” although they said they were still open to dialogue with Moscow.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Friday that the US was willing to negotiate the proposals with Russia. “We’re going to put on the table our concerns,” he said at a Council on Foreign Relations event. A US official told The Associated Press that Washington plans to consult with European allies on Russia’s proposals and plans to respond to Moscow sometime next week.

For their part, the Russians are eager to negotiate. “We are ready to immediately, even tomorrow — literally tomorrow, on Saturday, December 18th — to go for talks with the US in a third country,” said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.