Trust Issues And Climate Scientists

Trust Issues And Climate Scientists

Judging by the sound and fury from the media, climate change and its current and future effects is the most pressing issue of our time.

But, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, as world leaders gather at the COP26 climate change conference to discuss and negotiate solutions to the crisis, in some regions of the world, there are significant shares of the population that have little or no trust in what ‘scientists’ are warning us about the environment.

Infographic: Trust Issues and Climate Scientists | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

According to a new survey by the World Economic Forum, 16 percent of North Americans admit to trust issues when it comes to climate science.

This group is smaller in East Asia & the Pacific and Western Europe but still amounts to 9 percent according to the survey conducted in the fall of 2021.

Globally the figure is 7 percent, although 68 percent say they have a lot or a great deal of trust.

South Asia was the stand-out region for trust in climate scientists – here just 3 percent signified a lack of trust compared to a massive 84 percent on the other side of the climate change fence.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 22:05

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

Bubbles Weren’t Built In A Day, So Bond Purchases Will Continue

Bubbles Weren’t Built In A Day, So Bond Purchases Will Continue

By Ven Ram, Bloomberg Markets live commentator and analyst

 U.S. employers added more than half a million jobs in October, sending stocks to yet another record high on Friday. Over the weekend we also learnt that China exported much more than economists had penciled in — suggesting that demand to consume goods and services from around the world is robust. And most economies around the world are on track to grow at a pace that is well above trend growth next year.

Yet, if you looked at key yields across much of the developed world, you could be forgiven for thinking that the global economy is in dire straits.

And we still have central banks actively buying bonds, supposedly meant to support their economies. There is no question that monetary policy is too loose relative to where most of the developed-market economies are, spawning imbalances in financial markets and providing a backdrop conducive for asset bubbles to build.

Central banks are behind the curve, and seem to be willingly so: we got a taste of that with the Bank of England, which after weeks of warning about the dangers of runaway inflation, failed to walk its talk.

Raising rates, we were told, will not produce more gas or more semiconductor chips — meaning central banks can’t battle a supply problem. But how is that when the economy is hit with a pandemic and people are reluctant to travel and fill hotel rooms, central banks find it convenient to slash rates?

Do lower rates — or worse, central bank bond purchases — cure either of those? And therein is the big lesson for traders: monetary authorities will give us cockamamie excuses to lower rates with impunity, but will always be reluctant to raise them with anywhere near the same level of urgency simply because that’s just politically convenient. After all no one gets blamed for keeping rates artificially low.

Unfortunately, that means that financial markets are destined to lurch from one bubble to another.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 21:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3F2G0og Tyler Durden

How Does Your Personality Type Affect Your Income?

How Does Your Personality Type Affect Your Income?

You’ve just finished giving a presentation at work, and an outspoken coworker challenges your ideas. Do you:

a) Engage in a friendly debate about the merits of each argument, or

b) Avoid a conflict by agreeing or changing the subject?

As Visual Capitalist’s Jenna Ross details below, the way you approach this type of situation may influence how much money you earn.

Today’s infographic comes to us from Truity, and it outlines the potential relationship between personality type and income.

Through the Myers-Briggs Lens

The Myers-Briggs personality test serves as a robust framework for analyzing the connection between personality and income, in a way that is easily understood and familiar to many people.

The theory outlines four personality dimensions that are described using opposing traits.

  • Extraversion vs. Introversion: Extroverts gain energy by interacting with others, while introverts draw energy from spending time alone.

  • Sensing vs. Intuition: Sensors prefer concrete and factual information, while intuitive types use their imagination or wider patterns to interpret information.

  • Thinking vs. Feeling: Thinkers make rational decisions based on logic, while feelers make empathetic decisions considering the needs of others.

  • Judging vs. Perceiving: Judging types organize their life in a structured manner, while perceiving types are more flexible and spontaneous.

For example, someone who aligns with extraversion, sensing, thinking, and judging would be described as an ESTJ type.

The researchers surveyed over 72,000 people to measure these four personality preferences, as well as 23 unique facets of personality, income levels, and career-related data.

Traits With the Highest Earning Potential

Based on the above four dimensions, extroverts, sensors, thinkers, and judgers tend to be the most financially successful. Diving into specific personality characteristics, certain traits are more closely correlated with higher income.

 

For instance, extroverts are much more likely to have higher incomes if they are quick to share thoughts, have high energy, and like being in the public eye. Thinkers also score high on income potential, especially if they enjoy debates, make rational decisions, and moderate their emotions.

 

The Top Earners

Which personality types earn the highest incomes of all? Extroverted thinking types dominate the ranks again.

Source: Truity

The one exception is INTJs, with 10% earning an annual salary of $150K or more in their peak earning years.

Personality and the Gender Pay Gap

With all these factors in mind, the researchers analyzed whether personality differences would affect the gender pay gap.

When the average salaries were separated for men and women, the results were clear: men of almost all personality types earn more than the average income for the sample overall, while all but two personality types of women earned less than the average.

Source: Truity

In fact, women with high-earning personality types still earn less than men who do not possess those traits. For example, extroverted women earn about $55,000 annually, while introverted men earn an average of over $64,000.

Maximizing Your Potential

Are the introverted personalities of the world doomed to lower salaries? Not necessarily—while personality does play a role, many other factors contribute to income levels:

  • Level of education

  • Years of experience

  • Local job market

  • Type of industry

  • The particular career

Not only that, anyone can work on the two specific personality traits most aligned with higher incomes: set ambitious goals, and face conflict head-on to ensure your voice is heard.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 21:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31ObNer Tyler Durden

Panel Discussion on Qualified Immunity Next Week

Next week, the Harvard Law School’s Federalist Society will host a discussion about qualified immunity, featuring two critics of the doctrine (me, and Joanna Schwartz) as well as two people who are closer to defenders, or at least skeptics of the critics (Scott Keller, and Judge Andrew Oldham). Judge Don Willett, author of several prominent opinions about qualified immunity, will moderate.

The event will be on Tuesday, 11/16, at 12:45 pm ET, and you can register here: https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bLLNWz0rTOC5lO3ndGSYTQ.

And if you want to do the reading beforehand:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n05ixj
via IFTTT

Panel Discussion on Qualified Immunity Next Week

Next week, the Harvard Law School’s Federalist Society will host a discussion about qualified immunity, featuring two critics of the doctrine (me, and Joanna Schwartz) as well as two people who are closer to defenders, or at least skeptics of the critics (Scott Keller, and Judge Andrew Oldham). Judge Don Willett, author of several prominent opinions about qualified immunity, will moderate.

The event will be on Tuesday, 11/16, at 12:45 pm ET, and you can register here: https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bLLNWz0rTOC5lO3ndGSYTQ.

And if you want to do the reading beforehand:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n05ixj
via IFTTT

Feds Seek To Block Promotion Of Nasal Spray Against COVID-19

Feds Seek To Block Promotion Of Nasal Spray Against COVID-19

Authored by Alice Giordano via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The leading U.S. manufacturer of xylitol-based products says the federal government is deliberately trying to conceal a nasal spray it developed that it says has been scientifically proven to be effective in treating and preventing COVID-19.

A battle is on in the courts over whether certain nasal sprays can be used as a treatment, or preventative, for COVID 19. (Thorsten Frenzel/Pixabay)

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in federal court against Utah-based company Xlear on Oct. 28, saying it has deceptively advertised its nasal spray as a treatment and preventative of COVID-19.

The lawsuit asks a federal court to permanently ban the company from promoting the nasal spray as a treatment for COVID-19 and also asks that monetary penalties be levied against it.

COVID-19 is the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, commonly known as the novel coronavirus.

The DOJ filed the complaint on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, which alleges the company has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Consumer Protection Act by making false claims about the benefits.

The spray’s main ingredients are saline, grapefruit seed extract, and xylitol, a plant-derived sweetener commonly used in oral care products.

“Companies can’t make unsupported health claims, no matter what form a product takes, or what it supposedly prevents or treats,” said Samuel Levine, director of the trade commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a press release on the lawsuit.

“That’s the lesson of this case and many others like it, and it’s why people should continue to rely on medical professionals over ads.”

The commission and the Justice Department declined to make any further comment.

Xlear’s attorney Robert Housman, of the Washington firm Book Hill Partners, told The Epoch Times that the commission is “flat out lying” about the company’s claims being unsupported.

Housman pointed out that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)—along with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services—funded clinical studies of the use of nasal sprays like Xlear’s and published findings last year that found they were an effective treatment and method of prevention for COVID-19.

“When Xlear tells people about scientific studies, even ones republished by the NIH, we are somehow misleading people and making false claims. It’s nonsensical,” Housman told The Epoch Times.

Rather than embrace nasal interventions, the government is trying to eliminate their use because they don’t fit the government’s highly flawed, vaccine-only agenda.

On Sept. 20, 2020, the NIH and NIAID published the findings of a random clinical trial they funded at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Tennessee on the merits of using hypertonic nasal saline irrigations to combat the CCP virus.

The researchers in that study wrote that the “effect of nasal irrigation on symptom resolution was substantial,” reporting that “nasal congestion and headaches in COVID patients resolved an average seven to nine days earlier” in the study group.

“Our analysis suggests that nasal irrigations may shorten symptom duration and may have potential as a widely available and inexpensive intervention to reduce disease burden among those affected,” the researchers wrote in their findings.

“We would advocate the use of hypertonic nasal saline irrigations in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients as a safe and inexpensive intervention to reduce symptom burden.”

Housman pointed out that the NIH also published the results of a clinical trial, held a few months later in November at the Larkin Community Hospital in Florida, that found the Xlear nasal spray specifically cleared symptoms of the disease in half the time.

In addition to the Tennessee and Florida trials, another random clinical trial—more recently conducted at Augusta University’s Emergency Department in Georgia—also concluded that the use of nasal spray was beneficial in treating COVID-19.

Researchers in the university trial, which is still ongoing, have so far found that patients with the CCP virus that participated in daily nasal irrigation were eight times less likely to be hospitalized than the national rate.

The Justice Department didn’t specifically cite the Larkin, Vanderbilt, or Augusta trials in its lawsuit.

It instead cited the results of lab studies conducted earlier at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill and the University of Tennessee involving in vitro and animal testing, neither of which the DOJ and FTC argue is a viable way to test nasal spray for live, human COVID-19 patients.

The lawsuit additionally pointed out that the University of Tennessee study is based on a nasal spray containing iota-carrageenan, which the Xlear spray does not contain and, therefore, cannot be used as scientific evidence to support Xlear’s claims.

The lawsuit also stated that researchers at Chapel Hill admitted that without further research it couldn’t conclusively determine that  “administering treatment through the nose is the best way to treat COVID-19.”

Housman said the trade commission cherry-picked findings within the lab studies to make them fit its agenda.

The federal government has warned companies against promoting nasal sprays for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19.

BlueWillow Biologics, a Michigan biopharmaceutical company that manufactures a nasal antiseptic, and the Miami-based company Halodine, which created a proprietary iodine-based nasal antiseptic swab, both received warning letters earlier this year from the FDA to discontinue their promotion of their nasal products as a safe and effective treatment for COVID-19.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 21:05

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

Mastercard Launches Bitcoin Payment Cards in Asia-Pacific

Mastercard Launches Bitcoin Payment Cards in Asia-Pacific

Authored by ‘Namcios’ via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The card giant partnered with three bitcoin service providers in the region to enable consumers to spend BTC anywhere that accepts Mastercard…

  • Consumers and businesses in the Asia Pacific region can now apply for bitcoin-linked Mastercard credit, debit, and prepaid cards.

  • The card giant partnered with cryptocurrency service providers Amber, Bitkub, and CoinJar to enable customers to pay for regular purchases with BTC.

  • On the backend, cryptocurrency in the user’s account is instantly converted into fiat currency to allow the payment.

Card giant Mastercard has partnered with cryptocurrency service providers Amber Group, Bitkub, and CoinJar to offer bitcoin-linked payment cards across the Asia Pacific region, the company said in a statement on November 8. These firms are the first APAC-based platforms to join the card issuer’s global Crypto Card Program, which seeks to make it easier for bitcoin and cryptocurrency firms to offer payment cards to their customers.

“For the first time, consumers and businesses in the Asia Pacific region will be able to apply for crypto-linked Mastercard credit, debit or prepaid cards that will enable them to instantly convert their cryptocurrencies into traditional fiat currency, which can be spent everywhere Mastercard is accepted around the world,” per the announcement.

Cardholders will be able to use their Mastercard through the arrangement established between the card issuer and the bitcoin service providers, which entails having the corresponding amount of BTC or other cryptocurrency be deducted from the user’s account and instantly converted into fiat currency.

“Cryptocurrencies are many things to people — an investment, a disruptive technology, or a unique financial tool. As interest and attention surges from all quarters, their real-world applications are now emerging beyond the speculative,” said Rama Sridhar, Mastercard’s Asia Pacific executive VP of digital and emerging partnerships.

In July, Mastercard announced the creation of a simplified payments card offering for Bitcoin and cryptocurrency companies. The product sought to reduce friction in experience and provide greater choice for consumers by helping facilitate the conversion between BTC and fiat currency.

“In collaboration with these partners that adhere to the same core principles that Mastercard does…Mastercard is expanding what’s possible with cryptocurrencies to give people even greater choice and flexibility in how they pay.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 20:25

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

Cheese Prices Crumble After Cyberattack Hits Top Wisconsin Dairy Producer 

Cheese Prices Crumble After Cyberattack Hits Top Wisconsin Dairy Producer 

A cyber attack disrupted dairy distribution in Wisconsin late last month, resulting in a big plunge in cheese prices. 

A spokesman for one of the state’s largest milk processors, Schreiber Foods, told local newspaper, Wisconsin Farmer, that a five days “cyber event” halted operations as hackers demanded a rumored $2.5 million in ransom.

The ransomware attack began on Saturday (Oct. 23) and limited the company from buying 500-pound barrels of cheese, which are turned into slices and sold at supermarkets. 

In a recent statement, the company said, “we had a systems issue that impacted our plants and distribution centers. It did impact our ability to receive raw materials, ship product and produce product. We’ve made good progress in resolving the issue and our plants and distribution centers have begun to start up again.”

The five-day ordeal triggered spot prices for cheese barrels traded in Chicago to plunge 19% in the last week or so. 

The cyberattack on the dairy processor comes as hackers have targeted food supply chains. JBS SA, the world’s largest meat producer, was hit with a ransomware attack by hacker group REvil in June. 

Compound cyberattacks with supply chain woes, including port congestion, higher transportation costs, labor woes, and soaring commodity prices, it’s never been harder to be in the food industry.

 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 20:05

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

John Durham Is Getting Close To The Jugular

John Durham Is Getting Close To The Jugular

Authored by Charles Lipson via RealClearPolitics.com,

Last week, John Durham’s grand jury issued its third criminal indictment in the Trump-Russia collusion hoax. The person who was arrested may be obscure; the news may have been buried after Virginia’s bombshell election results; but Durham’s move is a big deal. It shows that the special counsel’s probe is methodically unraveling a huge conspiracy, seemingly engineered by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and implicating James Comey’s FBI, either as a willing participant or as utterly incompetent boobs.

The latest indictment also damages the mainstream media, which is why so many news outlets have ignored or underplayed it. After all, they broadcast a false story for years and are none too eager to revisit it. Other losers are the prosecutors assembled by Robert Mueller, most of them Democrats, who had reams of this damaging information and ignored it.

What Durham and a few intrepid reporters are uncovering may well be the most ambitious dirty trick pulled in an American election and its aftermath. The question now is whether Durham can expose the full extent of this malfeasance and charge those who planned and executed it.

Durham’s latest indictment charges Igor Danchenko (pictured) with lying multiple times to the FBI. Danchenko, who worked at the Brookings Institution as a Russian expert, may not be a household name, but he was a crucial player in concocting the false story that Donald Trump was collaborating with the Kremlin to win the White House. The real conspiracy, it turns out, was aimed at Trump and was conducted by the Clinton campaign and her longtime associates. It was financed jointly by Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Some leaked emails suggested it was approved by the candidate herself. The FBI continued running with it long after it had ample evidence to know it was a concoction. House Democrats ran with it even longer, basking in fulsome, uncritical media coverage. All of it was false.

The Danchenko indictment matters because his bogus information was the heart of the “Steele dossier,” which, in turn, was the heart of the anti-Trump investigation. The dossier was compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, who had been hired by people working for Clinton. Steele claimed his information about Trump, including salacious sexual allegations, came from Russian sources. It didn’t. It came from Danchenko, who was working at a Washington think tank. As Danchenko admitted to the FBI, much of what he told Steele was old rumors or exaggerations. Some of it appears to have  been simply fabricated. Steele incorporated it, and the Democrats deployed it.

The FBI interviewed Danchenko multiple times in January 2017, around the time Trump was taking office. Comey’s FBI had already received the dossier and his agents were trying to verify its allegations. They couldn’t do so, and Danchenko’s admissions told them why. His interrogation should have immediately stopped the FBI from using the dossier to investigate Trump. So should a warning from Bruce Ohr, the highest-ranking career official in the Department of Justice, that Steele was strongly biased. The FBI blew right through these red lights.

The bureau continued to use the bogus information in applying for secret warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to spy on Carter Page and, through him, on others connected with Trump. Officials told the court, falsely, that the warrant information was reliable and verified when they knew it was neither.

What the warrants say, in essence, is, “We need to spy on Carter Page because we think he’s an enemy agent.” But the FBI already knew he wasn’t. That means they were trolling for other information. How did the FBI know Page was on our side? Because they asked the CIA and were told, quite explicitly, that Page was helping them, not the Kremlin. The CIA gave that exculpatory information to FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who altered the message to say Page was not working for the CIA. His alternation was criminal, and he plead guilty after Durham charged him.

The story gets worse. Although Clinesmith altered the CIA message for FBI use, he also gave his superiors the CIA’s true communication. So, his bosses knew the real story. They weren’t interested in the truth, which they kept secret from the FISA court to continuing spying on Page. If there is any justice left in Washington, those responsible for this travesty will be held criminally liable. Page may well have a civil case against them, too.

As the FBI blundered forward on its political mission, it made other revealing missteps. The most important was Director Comey’s meeting with the incoming president in early January 2017. Comey told Trump the FBI had acquired some damning materials about him but emphasized they were still unverified. As Comey’s own aides warned him, that communication could be seen as a kind of blackmail threat, the kind that marked J. Edgar Hoover’s tenure.

Comey’s meeting with the president had another major consequence. Until then, even anti-Trump news outlets had been wary about mentioning the dossier (which the Clinton team had been shopping to them) because they couldn’t actually verify any of the vital details. That reticence changed with Comey’s briefing, which was news in its own right. The story now became, “FBI chief briefs president-elect Trump about salacious dossier, revealing damning info Kremlin could use to blackmail Trump.” One online outlet, BuzzFeed, went further. It published the full Steele dossier, and the media frenzy began.

Remember, this whole story was concocted and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and fed to the FBI and the media by her attorneys and associates. The FBI, which should have been able to quickly prove the story was false, plodded on with its investigation and fed the frenzy.

Although the dossier was commissioned to sink Trump in November, it was still useful after he won the election. Trump’s adversaries could exploit it to hamstring his embryonic administration, and that’s exactly what they did. With the whole-hearted backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff spent three years beating the drum of the “Russia collusion” hoax. Schiff’s constant media appearances claiming he had conclusive evidence of Trump-Russia collaboration continued long after he had received classified briefings that demolished his story. The briefer was former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, and he has confirmed those meetings with Schiff and his Senate counterpart, Mark Warner. No matter to Schiff, who kept repeating his claims and pursuing his full-scale investigation. First the verdict; then the inquiry. It was all part of a four-year-long battle, first to prevent Trump’s election, then to undermine his presidency, and finally to damage his chances for reelection.

The Clinton team launched this operation with professional expertise. The goal was to produce a powerful anti-Trump story, using whatever materials they could, then share it with the media (to smear Trump) and the FBI (to launch a major investigation and ensnare Trump). Ideally, the campaign’s involvement would be hidden, removed from the damning report by several layers of lawyers, opposition researchers, camp followers, and flacks.

To provide that insulation, the campaign used attorney Marc Elias, then at Perkins Coie law firm in Washington (where the recently indicted Michael Sussmann was a colleague), to hire an opposition-research firm, Fusion GPS. That firm, headed by former reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, in turn hired Steele, a Brit who had formerly worked for his country’s intelligence services, to produce the damning dossier. To translate some Russian materials, Fusion GPS hired Nellie Ohr, whose husband, Bruce, learned how biased Steele was and told the FBI to treat Steele and his information warily.

Bureau agents ignored that early warning and all the others. They quickly learned Steele’s material was a mirage, thanks to their interviews with Danchenko. They also confirmed that Steele’s dossier depended on Danchenko, so its claims of “Russian sourcing” were false. By interviewing Danchenko’s own sources, they learned that their third-hand statements, which were used in the dossier, were mainly rumors and “bar talk.”

The prosecutorial team assembled by Robert Mueller should have known all this, too. They had complete access to this exculpatory FBI material on day one and ignored it. A year and a half later, when Mueller himself finally testified before Congress, he didn’t even know what Fusion GPS was. By that point, Mueller seemed to have genuine difficulty remembering the details of his own investigation. His team of attorneys had no such excuse. Hired by Mueller’s top deputy, Andrew Weissmann, they were among the country’s sharpest and toughest prosecutors — and the most partisan. The more Durham uncovers, the worse the Mueller team will look.

Reviewing this evidence, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has concluded the Steele dossier is misnamed. It should be called the “Clinton dossier,” she says, since Hillary commissioned it, paid for it, and had her aides feed it to the media, the State Department, and the FBI. It was a full-scale disinformation campaign — coherent, well-organized, and well-funded. It was rotten to the core.

The question now is whether John Durham can find enough evidence to charge the ones who planned and executed it. The charging documents he filed for Danchenko and Sussmann are far more extensive than the necessary minimum. They suggest that Durham has compiled extensive evidence about a broader conspiracy. Will he settle for the capillaries now that he has the jugular in view?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 19:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30fhVMm Tyler Durden

Americans Are The Most “Miserable” In Decades

Americans Are The Most “Miserable” In Decades

In his latest economic daily, BofA’s chief economist Ethan Harris eyes the recent article from the New York Times which summarized the foul mood Americans are in as follows “Americans Are Flush With Cash and Jobs. They Also Think the Economy Is Awful,” and lays out his view as to why this is happening. In a nutshell:

  • The growth outlook is very strong, but this is offset by the first serious bout of inflation in decades.
  •  The “misery index”, a simple sum of the unemployment rate and consumer price inflation, has moved sharply higher.
  • This “misery” is expected to fall in the months ahead as easing supply constraints lower both unemployment and inflation.

First, a quick primer: in the late-1960s, Arthur Okun created a simple statistic to capture the cost of stagflation. His “misery index” simply added the unemployment rate to headline inflation. Over time the index dropped off the radar screen, but in the past year it has staged a dramatic comeback.

Putting the index in context, after today’s record PPI print tomorrow consensus expects year-over-year CPI inflation to rise from 5.4% to 5.9% for October, more than offsetting the drop in the unemployment rate, and boosting the misery index to 10.5%. That, according to Harris, is the highest in recent decades, outside of a couple years around the Great Financial Crisis, and the 1990 recession and oil price spike.

Of course, some positive spin is mandatory here, and the BofA chief economist writes that “the good news is that a big chunk of this is the temporary impact of supply constraints. Worker shortages and capacity issues have both slowed the drop in the unemployment rate and caused many prices to spike higher.” Furthermore, with the Delta wave receding, BofA expects the labor market to pick up speed even as headline inflation cools. It’s why the bank expects the Misery Index to drop to 6.3%, with a 3.5% unemployment rate and 2.8% inflation.

That said, such an optimistic forecast is hardly encouraging to those Americans who are suffering from runaway inflation now.

It’s also why besides the obvious social implications, this index is important to both the economic and political outlook. On the economic front, high inflation acts as “tax” on real spending power, although this is currently offset by massive cash balances (which benefit mostly the top 10%) and a recovering labor market.

On the political front, BofA notes that a standard model of elections includes three variables: high inflation and weak growth in the election year hurts the party in control of the White House, and there is a tendency for the incumbent party to do poorly in the midterms regardless of the economy.

As BofA concludes, if these models are correct, then Democrats may be in better shape by next fall when the misery index is expected to dip, although as Harris admits, “split government is probably still the most likely outcome.”

Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/09/2021 – 19:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3D3Hn5w Tyler Durden