Rabobank: The Problem Is No Central Bank Can Bail Out The Physical Economy From Shortages

Rabobank: The Problem Is No Central Bank Can Bail Out The Physical Economy From Shortages

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Back in the days before infinite liquidity and markets being in love with the idea of being big just for the sake of it, there used to be discussion about the difference between extensive and intensive growth. Put simply, extensive growth is achieved by adding more inputs to get more output; intensive growth is achieved by getting more output from existing inputs – what we call ‘productivity’. Back in the old days, we used to have that too.

Extensive vs. intensive comes to mind on the back of yet another stronger-than-expected US inflation print (0.4% m/m, 5.4% y/y; 0.2% m/m core, 4.0% y/y). This was followed by the White House announcing early results of its supply chain task force. The longshoreman and the short is: the Port of LA is expanding to 24/7 operation; the union has announced they are willing to work extra shifts; and large US companies are announcing they will use expanded hours to move more cargo off the docks, so ships can come to shore faster. So, crisis over?

Not at all, in the view of supply-chain experts. Well before this announcement they had pointed out –as did we, in ‘In Deep Ship’— that simply getting containers out of the terminal at LA achieves very little if you don’t the solve chassis crisis; if the containers sit there waiting for trucks; or for truckers; or for rail. All you do is move the logjam from sea to shore – and that can potentially make matters worse. The Transportation Secretary running this task force is a vocal opponent of the ‘so build a bigger road’ mentality that ends up with bigger roads and the same traffic logjam. This is the same policy idea without even spending on the cement and asphalt.

Some are also asking why the White House bafflingly still hasn’t appointed a US Maritime Administrator yet. Others are asking how trying to facilitate more imports into the US, rather than banging the drum for localization and ‘just in case’, is compatible with Build Back Better and resiliency. But there is bipartisanship in failing to understand what is going wrong, and how to solve it. Florida Governor De Santis is offering his state’s ports as an alternative to LA when it isn’t practical; and a Californian Republican just introduced the SHIP Act to Congress to “ban cargo ships from idling or anchoring in the coastal waters of Southern California for the next 180 days”, so forcing dozens of vessels to hang around in the ocean for months rather than safely offshore.

In short, we are seeing a lot of moving faster, and very little moving smarter. The Grinch will easily steal Xmas, and far more, at this rate.   

Sailing on regardless, the FOMC minutes from the September 21-22 meeting said that an illustrative path of QE tapering designed to be simple to communicate and entailing a gradual, fixed reduction in net asset purchases of $10bn Treasuries and $5bn agency MBS, ending around the middle of next year, is seen as providing a straightforward and appropriate template that policymakers might follow. Of course, the Fed also noted that it could adjust the pace of tapering if economic developments were to differ substantially from what they expected – like both inflation and employment has so far, to no effect. In short, the Fed announced tapering in just a few weeks (November 3), and then actually start to taper from either mid-November or mid-December. Isn’t that fitting in a way? After all, there will almost certainly be far less *stuff* circulating in the US economy, so shouldn’t we match that with far less liquidity? Before you say yes, if you believe the Fed actually think like that, I have a port in New Mexico to sell you. They clearly have stock portfolios to worry about instead.

Meanwhile, it wouldn’t be a day ending in a y without a new global supply-chain disruption. This time China is to stop exporting refined fuel. This is just as the rest of Asia is set to consume more, as it begins to open up again. As Bloomberg puts it, quoting Oilchem: “State-owned refiners are earning more from local sales”. Which is where arguments about localization and resiliency begin to re-emerge, for some.

Staying with energy, Chinese coal prices are hitting new highs again, with this now set to be passed on to industry; by contrast, the EU are talking about tax cuts to help industry and consumers cope with rising electricity prices! Isn’t this strategy, albeit via wage increases, what we tried and failed with in the 1970s? It’s not that this is necessarily the wrong thing to do to avoid recession risks and social unrest – but it will only push prices even higher, and strain supply chains even more. Indeed, while all the headlines about the IEA’s annual energy report yesterday are naturally that we need to more than redouble our efforts to shift towards renewables, if you read the nastier details, there is also a need for massive investment in fossil fuels through to 2030. If that doesn’t arrive, high energy prices are here to stay, seems to be the message: like Xmas gifts, is it on the way though? And to some places, or everywhere?

After slowing loan growth yesterday in China, and another far-higher-than-expected trade surplus, today saw Chinese inflation data. CPI came in at 0.7% y/y vs. 0.8% last month and the same expected for this. More importantly, PPI came in at 10.7% y/y vs. 9.5% last month and 10.5% expected. Recall that coal prices alone will push this series much, much higher ahead in theory.

Staying with China, Bloomberg says “At this point, it’s no longer about salvaging the troubled China Evergrande Group or its billionaire chairman Hui Yan Ka from the debt crisis. It’s jobs, growth and, ultimately, social stability that are at stake. In other words, a bailout of the indebted developer may not be enough to underpin one of the world’s second-largest economy as payment defaults become contagious, a sales slump spreads to the whole sector, and more players see their ratings cut.” The argument is naturally parroted by Wall Street: sure, *pretend* to deal with asset bubbles, but you cannot really deal with them “because markets!” Yet Bloomberg also notes loosening policy slightly won’t change consumer psychology, and Beijing has made clear house prices are no longer going to be allowed to keep going up – so why buy a 2nd, 3rd, 4th home, etc., which accounted for 85% of recent home sales?

So, we are looking at both deflation and inflation in China, vs. just inflation everywhere else. Moreover, we are back to extensive vs. intensive growth, which Wall Street no longer understands; just as it now fails to grasp Schumpeter; just as it utterly fails to read Marx. Don’t let that all stop the Street, or Chinese markets, perpetually pricing in bailouts and hockey sticks and “transitory” and Xmas every day, however. It’s all a generation of traders have known both East and West, so who can blame them? The problem is no central bank can bail out the physical economy from shortages.

To wrap up, Aussie jobs data showed a -138K print, yet where unemployment went down to 4.6%, and only part-time jobs were apparently lost, not full-time. Extensive or intensive takes on such partial data are not really worth too much of anyone’s time. They certainly won’t be moving the RBA from not moving.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/14/2021 – 10:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3j1XcSd Tyler Durden

Are Biden Administration’s Offshore Wind Plans Just a Fantasy?

The Department of the Interior plans to auction off leases for offshore wind development all along the nation’s coastline.  From a New York Times report:

Speaking at a wind power industry conference in Boston, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said that her agency will begin to identify, demarcate and hope to eventually lease federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine and off the coasts of the Mid-Atlantic States, North Carolina and South Carolina, California and Oregon, to wind power developers by 2025.

The announcement came months after the Biden administration approved the nation’s first major commercial offshore wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts and began reviewing a dozen other potential offshore wind projects along the East Coast. On the West Coast, the administration has approved opening up two areas off the shores of Central and Northern California for commercial wind power development.

Taken together, the actions represent the most forceful push ever by federal government to promote offshore wind development.

This may be “the most forceful push ever” for offshore wind, but it will take far more than offering offshore leases to actually get meaningful amounts of offshore wind development. Offering leases for commercial wind development is but the first step in a long, and often quite expensive and conflict-ridden process.

there is no guarantee that companies will lease space in the federal waters and build wind farms. Once the offshore areas are identified, they will be subject to lengthy federal, state and local reviews. If the potential sites could harm endangered species, conflict with military activity, damage underwater archaeological sites, or harm local industries such as tourism, the federal government could deem them unsuitable for leasing.

As they have in response to other offshore wind farms, commercial fishing groups and coastal landowners will likely try to stop the projects. In the Gulf of Mexico, where oil and gas exploration is a major part of the economy, fossil fuel companies could fight the development of wind energy as a threat to not only their local operations but their entire business model.

In 2002, federal regulators said that the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound would have all its necessary permits within three years, but it never happened. Local NIMBY activists and other project opponents tied the proposal up in knots for years. Eventually, in 2017, the project’s funders gave up. Over fifteen years of investments and efforts could not navigate the regulatory permitting process when faced with concerted opposition.

The news is better here in Ohio, where it looks like LEEDCo’s Icebreaker wind project in Lake Erie is nearing the finish line, but it is absurd that this small project, envisioned over a decade ago, has taken so much time and effort. Again, an onerous regulatory environment that makes it easy for project opponents to gum up the works is largely to blame.

To the Administration’s credit, a January Executive Order on climate policy identified the need to “review siting and permitting processes on public lands and in offshore waters to identify . . . steps that can be taken, consistent with applicable law, to increase renewable energy production on those lands and in those waters.” The new announcement said little about this, beyond pledging to “facilitate a pipeline of projects that will establish confidence for the offshore wind industry.” More is necessary.

If meaningful amounts of offshore wind or other renewable energy development, and associated infrastructure, is going to get built, there needs to be far greater attention to the regulatory and permitting processes that delay and obstruct energy projects, including from Congress. Though well-intentioned, these processes are easily weaponized by project opponents. Fostering delay is often enough to kill a project, and to discourage investors from pursuing new ventures. There is also only so much federal agencies can do to fix the problem.

For all the talk about “Building Back Better” and funding green technology through a “Green New Deal,” policymakers (and legislators in particular) have given too little attention to the regulatory environment in which such investments will be made. If the Biden Administration wants to truly be effective at fostering investment in and deployment of low-carbon technologies, it will need to devote greater attention to reform of permitting processes, streamlining and rationalizing NEPA reviews, and limiting the ability of small organized groups to throw sand in the regulatory gears.  Indeed, if there were enough attention to making the permitting process more streamlined and certain, there would be more private investment in such projects, and less need for federal government largesse.

In the end, we will know whether Congress is serious about offshore wind and fostering investment in low-carbon energy based on the degree to which it addresses the permitting and regulatory environment. Without such a focus, the rest will just be for show, and we will have little clean energy to show for it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j0Pw2T
via IFTTT

Keeping Warm This Winter Could Be More Costly As Inflation Heats Up


dreamstime_xl_106695879

Rising inflation and higher demand for fuel mean most Americans will see big increases in their winter heating bills this year, the U.S. Department of Energy warns in a report released Wednesday.

About half of American households rely on natural gas for heat, and they will pay about 30 percent more for heat than last year—and perhaps as much as 50 percent more if the winter is 10 percent colder than expected, the department estimates. That means the average family that relies on natural gas to stay warm this winter will shell out $746 between October and March, up from an average of about $570 last year. Homes heated with propane or heating oil, which account for about 9 percent of U.S. households, will also see costs rise by more than 40 percent, while homes heated with electricity can expect a smaller increase of about 6 percent over last year.

“The looming increase, on top of rising prices for many consumer goods and commodities, is likely to cause stress for Americans at many income levels. Economists warn that the larger utility bills are most likely to affect those households still hobbled by the Covid-19 pandemic,” reports The Wall Street Journal.

The sharp increase in expected home-heating costs is partially a function of lower-than-normal prices last year, as the pandemic caused demand for fuels of all types to fall during 2020 and prices slid downward accordingly. But the forecasts for the coming winter expect prices to be well above their 2019 baselines too:

Fuel costs are one of the driving factors behind the stubbornly high levels of inflation the country is facing right now. Wednesday’s monthly report of the consumer price index showed year-over-year inflation of 5.4 percent, with energy prices up more than 24 percent in the past 12 months.

High energy prices are a global problem right now. In Europe, the price of gasoline has soared in recent months and energy prices as a whole are rising—though part of the problem is a complex pricing scheme imposed by the European Union that disrupts price signals to consumers, the Financial Times notes. The entire country of Lebanon was without electricity last weekend as the state-run electrical grid collapsed temporarily.

Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration & Production Council, a trade association representing energy companies, said in a statement that the situation in Europe should be a warning to the Biden administration as it considers plans for higher taxes and new regulations that will only keep increasing energy prices. “By pursuing policies that restrict supply and make it harder to produce oil and natural gas here in America, Americans will have to pay more for their energy,” she said.

There’s a lot of speculation that current levels of inflation are actually undercounting what’s happening in the economy right now. So-called shadow inflation is occuring in ways that might not show up in the consumer price index—instead of raising prices, for example, some businesses might cut back on services or simply take longer to get things done.

“The 2021 version of many services isn’t quite the same as the 2019 version. But statisticians have treated them as the same, even though some of them have gotten dramatically worse, because they don’t have a rigorous way to measure how much worse they’ve gotten,” writes Alan Cole, a former senior economist with the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, in his Full Stack Economics newsletter. “The result has been extra inflation on an unmeasured quality dimension: rather than paying more for the same good, in many places, you instead pay the same for something less than what it used to be.”

Shadow inflation can’t really happen in the energy sector, so Americans are feeling the full brunt of rising prices. Now, we’re facing an expensive winter. Even without any added burdens from federal policy makers who hike prices or crimp supply, fuel prices serve as a stark reminder that rising inflation—which could be here to stay for longer than anyone would like—has serious consequences for just about everyone.

FREE MINDS

Field Trip, a Canadian startup, is betting that more Americans would be willing to try psychotherapy with drugs like MDMA and psilocybin. The company runs clinics in Los Angeles, New York City, and Toronto, but has ambitious plans to open 75 other locations over the next three years, Vox reports:

Although ketamine is legal if prescribed by a doctor, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) lists psychedelics like psilocybin and MDMA in schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act, which says they have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. But there’s also growing evidence that psychedelics could lead to game-changing medications and, when combined with conventional therapy, may help people who aren’t seeing results through currently available treatments. Several US cities have already decriminalized psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is overseeing clinical trials into using psychedelics to treat PTSD and depression.

This potentially revolutionary approach to mental health also represents a tremendous commercial opportunity for health care and pharmaceutical companies. But despite promising, privately funded studies into psychedelics, current government regulations prevent the wider availability of psychedelic therapy.

And read Reason‘s Nick Gillespie on how the slow-rolling legalization of MDMA and other psychedelic drugs is creating opportunities for investors and individuals who want to expand their perspectives.

FREE MARKETS

There is no simple solution to the problems plaguing supply chains right now, but the Jones Act is only making things worse:

QUICK HITS

• The Food and Drug Administration will vote Thursday on whether to recommend an emergency authorization for COVID-19 booster shots for people who got the Moderna vaccine. A vote on Johnson & Johnson vaccine boosters is expected on Friday.

• Katie Couric admits she’s a hack.

• Former President Donald Trump has a bold strategy for the 2022 and 2024 elections:

• Czech voters defeat a populist.

• Playing video games isn’t correlated with a drop in personal well-being:

• There may be more shoes to drop after NFL coach Jon Gruden’s firing over homophobic remarks made in emails. The NFL players union is asking the league to make public more than 650,000 emails that it collected during an investigation into workplace misconduct.

• Captain Kirk went to space yesterday and was profoundly moved by the experience.

• Nokia will re-release its classic “brick” cellphone in honor of the device’s 20th anniversary. Yours probably still works.

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

Putin Praises Crypto As Possible ‘Weaponized’ Dollar Replacement

Putin Praises Crypto As Possible ‘Weaponized’ Dollar Replacement

Update (0920ET): Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman piled on the mockery of JPMorgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon’s dismissal of crypto by stating on this morning’s earnings call that “We’re not directly trading crypto” for retail clients but:

“I don’t think crypto’s a fad. I don’t think it’s going to go away. I don’t know what the value of Bitcoin should or shouldn’t be. These things aren’t going away.”

*  *  *

Russian President Vladimir Putin further rattled American financial officials after hinting that while he considers cryptocurrency “crude and under-developed,” it could “some day” be used instead of the US dollar to trade with.

The Russian president discussed potential use cases of cryptocurrencies in a Thursday CNBC interview following a plenary session of the ​​Russian Energy Week forum.

“I believe that it has value,” Putin told CNBC at the Russian Energy Week event in Moscow on Wednesday, when asked whether bitcoin or cryptocurrencies can be used in place of the US dollar.

“But I don’t believe it can be used in the oil trade.”

According to the interviews the Kremlin’s official website, Putin said that private cryptocurrencies “can act as a unit of account” but they are “very unstable.”

“Cryptocurrency oil contracts? It’s too early to talk about it. It works for transferring funds from one place to another, but in terms of trading, especially when it comes to energy resources, it is still premature in my opinion,” the president stated.

The Russian government has been closely monitoring the cryptocurrency market, Putin said, adding that he believes it’s possible crypto could simply become a “means of accumulation.”

“We see how his market fluctuates. It’s a bit early today.”

Right now, cryptocurrencies aren’t backed by “anything yet,” Putin said. But when asked whether he considers the crypto holdings by Tesla CEO Elon Musk to be “worthless,” Putin said no, explaining that he meant to explore crypto’s viability as a unit of account for the energy market.

Later in the interview, Putin reiterated his criticisms about how Washington’s abuse of the dollar’s dominance is tantamount to brandishing an “economic weapon”, and remains keen to ditch dollar-denominated payments.

“I believe the US makes a huge mistake in using the dollar as a sanction instrument,” he said.

“We are forced. We have no other choice but to move to transactions in other currencies.”

“In this regard, we can say the United States bites the hand that feeds it,” the world leader added.

“This dollar is a competitive advantage. It is a universal reserve currency, and the United States today uses it to pursue political goals, and they harm their strategic and economic interests as a result.”

“We aren’t interested in cutting off dollar payments completely, and we are so far satisfied with payments for energy resources in dollars, primarily for oil,” he added.

Finally, in a distinct break from China, which has worked to suppress crypto mining and trading on its mainland, Putin went on to say that “everything evolves” and “has the right to exist.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/14/2021 – 09:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3BJ6vxN Tyler Durden

Are Biden Administration’s Offshore Wind Plans Just a Fantasy?

The Department of the Interior plans to auction off leases for offshore wind development all along the nation’s coastline.  From a New York Times report:

Speaking at a wind power industry conference in Boston, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said that her agency will begin to identify, demarcate and hope to eventually lease federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine and off the coasts of the Mid-Atlantic States, North Carolina and South Carolina, California and Oregon, to wind power developers by 2025.

The announcement came months after the Biden administration approved the nation’s first major commercial offshore wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts and began reviewing a dozen other potential offshore wind projects along the East Coast. On the West Coast, the administration has approved opening up two areas off the shores of Central and Northern California for commercial wind power development.

Taken together, the actions represent the most forceful push ever by federal government to promote offshore wind development.

This may be “the most forceful push ever” for offshore wind, but it will take far more than offering offshore leases to actually get meaningful amounts of offshore wind development. Offering leases for commercial wind development is but the first step in a long, and often quite expensive and conflict-ridden process.

there is no guarantee that companies will lease space in the federal waters and build wind farms. Once the offshore areas are identified, they will be subject to lengthy federal, state and local reviews. If the potential sites could harm endangered species, conflict with military activity, damage underwater archaeological sites, or harm local industries such as tourism, the federal government could deem them unsuitable for leasing.

As they have in response to other offshore wind farms, commercial fishing groups and coastal landowners will likely try to stop the projects. In the Gulf of Mexico, where oil and gas exploration is a major part of the economy, fossil fuel companies could fight the development of wind energy as a threat to not only their local operations but their entire business model.

In 2002, federal regulators said that the Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound would have all its necessary permits within three years, but it never happened. Local NIMBY activists and other project opponents tied the proposal up in knots for years. Eventually, in 2017, the project’s funders gave up. Over fifteen years of investments and efforts could not navigate the regulatory permitting process when faced with concerted opposition.

The news is better here in Ohio, where it looks like LEEDCo’s Icebreaker wind project in Lake Erie is nearing the finish line, but it is absurd that this small project, envisioned over a decade ago, has taken so much time and effort. Again, an onerous regulatory environment that makes it easy for project opponents to gum up the works is largely to blame.

To the Administration’s credit, a January Executive Order on climate policy identified the need to “review siting and permitting processes on public lands and in offshore waters to identify . . . steps that can be taken, consistent with applicable law, to increase renewable energy production on those lands and in those waters.” The new announcement said little about this, beyond pledging to “facilitate a pipeline of projects that will establish confidence for the offshore wind industry.” More is necessary.

If meaningful amounts of offshore wind or other renewable energy development, and associated infrastructure, is going to get built, there needs to be far greater attention to the regulatory and permitting processes that delay and obstruct energy projects, including from Congress. Though well-intentioned, these processes are easily weaponized by project opponents. Fostering delay is often enough to kill a project, and to discourage investors from pursuing new ventures. There is also only so much federal agencies can do to fix the problem.

For all the talk about “Building Back Better” and funding green technology through a “Green New Deal,” policymakers (and legislators in particular) have given too little attention to the regulatory environment in which such investments will be made. If the Biden Administration wants to truly be effective at fostering investment in and deployment of low-carbon technologies, it will need to devote greater attention to reform of permitting processes, streamlining and rationalizing NEPA reviews, and limiting the ability of small organized groups to throw sand in the regulatory gears.  Indeed, if there were enough attention to making the permitting process more streamlined and certain, there would be more private investment in such projects, and less need for federal government largesse.

In the end, we will know whether Congress is serious about offshore wind and fostering investment in low-carbon energy based on the degree to which it addresses the permitting and regulatory environment. Without such a focus, the rest will just be for show, and we will have little clean energy to show for it.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3j0Pw2T
via IFTTT

Keeping Warm This Winter Could Be More Costly As Inflation Heats Up


dreamstime_xl_106695879

Rising inflation and higher demand for fuel mean most Americans will see big increases in their winter heating bills this year, the U.S. Department of Energy warns in a report released Wednesday.

About half of American households rely on natural gas for heat, and they will pay about 30 percent more for heat than last year—and perhaps as much as 50 percent more if the winter is 10 percent colder than expected, the department estimates. That means the average family that relies on natural gas to stay warm this winter will shell out $746 between October and March, up from an average of about $570 last year. Homes heated with propane or heating oil, which account for about 9 percent of U.S. households, will also see costs rise by more than 40 percent, while homes heated with electricity can expect a smaller increase of about 6 percent over last year.

“The looming increase, on top of rising prices for many consumer goods and commodities, is likely to cause stress for Americans at many income levels. Economists warn that the larger utility bills are most likely to affect those households still hobbled by the Covid-19 pandemic,” reports The Wall Street Journal.

The sharp increase in expected home-heating costs is partially a function of lower-than-normal prices last year, as the pandemic caused demand for fuels of all types to fall during 2020 and prices slid downward accordingly. But the forecasts for the coming winter expect prices to be well above their 2019 baselines too:

Fuel costs are one of the driving factors behind the stubbornly high levels of inflation the country is facing right now. Wednesday’s monthly report of the consumer price index showed year-over-year inflation of 5.4 percent, with energy prices up more than 24 percent in the past 12 months.

High energy prices are a global problem right now. In Europe, the price of gasoline has soared in recent months and energy prices as a whole are rising—though part of the problem is a complex pricing scheme imposed by the European Union that disrupts price signals to consumers, the Financial Times notes. The entire country of Lebanon was without electricity last weekend as the state-run electrical grid collapsed temporarily.

Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration & Production Council, a trade association representing energy companies, said in a statement that the situation in Europe should be a warning to the Biden administration as it considers plans for higher taxes and new regulations that will only keep increasing energy prices. “By pursuing policies that restrict supply and make it harder to produce oil and natural gas here in America, Americans will have to pay more for their energy,” she said.

There’s a lot of speculation that current levels of inflation are actually undercounting what’s happening in the economy right now. So-called shadow inflation is occuring in ways that might not show up in the consumer price index—instead of raising prices, for example, some businesses might cut back on services or simply take longer to get things done.

“The 2021 version of many services isn’t quite the same as the 2019 version. But statisticians have treated them as the same, even though some of them have gotten dramatically worse, because they don’t have a rigorous way to measure how much worse they’ve gotten,” writes Alan Cole, a former senior economist with the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, in his Full Stack Economics newsletter. “The result has been extra inflation on an unmeasured quality dimension: rather than paying more for the same good, in many places, you instead pay the same for something less than what it used to be.”

Shadow inflation can’t really happen in the energy sector, so Americans are feeling the full brunt of rising prices. Now, we’re facing an expensive winter. Even without any added burdens from federal policy makers who hike prices or crimp supply, fuel prices serve as a stark reminder that rising inflation—which could be here to stay for longer than anyone would like—has serious consequences for just about everyone.

FREE MINDS

Field Trip, a Canadian startup, is betting that more Americans would be willing to try psychotherapy with drugs like MDMA and psilocybin. The company runs clinics in Los Angeles, New York City, and Toronto, but has ambitious plans to open 75 other locations over the next three years, Vox reports:

Although ketamine is legal if prescribed by a doctor, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) lists psychedelics like psilocybin and MDMA in schedule 1 of the Controlled Substance Act, which says they have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. But there’s also growing evidence that psychedelics could lead to game-changing medications and, when combined with conventional therapy, may help people who aren’t seeing results through currently available treatments. Several US cities have already decriminalized psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is overseeing clinical trials into using psychedelics to treat PTSD and depression.

This potentially revolutionary approach to mental health also represents a tremendous commercial opportunity for health care and pharmaceutical companies. But despite promising, privately funded studies into psychedelics, current government regulations prevent the wider availability of psychedelic therapy.

And read Reason‘s Nick Gillespie on how the slow-rolling legalization of MDMA and other psychedelic drugs is creating opportunities for investors and individuals who want to expand their perspectives.

FREE MARKETS

There is no simple solution to the problems plaguing supply chains right now, but the Jones Act is only making things worse:

QUICK HITS

• The Food and Drug Administration will vote Thursday on whether to recommend an emergency authorization for COVID-19 booster shots for people who got the Moderna vaccine. A vote on Johnson & Johnson vaccine boosters is expected on Friday.

• Katie Couric admits she’s a hack.

• Former President Donald Trump has a bold strategy for the 2022 and 2024 elections:

• Czech voters defeat a populist.

• Playing video games isn’t correlated with a drop in personal well-being:

• There may be more shoes to drop after NFL coach Jon Gruden’s firing over homophobic remarks made in emails. The NFL players union is asking the league to make public more than 650,000 emails that it collected during an investigation into workplace misconduct.

• Captain Kirk went to space yesterday and was profoundly moved by the experience.

• Nokia will re-release its classic “brick” cellphone in honor of the device’s 20th anniversary. Yours probably still works.

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

Chicago Art Museum Fires Unpaid Volunteers For Being White

Chicago Art Museum Fires Unpaid Volunteers For Being White

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A prestigious art museum in Chicago fired hundreds of unpaid volunteers and replaced them with paid workers because they were too white.

Yes, really.

The Art Institute of Chicago had been able to depend on the help of 122 highly skilled volunteers, mostly older white women, to act as guides to the Museum’s collection of 300,000 works, which they explain in great detail to visitors.

The volunteers also acted as “school group greeters” to help children understand the importance of what they were seeing.

Training requirements for the position were intense, and the volunteers were apparently doing a great job.

But now they’ve now all been dismissed for not being “diverse” enough.

“Many of the volunteers—though not all—are older white women, who have the time and resources to devote so much free labor to the Museum,” reports the Why Evolution is True blog.

“But the demographics of that group weren’t appealing to the AIC, and so, in late September, the AIC fired all of them, saying they’d be replaced by smaller number of hired volunteers workers who will be paid $25 an hour. That group will surely meet the envisioned diversity goals.”

“Paying the replacements will not result in more knowledgeable docents. But they won’t be Caucasian; that’s the important thing,” writes Dave Blount.

Unfortunately for the volunteers, a lack of “diversity” is only apparently a problem at one end of the spectrum.

A similar thing happened last month when the English Touring Opera (ETO) kicked out half of its orchestral players in an effort to prioritize “increased diversity in the orchestra.”

The act of musical ethnic cleansing was carried out in the interests of following “firm guidance of the Arts Council,” which is a government-funded body.

Once again, this all underscores the fact that the only form of institutionalized racism that remains not only acceptable, but something to be encouraged, is against white people.

*  *  *

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.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/14/2021 – 09:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3AErVL5 Tyler Durden

Justice Thomas Sets the Tone in New Oral Argument Format

The Supreme Court has been utilizing a new oral argument format this term. Audio of the arguments is streamed live through the Court’s website. Advocates get a brief opportunity to introduce and frame their case, followed by a period of open questioning, followed by an opportunity for each justice, in order of seniority, to ask additional questions they may have. (This format is detailed on p. 7 of the Court’s Guide Four Counsel in Cases to Be Argued.) The new format seems to result on longer arguments, but also more probative ones, and live audio is great.

One interesting development with the new format is that Justice Thomas has asked the first question in the vast majority of arguments thus far. Indeed, as of yesterday, Justice Thomas had asked the first question to all but one of the advocates so far this term. This is a positive development, as Justice Thomas’ questions are good ones.

Now speculation about Justice Thomas’ change has replaced speculation about why he used to not speak much at all during argument. One suggestion is that Justice Thomas never liked the rough-and-tumble of open argument and did not want to interrupt his colleagues, and is now (in effect) given the opportunity to get the first questions in before the feeding frenzy begins.  It is also possible that Justice Thomas simply concluded that his regular questioning during the Court’s telephonic arguments last year made for better arguments (they did) and wanted to remain involved. Whatever the reason, his greater participation is welcome.

As for why the Supreme Court altered the oral argument format, Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports on comments Justice Sonia Sotomayor made about the change at N.Y.U.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told an audience Wednesday that recent changes in the format of oral arguments were instituted in part after studies emerged showing that female justices on the court were interrupted more by male justices and advocates.

Sotomayor said the studies, including one by researchers Tonja Jacoby and Dylan Schweers in 2017, have had an “enormous impact” and led to Chief Justice John Roberts being “much more sensitive” to ensuring that people were not interrupted or at least that he would play referee if needed. . . .

Sotomayor said that she had noticed the pattern “without question” before the system was changed on the bench and sometimes she would respond in a way that she knew was probably not ideal. “I interrupt back,” she said.

The study to which Justice Sotomayor referred is “Justice, Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments,” by Tonja Jacoby and Dylan Schweers, which was published in the Virginia Law Review.

During her remarks, Justice Sotomayor also commented on the use of originalism and on diversity on the federal bench. From Ariane de Vogue’s report:

New York University School of Law professor Kenji Yoshino noted that several of the court’s conservative members adhere to originalism—the judicial theory that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood at the time of the founding. He inquired whether that approach will become “increasingly untenable” as the country’s demographic makeup continues to depart substantially from the make up of the framers.

Sotomayor agreed that a number of her colleagues adhere to the philosophy and she said, “whether and how that will lead to dissonance between what we are deciding and what the general population accepts as what the law should be—is a fascinating question.”

She said that there is “going to be an awful lot of dialogue by the greater society about the role of the courts in our society” and noted that there already had been some discussions among critics of the conservative majority concerning whether the court’s composition should change. . . .

She noted that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed, “we lost our only civil rights lawyer” and that currently there is no other justice who has “been in the trenches” on civil rights, or immigration, or environmental law.

“I do worry that the authorities who are selecting judges are not paying enough attention to that kind of diversity as well,” Sotomayor said. . . .

Justice Sotomayor is the only justice on the Court with experience as a trial court judge, and one of only two who worked as a trial prosecutor.

A final note, like most speeches or appearances by Supreme Court justices, Justice Sotomayor’s remarks were neither noted nor posted on the Supreme Court website.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YO5V3Q
via IFTTT

Having Banned Crypto, Turkey To Track Identities Of All Lira Sellers

Having Banned Crypto, Turkey To Track Identities Of All Lira Sellers

The slippery slope analogy of tyrannical control continues to be proven right as Turkey removes the last privacy from its citizens money-changing ways.

Having banned (anonymity-protecting) cryptocurrencies and crypto-assets in April (citing “irreparable” damage and transaction risks), Bloomberg reports that money-changers in Turkey will be required to record the identities of all of their clients under new rules issued following the Lira’s collapse to fresh record lows against the dollar this week.

In the past, only clients whose transactions were worth $3,000 or more were asked to submit personal information.

“This new practice aims only to reduce informality in the industry, increase the level of institutionalization and ensure compliance with international regulations,” the Treasury & Finance Ministry said in a statement on Wednesday.

“It does not involve any intervention in foreign-currency markets.”

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and central bank Governor Sahap Kavcioglu met on Wednesday as the currency continued to accelerate lower despite the governor delivering a surprise interest-rate cut of 100 basis points on Sept. 23.

Turks have been panic-selling Lira for anything else as inflation soars and continued capital controls are instituted.

Foreign exchange deposits held by locals totaled $232.7 billion as of Oct. 1, according to central bank data, up 20% from the start of 2020.

Mirroring the situation we have seen in Venezuela (and now El Salvador), Turkish businesses (like hairdressers and small grocery shops) had started accepting crypto payments out of convenience for their clients… until that was banned…

…as the currency circles the drain towards hyperinflation.

Now that every cash exchange in the country is under surveillance, what will be restricted next? And how long before Erdogan decrees a ban on lira selling… period?

Of course, this action by Erdogan is nothing at all like the new Democrats’ IRS surveillance state plan to track every transaction by an American of over $600… nothing like it at all. Remember, it’s for your own security/privacy/safety (pick your dissonance).

Tyler Durden
Thu, 10/14/2021 – 09:23

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lE1bWN Tyler Durden

Justice Thomas Sets the Tone in New Oral Argument Format

The Supreme Court has been utilizing a new oral argument format this term. Audio of the arguments is streamed live through the Court’s website. Advocates get a brief opportunity to introduce and frame their case, followed by a period of open questioning, followed by an opportunity for each justice, in order of seniority, to ask additional questions they may have. (This format is detailed on p. 7 of the Court’s Guide Four Counsel in Cases to Be Argued.) The new format seems to result on longer arguments, but also more probative ones, and live audio is great.

One interesting development with the new format is that Justice Thomas has asked the first question in the vast majority of arguments thus far. Indeed, as of yesterday, Justice Thomas had asked the first question to all but one of the advocates so far this term. This is a positive development, as Justice Thomas’ questions are good ones.

Now speculation about Justice Thomas’ change has replaced speculation about why he used to not speak much at all during argument. One suggestion is that Justice Thomas never liked the rough-and-tumble of open argument and did not want to interrupt his colleagues, and is now (in effect) given the opportunity to get the first questions in before the feeding frenzy begins.  It is also possible that Justice Thomas simply concluded that his regular questioning during the Court’s telephonic arguments last year made for better arguments (they did) and wanted to remain involved. Whatever the reason, his greater participation is welcome.

As for why the Supreme Court altered the oral argument format, Ariane de Vogue of CNN reports on comments Justice Sonia Sotomayor made about the change at N.Y.U.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor told an audience Wednesday that recent changes in the format of oral arguments were instituted in part after studies emerged showing that female justices on the court were interrupted more by male justices and advocates.

Sotomayor said the studies, including one by researchers Tonja Jacoby and Dylan Schweers in 2017, have had an “enormous impact” and led to Chief Justice John Roberts being “much more sensitive” to ensuring that people were not interrupted or at least that he would play referee if needed. . . .

Sotomayor said that she had noticed the pattern “without question” before the system was changed on the bench and sometimes she would respond in a way that she knew was probably not ideal. “I interrupt back,” she said.

The study to which Justice Sotomayor referred is “Justice, Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments,” by Tonja Jacoby and Dylan Schweers, which was published in the Virginia Law Review.

During her remarks, Justice Sotomayor also commented on the use of originalism and on diversity on the federal bench. From Ariane de Vogue’s report:

New York University School of Law professor Kenji Yoshino noted that several of the court’s conservative members adhere to originalism—the judicial theory that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was understood at the time of the founding. He inquired whether that approach will become “increasingly untenable” as the country’s demographic makeup continues to depart substantially from the make up of the framers.

Sotomayor agreed that a number of her colleagues adhere to the philosophy and she said, “whether and how that will lead to dissonance between what we are deciding and what the general population accepts as what the law should be—is a fascinating question.”

She said that there is “going to be an awful lot of dialogue by the greater society about the role of the courts in our society” and noted that there already had been some discussions among critics of the conservative majority concerning whether the court’s composition should change. . . .

She noted that when Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed, “we lost our only civil rights lawyer” and that currently there is no other justice who has “been in the trenches” on civil rights, or immigration, or environmental law.

“I do worry that the authorities who are selecting judges are not paying enough attention to that kind of diversity as well,” Sotomayor said. . . .

Justice Sotomayor is the only justice on the Court with experience as a trial court judge, and one of only two who worked as a trial prosecutor.

A final note, like most speeches or appearances by Supreme Court justices, Justice Sotomayor’s remarks were neither noted nor posted on the Supreme Court website.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YO5V3Q
via IFTTT