Tag: finance

Authored by Scott Chipolina via Decrypt.co,

In brief

• According to a Chainalysis report, darknet markets are decreasing in number but increasing in revenue.

• Chainalysis suggests COVID-19 was not the biggest factor in this trend.

• However, the pandemic has put pressure on darknet market vendors due to strained supply chains and shipping routes.

Darknet markets have surpassed their 2019 revenue this year with a month to spare, according to a report published by Chainalysis yesterday. 

Darknet markets have always commanded great interest in the crypto community, first sparked by the infamous Silk Road, which plagued Bitcoin’s reputation during its formative years. Silk Road might seem like a distant memory by now, but darknet markets have persisted. And while the number of markets appears to be on the decline, those that remain are making more money than ever before.

“While total darknet market revenue has already surpassed 2019 totals, the overall number of purchases, and likely customers as well, has fallen significantly, though the remaining purchases are for higher values,” Chainalsys said. 

Darknet market vendors have suffered—as legitimate vendors have—through a strained postage and shipping network on account of COVID-19. However, according to Chainalysis, the driving force of this revenue is a combination of increased competition and efforts by law enforcement to crack down on the markets themselves.

Consequently, the darknet market industry has consolidated to a smaller number of bigger players. 

This trend is backed up by the data, which shows a sharp decline in the number of transfers sent to darknet markets, but an increase in total revenue. In the below graph, the currencies included are Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, and Tether. 

Darknet total revenue has increased despite a decline in total transfers. Image: Chainalysis

These numbers show that darknet customers are making fewer purchases in total, but these purchases are, on average, for larger amounts. According to Chainalysis, this indicates two possible situations. 

• One, casual drug buyers are shifting away from the darknet to make their purchases, while larger buyers are simply buying more per purchase.

• Two, casual buyers are making larger purchases in response to uncertainty.

But according to Ingo Fiedler, co-founder of Blockchain Research Lab, this trend is primarily the result of increasing law enforcement focus on the darknet market industry. 

“Only the most sophisticated can obfuscate their traces by now. That prevents small dealers from participating in the market and a natural tendency towards fewer but larger dealers on those markets,” Fiedler told Decrypt. 

This theory is supported by the fact the number of active darknet markets themselves are also on the decline. 

According to Chainalysis, the total number of active markets in November 2020 (37) is the lowest total seen since November 2017. 

Number of active darkness markets between 2015-2020. Image: Chainalysis

However, the success of law enforcement is just one possible explanation for this decline.

“Administrators often pull exit scams, in which the market ceases operations but publicly appears to still be active so that administrators can continue collecting money from purchases that will never be fulfilled,” Chainalysis said. 

Unavoidably, COVID-19 has also had an impact on this trend. 

COVID-19 and the darknet market industry

While Chainalysis said COVID-19 wasn’t the biggest factor in this year’s darknet market trends, it has had some impact. 

Specifically, interruptions to supply chains and shipping routes have caused darknet market delays, prompting complaints from frustrated customers.

On a darknet market forum, one cocaine vendor based in Canada said, “With COVID-19 causing massive interruptions across the nation, I am still trying my best to keep prices reasonable but competitive,” adding, “Canada post is not guaranteeing two business day delivery for the time being.” 

It can be tough running an illegal online business.

In another page right out of the gestapo playbook, the Health Department of New York state – which is now losing thousands of people every day due to its high taxes, draconian rules and coercive regulations – has put out an urgent appeal for what the NY Post called “Mask squad” staffers to go to Rockland and Orange counties “to perform COVID-19 community outreach and enforce mask and social distancing safety protocols amid fears of a second wave of the virus.”

“The DOH is responsible for community outreach and enforcement of Executive Orders and regulations related to the use of face-coverings/masks and social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19,” the department said in a Monday email to employees in its office of health insurance programs.

“Staff is needed for immediate URGENT deployment to Orange and Rockland counties to assist with this critical public health and community enforcement effort,” the recruitment pitch to staffers in the agency’s office of health insurance programs obtained by the Post said.

Staffers would volunteer to work in Orange and Rockland counties in shifts that run from Saturday, Dec. 5 through Friday, Dec. 11 and consequent weeks through New Year’s Day. Workers who volunteer for the Orange-Rockland mask squad will be eligible for overtime pay.

The two counties, which both have large ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities where some have defied safety protocols, have among the highest coronavirus infection rates in the state. The Middletown area of Orange had an alarming 8.16% COVID-19 infection rate as of Saturday. The city of Newburgh in Orange had a 7.78% infection rate, while the Orange-Monroe County border towns posted a 7.8 percent positivity rate. Rockland County’s infection rate was 5.8%.

Asking volunteers to redeploy to help address the pandemic is not uncommon, said Health Department spokesman Gary Homes.

“It’s all hands on deck,” Holmes said, adding that “we’re active in all counties where are there are increasing infection rates. These aren’t the only ones.”

Holmes said DOH employees have also been redeployed to help staff drive-through testing sites and enforce COVID-19 safety protocols at the airports.

Orange County Executive Steve Neuhaus welcomed state health cavalry: “We’re on it. We got it. But you can never say it enough and the repercussions of these numbers continuing to climb warrant a strong message of awareness and enforcement,” Neuhaus told The Post. He noted the state police are also involved in educating residents and enforcing the safety protocols.

“I met with the state police last week. They’re going to supermarkets, department stores. They’re saying, `hey wear a mask, here’s a free mask.” He said a second wave of the pandemic is his county is worrisome. “It’s definitely a concerning increase as we’re starting to see coming from the Thanksgiving gathering. We had a number of deaths over the weekend,” Neuahus said.

“Our hospitalizations are going up. I haven’t agreed with Governor Cuomo all this time throughout this crisis, but he’s right on the hospital capacity. “We’re not there — we’re about 40 or 50 percent being occupied. That is the number to watch. It’s how many people are filling my hospitals.”

“I’m bracing for an uptick now, so do I think it’s going to be astronomical and is it going to be crippling? I hope it’s not but we’re preparing for it. That’s why we’re on the phone with the hospitald every week.”

“It’s hard to find staff right now. That’s why we’re constantly talking.”

Meanwhile, in the latest escalation on Monday, governor Cuomo warned he will order the shutdown of indoor dining in New York City restaurants if the COVID-19 infection rate and hospitalization rates don’t stabilize, a virtual certainty… which of course is a paradox: after all, New York City has some of the highest mask compliance numbers in the nation, and yet it has soaring case numbers, prompting such obvious questions as this one from Kevin Sorbo: “If lockdowns and masks worked, we wouldn’t see the states with the strictest mandates having the highest cases”.

If lockdowns and masks worked, we wouldn’t see the states with the strictest mandates having the highest cases

— Kevin Sorbo (@ksorbs) December 7, 2020

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A viral video shows a liberal pro-gun control Santa Claus making a small child cry by refusing to give him a toy nerf gun for Christmas.

The boy asks Santa for a nerf gun, to which he responds, “No, no guns.”

The boy’s mother then tries to interject by clarifying, “A nerf gun.”

“No, not even a nerf gun,” replies Santa.

After the boy looks at his mother puzzled, Santa continues, “Nope. If your dad wants to get it for you, that’s fine, but I can’t bring it to you.”

Liberal Santa sends Young Boy Away in Tears After Refusing to Gift Him a Nerf Gun for Christmas @Hasbro pic.twitter.com/9QbKtxcJGK

— Matthew 🎄🎅🏻 🔫 (@WhiteHovse) December 7, 2020

“What else would you like? There’s lots of other toys. There’s Legos, there’s bicycles, there’s cars and trucks. What do you think? What do you think?” asks Santa with a tone more befitting of an annoying liberal TV anchor rather than jolly old Father Christmas.

The boy then begins to cry out loud and his mother walks over to console him.

“Aww, don’t cry,” Santa then responds in the same annoying, patronizing tone.

The boy continues to sob uncontrollably while the Santa says “Merry Christmas!” in the same patronizing tone.

According to the original poster of the video, the liberal Santa has now been fired.

Respondents to the video will be delighted.

“This literally made me cry. Good job, ‘Santa’, you just broke a little kid’s heart……shame on you,” said one.

“Dude had one job & he couldn’t help himself,” remarked another.

*  *  *

New limited edition merch now available! Click here. 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. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

As Britain processes hundreds of visa applications for Hong Kongers seeking to flee the territory now that Beijing has extinguished its Democratic freedoms, local police on Tuesday continued their roundup of top opposition officials after sentencing two former student activists to brief prison terms and denying bail to one of the island’s most visible media moguls.

Hong Kong police arrested eight more activists on Tuesday over an anti-government protest in July, the latest move by authorities in a relentless crackdown on opposition forces in the Chinese-ruled city. Meanwhile, at least one former opposition lawmaker from Hong Kong’s LegCo – all 19 opposition lawmakers quit en masse last month – has fled to Europe and been granted asylum in the UK, a move that will likely infuriate Beijing.

Perhaps in an attempt to prevent anybody else from running off, Beijing is rounding up and arresting activists left and right. On Tuesday morning in Hong Kong, it was reported that police had arrested another 8 activities between the ages of 24 and 64. One day earlier, police arrested 8 activists said to be between the ages of 16 and 36. None of their names were released.

The latest activists were charged with participating in a skirmish with police on July 1, the anniversary of the colony’s handover to China from the UK. More than 300 people were arrested during the demonstration. Participants were protesting the new national security law, which had just been approved by top CCP leaders in Beijing and signed by President Xi.

Here’s more from Reuters:

Hong Kong police arrested eight more activists on Tuesday over an anti-government protest in July, the latest move by authorities in a relentless crackdown on opposition forces in the Chinese-ruled city.

The police did not identify the people, saying only that they were aged between 24 and 64. Local media said former pro-democracy lawmaker and veteran activist Leung Kwok-hung, known as Long Hair, was among those arrested.

The move comes a day after eight people aged between 16 and 34 were arrested, including three on suspicion of violating a sweeping national security law, over a brief demonstration at a university campus last month.

Hong Kong police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse protesters on July 1, the anniversary of the former British colony’s handover to Chinese rule, as thousands demonstrated despite a police ban on the annual protest.

In an attempt to discourage Beijing from robbing Hong Kongers of their democratic feedoms and closing a long time “gateway to the West”, the Trump Administration slapped new sanctions and travel restrictions on 14 CCP officials believed to be responsible. The Trump Administration also recently stopped issuing visas longer than 1 month for any known members of the CCP trying to visit the US.

Still, Beijing is doing a pretty good job of making it clear that Hong Kong is no longer safe for those who assiduously supported the pro-democracy movement.

Back in 2015, after a series of disappointing years prompted clients to pull money from the underperforming BlueCrest Capital Management, Michael Platt announced plans to return all outside capital to investors and transition into a private investment partnership that would manage money for its partners and employees. It proved to be a brilliant decision as the fund has been on a tear since then, generating returns of 50% in 2016, 54% in 2017, 25% in 2018 when the average hedge fund lost money, and 50% in 2019.

We now know why BlueCrest performed so poorly when managing outside money and was Medallion reincarnated when managing its own.

On Tuesday, the SEC announced that BlueCrest agreed to pay $170 million to investors to settle a U.S. regulator’s allegations that it misled clients and did not disclose that it transfered its top traders from its flagship client fund, BlueCrest Capital International (BCI), to a proprietary internal fund, BSMA Limited, and replaced those traders with an “underperforming algorithm.” The stealthy transfer, which took place from October 2011 through December 2015 when BlueCrest returned outside capital, resulted in losses of at least $170 million to investors.

The order finds that BlueCrest did not disclose certain material facts about the algorithm to BCI’s independent directors.  According to the order, the algorithm generated significantly less profit with greater volatility than the live traders.  The order finds that BlueCrest was able to keep more of any performance fees generated by the algorithm than by live traders.

“BlueCrest repeatedly failed to act in the best interests of its investors, including by not disclosing that it was transferring its highest-performing traders to a fund that benefitted its own personnel to the detriment of its fund investors,” said Stephanie Avakian, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “This settlement holds BlueCrest responsible for its conduct and furthers the SEC’s goal of returning funds to harmed investors.”

“An adviser’s disclosures to investors and prospective investors in funds they manage must be accurate,” said Adam Aderton, Co-Chief of the SEC’s Asset Management Unit.  “BlueCrest investors were marketed a fund with exceptional trading talent but instead got a fund with an undisclosed algorithm that performed worse than those touted traders.”

The SEC also found that BlueCrest failed to disclose that it reallocated the transferred traders’ capital allocations in BCI to a semi-systematic trading system, which was essentially a replication algorithm that tracked certain trading activity of a subset of BlueCrest’s live traders. 

In other words, when managing its own money, the macro fund would dedicate its best traders to come up with the top trades, and not only that but it would effectively frontrun its clients! Then, when the time came to manage client money, BlueCrest basically used a simply copycat algo to piggyback on its top trades but only after the management team was already in the positions, thus giving it substantial firepower to generate alpha simply by having billions in fund flows rush into the same trades it had already put on, creating a feedback loop.

We wonder if BlueCrest also unloaded its own positions by selling them to its own clients.

In any case, we certainly doubt BlueCrest is alone in this particular eggregious violation of fiduciary standards, and wonder if a similar bait-and-switch is also why RenTec’s internal Medallion fund outperforms the outside client-facing RIEF funds every single year.

Full complaint below:

33-10896 by Zerohedge

Back in 2015, after a series of disappointing years prompted clients to pull money from the underperforming BlueCrest Capital Management, Michael Platt announced plans to return all outside capital to investors and transition into a private investment partnership that would manage money for its partners and employees. It proved to be a brilliant decision as the fund has been on a tear since then, generating returns of 50% in 2016, 54% in 2017, 25% in 2018 when the average hedge fund lost money, and 50% in 2019.

We now know why BlueCrest performed so poorly when managing outside money and was Medallion reincarnated when managing its own.

On Tuesday, the SEC announced that BlueCrest agreed to pay $170 million to investors to settle a U.S. regulator’s allegations that it misled clients and did not disclose that it transfered its top traders from its flagship client fund, BlueCrest Capital International (BCI), to a proprietary internal fund, BSMA Limited, and replaced those traders with an “underperforming algorithm.” The stealthy transfer, which took place from October 2011 through December 2015 when BlueCrest returned outside capital, resulted in losses of at least $170 million to investors.

The order finds that BlueCrest did not disclose certain material facts about the algorithm to BCI’s independent directors.  According to the order, the algorithm generated significantly less profit with greater volatility than the live traders.  The order finds that BlueCrest was able to keep more of any performance fees generated by the algorithm than by live traders.

“BlueCrest repeatedly failed to act in the best interests of its investors, including by not disclosing that it was transferring its highest-performing traders to a fund that benefitted its own personnel to the detriment of its fund investors,” said Stephanie Avakian, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “This settlement holds BlueCrest responsible for its conduct and furthers the SEC’s goal of returning funds to harmed investors.”

“An adviser’s disclosures to investors and prospective investors in funds they manage must be accurate,” said Adam Aderton, Co-Chief of the SEC’s Asset Management Unit.  “BlueCrest investors were marketed a fund with exceptional trading talent but instead got a fund with an undisclosed algorithm that performed worse than those touted traders.”

The SEC also found that BlueCrest failed to disclose that it reallocated the transferred traders’ capital allocations in BCI to a semi-systematic trading system, which was essentially a replication algorithm that tracked certain trading activity of a subset of BlueCrest’s live traders. 

In other words, when managing its own money, the macro fund would dedicate its best traders to come up with the top trades, and not only that but it would effectively frontrun its clients! Then, when the time came to manage client money, BlueCrest basically used a simply copycat algo to piggyback on its top trades but only after the management team was already in the positions, thus giving it substantial firepower to generate alpha simply by having billions in fund flows rush into the same trades it had already put on, creating a feedback loop.

We wonder if BlueCrest also unloaded its own positions by selling them to its own clients.

In any case, we certainly doubt BlueCrest is alone in this particular eggregious violation of fiduciary standards, and wonder if a similar bait-and-switch is also why RenTec’s internal Medallion fund outperforms the outside client-facing RIEF funds every single year.

Full complaint below:

33-10896 by Zerohedge

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Just before I was interviewed today on Fox about ongoing challenges to shutdown orders, Admiral Brett Giroir was interviewed and gave what must have been welcomed views on the science behind pandemic orders. A hearing is scheduled tomorrow in one of the challenges by businesses in California to the lockdown ordered by Governor Gavin Newsom.  Giroir however stated that there was no evidence or science supporting the type of categorical lockdown in states like California, particularly bans on outdoor dining. The statement presents a potential conflict with Dr. Anthony Fauci. It certainly contradicts the common narrative in the media and the recent election. Giroir is a widely respected public health expert who has reinforced a calm and science-based approach to the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

As I discussed, courts have been applying greater scrutiny to these pandemic orders. The initial deference afforded to pandemic order tends to wane with time. The first such shift came predictably with challenges based on the contravention of constitutional rights, particularly the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Such challenges have the advantage of the higher standard of strict scrutiny.

Now, however, there are renewed challenges for businesses under the lower standard of the rational basis test.

This is due to the contradiction of some orders with known science or data on transmission rates and sources.

For example, through the election, Democrats suggested that President Donald Trump was effectively trying to kill children by pushing to reopen schools, including Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin. Rubin has previously shown a disregard of the factual foundation for her allegations. Yet, Democrats have maintained until recently that schools must be closed due to the high risk of transmission despite growing scientific evidence to the contrary.  

Ads running before the election cited Dr. Fauci in saying that opening schools was putting the lives of children at risk for political reasons:

Recently, Mayor diBlasio reversed his order to close New York schools after criticism over the lack of scientific support for the policy. Indeed, it contradicts the long-standing findings of health organizations that young children show an exceptionally low risk for contracting or passing Covid-19.  There are also studies showing the high cost of lockdown from massive economic losses to spikes in suicide to increasing medical (non-Covid-19) emergencies.

Thankfully, courts tend to be more attentive to the factual foundation of their own conclusions.  At most, they will find a mixed scientific record supporting the categorical bans.

Notably, Dr. Anthony Fauci, said publicly that he supported the new lockdowns in California. However, Giroir referenced Fauci and the other Task Force members in saying that they have not seen “any data that says you need to shutdown outdoor dining or outdoor bars.” He said that the science does not support such categorical lockdowns, explaining

“We do, in a surge place, need to limit indoor dining, indoor bars, but you don’t have to close schools, you don’t have to close universities, you don’t have to close your major industries… The science does not support limiting indoor dining and bars…It’s time to nuance. This is not March or April. This is December. We know what the science says, we know there are countermeasures that are effective…

…Whatever the expression is, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I think we could be causing a lot more harm by overly restrictive recommendations that are not supported by the science,” he said. “What I am saying is the evidence clearly does not support limitations on things like outdoor dining particularly that are spaced, outdoor bars — the evidence just isn’t there. . . Shutting down completely, particularly if you don’t have evidence, can be counterproductive.”

That is likely to be featured prominently in these increasing challenges to blanket shutdown orders.  State and local officials will still be afforded deference but the science on some of these limitations can now be challenged. The best bet for governors is still the rational basis test which ordinarily presents an easy standard to satisfy.

However, the call “follow the science” may not be a clearly supportive in some of these cases. There now appears to be significant science-based arguments that can be raised in opposing to sweeping lockdowns. If a court is presented with science on both sides, the advantage still rests with the states and their pandemic orders. They will have to offer a rational basis for why such lockdowns are needed. That might include reducing the travel of parents with their children to schools and the need for significant numbers of adults to support school operations, including obviously the teachers.  In such a balancing, statements by experts like Admiral Giroir will likely to be raised and considered by courts.

The state of Texas filed a lawsuit at the US Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on the grounds that various changes to their voting rules or procedures – either through the courts or via executive actions – violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they did not go through the legislatures.

Texas also argues that differences in rules and procedures in different counties within the same state violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, and that “voting irregularities” occurred in these states as a result.

The lawsuit, filed shortly before midnight on Monday, asks the Supreme Court to allow their legislators to directly appoint electors, according to Breitbart.

From the filing:

Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.

…

This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. By these unlawful acts, the Defendant States have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Developing…

In what has turned out to be a spectacular backfire, Goya Foods and president CEO Bob Unanue revealed that progressive icon Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, has been named “Employee of the Month” because sales erupted after calls for a boycott. 

Unanue accepted an invitation in July to the White House by President Trump to promote a program directed at assisting the Hispanic American community. Accepting the invitation was risky enough for the CEO as he went one step further and praised the president: 

“We are all truly blessed … to have a leader like President Trump who is a builder,” Unanue said alongside Trump at the Rose Garden.

“That is what my grandfather did. He came to this country to build, to grow, to prosper. We have an incredible builder … and we pray.”

Liberals went bonkers after Unanue’s comments about the president. Social justice warriors took to social media and called for Goya’s boycott.

.@GoyaFoods has been a staple of so many Latino households for generations.

Now their CEO, Bob Unanue, is praising a president who villainizes and maliciously attacks Latinos for political gain. Americans should think twice before buying their products. #Goyaway https://t.co/lZDQlK6TcU

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) July 9, 2020

“Oh look, it’s the sound of me Googling ‘how to make your own Adobo,'” AOC tweeted, later sharing an alternative recipe to her followers. 

Get yourself friends like these: this tweet wasn’t up for TWO MINUTES when my friend hit me up with the recipe. (Their note: “the ginger is controversial, but worth it”)

(For accessibility:
4 Salt, 1 paprika, 1 cumin, 1 celery powder, 2 garlic powder, .5 ginger , 1 chili powder) pic.twitter.com/5WFe9sL5jE

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 10, 2020

Almost immediately, social justice warriors started Twitter trends such as #BoycottGoya and #Goyaway that were trending topics for days. 

FUUUUUUUCK. A shame. Don’t care how good the beans taste though. Bye bye. https://t.co/xV7U0UO8CY

— chrissy teigen (@chrissyteigen) July 10, 2020

But a mob of social justice warriors to crush Goya began to backfire when radio host Mike Opelka began encouraging people on Twitter to purchase Goya products and donate them to their local food bank. 

He Tweeted: “My brother came up with a terrific idea, and I am encouraging all to join me in purchasing $10 worth of Goya Foods products and donating them to your local food bank. Let’s push a BUY-cott, not a boycott. Let’s show the #Goyaway people what compassion can do.”

Other conservative voices joined in:

Go out today and buy your Goya foodshttps://t.co/O9undwBG8i

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) July 11, 2020

Most of these people fronting about a #GOYABOYCOTT either don’t use @GoyaFoods anyways

And most of the ones who do will cave by #NocheBuena pic.twitter.com/lKydzqpXuA

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) July 11, 2020

In September, Unanue warned that “hatred and destruction” from the destruction of small businesses are driving Latino voters to the president. He spoke with JustTheNews’s John Solomon: 

The rise in support for Trump is due to “fatigue over all the destruction and hatred, tearing down businesses, by people — a lot of people that are from outside the community — because if you’re within the community, you’re building it, you don’t want to tear down what you just built,” Unanue said.

“And this is organized. People coming in from the outside to destroy. And so you know, we have two paths to take: Love and build, hate and destroy. We need to take the path of loving and building. And that’s why we’re looking at prosperity. How do we get our country back on our feet, and prosper in all aspects. So let’s love. Let’s build.”

Appearing on The Michael Beery Show on Monday, Unamue said AOC “was actually our employee of the month.” Some of the transcript of the interview is provided via The Daily Wire.

When you see the radical plans like the Green New Deal, when you hear politicians like AOC spouting these things off, agriculture is a major employer in this country but it’s also a major consumer of energy, as you noted earlier. It’s an intensive process for labor and energy. And they are talking about things that would drive the cost of energy through the roof in some cases making it prohibitive for marginal players. How much does that concern you and how much do you feel the need to step up and say, “Hey, guys, you want me to lay off these thousands of employees because that’s what would have to happen?”

Unanue replied:

You know, communism works until you run out of other people’s money to spend. We’re not going to be able to do that. It’s interesting that AOC was one of the first people to step in line to boycott Goya; go against her own people, as supposedly a Puerto Rican woman, to go against people of her own Latin culture. She’s naïve. To some extent I can understand AOC; she’s young; she’s naïve; she doesn’t get it. But you’ve got someone like (Bernie) Sanders, who’s older than us, older than me, and he still doesn’t get it.

“We still have to chat with AOC; I love her,” Unanue continued. “She was actually our Employee of the Month; I don’t know if you know about this, but when she boycotted us, our sales actually increased 1,000%. So we gave her an honorary — we never were able to hand it to her but she got Employee of the Month for bringing attention to GOYA and our adobo. Actually our sales of adobo did very well after she said ‘Make your own Adobo.'”

Berry wondered, “Was it P.T. Barnum who said, ‘Say what you want just spell my name right. All publicity is good publicity.”

Unanue replied, “She’s our hero. She helped boost sales tremendously.”

Berry asked, “I don’t know, I’m sure you know your demographics better than anyone, but I would be interested to know how many samplers you achieved after that because I suspect a lot of people went to the grocery store and said for the very first time, ‘Can you tell me where I can find a can of Goya?’ and bought a cart full of ’em that had never bought your products and some of that residual stays?”

Unanue answered, “What happened was we reached so many new people at the same time we maintained our base…

Full Interview Here

Listen to “Bob Unanue” on Spreaker.

Buying Goya beans became a political statement when the president tweeted: “I LOVE @GoyaFoods!” 

I LOVE @GoyaFoods!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2020

Ivanka Trump also posted an image of herself on Twitter, holding a can of Goya beans. 

If it’s Goya, it has to be good.
Si es Goya, tiene que ser bueno. pic.twitter.com/9tjVrfmo9z

— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) July 15, 2020

It’s great to see a corporate leader like the Goya CEO standing up to social justice warriors and poking fun at their failed attempt to crush his company. 

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Rip-roaring nonsense

Brexit is still in the balance, with BoJo going to Brussels. Let’s see what sprouts.

The US election is also still *potentially* in the balance depending on: 1) if the Supreme Court acts after Justice Alito’s deadline of 9am Washington DC time today, and how if so….on which note Senator Ted Cruz appears set to argue for the Trump camp at any hearing; and 2) from a constitutional/bare-knuckle realpolitik perspective, how key state legislatures react before 6 January.

Moreover, US fiscal stimulus is still in the balance as once again no agreement can be struck on the key details.

However, aside from the odd day-to-day wobble, markets don’t really care. Consider this Moneyweek front cover: “Prepare your portfolio for a return of the Roaring ’20s”. It shows key policymakers such as Yellen about to enjoy the Charleston at a speak-easy, and argues “Don’t believe the pessimists. What with the end of lockdown and central bankers taking charge of government spending, party time is just around the corner.”

Really? I know markets like buy the rumour/sell the fact, but lockdowns are getting tighter in many places, not looser, and are likely to stay that way for months yet. Central banks are certainly speaking easy, and being easy with the old liquidity. Yet like curmudgeonly 1920’s US cops, and arguably of the Keystone variety, governments are NOT embracing huge fiscal stimulus policies even when they can do so. Most of the key political signals are that the desire is for a net rolling back of state support as soon as possible, rather than an expansion from Wall Street to Main Street.

So, yes, markets may well be right about the asset prices side of things. It is after all QE-a-go-go, and the Establishment does not have a single idea about what else it can do other than push assets higher (again), as has been the case since the 1980s. However, anyone thinking this is going to make everyone’s life ‘roaring’ is missing the real picture.

Let’s just consider what was actually going on in the 1920s. Yes, some got incredibly rich in a Gilded Age extravaganza of illicit booze and wild bohemianism, as kick-the-can-down-the-road asset bubbles papered over impossible to repay WW1 war debts; and isn’t it fun to dress up in ‘The Great Gatsby’ fancy dress at staff Xmas parties?

Yet in Italy, Mussolini’s fascists had seized power in 1922. Over in Germany, Hitler carried out his failed Bavarian beer-hall putsch in 1923 and started to write Mein Kampf in prison. The UK was trying desperately to get and keep sterling back on the gold standard at too high an exchange rate, suffering depression and massive social unrest. There was even a general strike in 1926, something hard to imagine when “Űber” alles in the 2020s means something totally different from the 1920s. Late in the decade, the Bank of France was busily hoarding gold, helping to destabilise an already unstable global economy.

In short, the 1920s was a decade of biting deflation, wild inflation, nasty stagflation, and only saw normal inflation in some places at some times. Perhaps the comparison is apt when I think about it like that.  

And now for more rip-roaring nonsense.

I had thought that comparing the 2020s to the 1920s in a positive sense was peak 2020. I was wrong; because shortly afterwards I saw “Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready” in the Jerusalem Post, translated from the Hebrew-only Yediot Aharonot paper. NOW we are peak 2020, surely.

The story claims: “This “Galactic Federation” has supposedly been in contact with Israel and the US for years, but are keeping themselves a secret to prevent hysteria until humanity is ready…If true, this would coincide with US President Donald Trump’s creation of the Space Force as the fifth branch of the US armed forces, though it is unclear how long this sort of relationship, if any, has been going on between the US and its reported extraterrestrial allies.” See? Spaaaaaace Foooooorce has a purpose!

“Trump is aware of them, and was on the verge of disclosing their existence. However, the Galactic Federation reportedly stopped him from doing so, saying they wished to prevent mass hysteria since they felt humanity needed to “evolve and reach a stage where we will… understand what space and spaceships are.” When does he liven up one his rallies with these out-of-this-world anecdotes?

Look, the guy interviewed was clearly brilliant but is now 87, so let’s be kind. Perhaps he’s just recalling the final pre-credits scene of Mel Brooks’ “The History of the World Part 1.”

In 2020 terms, this clearly outranks saying Hugo Chavez and China collaborated to print ballots in Mexico and reprogram voting machines to ensure a Biden US election win; that and the wild statistical anomalies credible statisticians (and some lacking credibility) point out in the same election. Has the Galactic Federation congratulated Biden yet by the way?

Clearly this story is going to do wonders for an internet so sadly lacking in unpleasant conspiracy theories. Yet one also has to wonder if it is really only the US and Israel in this ‘Galactic Federation’. (And what does the US bring to the table? J)

Perhaps the British were involved but left in a huff over access to space fish;

Perhaps the French were involved but left when they weren’t allowed to call it Le Federation Galatique and make French an official language;

Perhaps China’s recent leaving of its national flag on the moon was an attempt to gain entry; and

Perhaps Elon Musk is involved – except if he were he would probably be tweeting about it already.

Regardless, this crazy story is still only a slightly taller tale than a ‘roaring 2020s’ waiting ahead for all, or of any kind of roaring 2020s being a good thing in the larger scheme of things.