Tag: finance

Authored by Thorstein Polleit via The Mises Institute,

At the 2020 World Economic Forum in Davos, Bob Prince, co-chief investment officer at Bridgewater Associates, attracted attention when he suggested in a news interview that the boom and bust cycle as we have come to know it in the last decades may have ended. This viewpoint may well have been encouraged by the fact that the latest economic upswing (“boom”) has been going for around a decade and that an end is not in sight as suggested by incoming macro- and microeconomic data.

But would that not reject the key insight of the Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT), which says that a boom, brought about by artificially lowered market interest rates and injections of new credit and money produced “out of thin air,” must eventually end in a bust?

In what follows, I will remind us of the key message of the ABCT and outline the “special conditions” which must be taken into account if the ABCT is applied to real-world developments. Against this backdrop, we can then form a view about how the next crisis might look.

What the ABCT Says

The ABCT is actually a “theory of crisis,” and it explains the broader consequences if and when central banks, in close cooperation with commercial banks, increase the amount of money in the economy through credit expansion—that is, an increase in bank lending that is not backed by real savings. The increase in the circulation of credit supply initially lowers the market interest rate below its “natural level,” or, “the originary interest rate level,” to use the Austrian school’s term.

The artificially lowered market interest rate discourages savings and encourages consumption and investment expansion. The economy enters a boom. However, after the initial injection of new credit and money has had its impact on prices and wages, people start realizing that the economic expansion was a one-off. People return to their pre-boom savings-consumption-investment ratio, which means that the market interest rate finally returns to the higher originary interest rate level. This is the very process that makes the boom turn to bust.

To prevent the boom from turning to bust, central banks take action to bring down market interest rates even further. For if the market interest rate drops even more, the production and employment structure can be upheld and the boom can continue. In other words: the trajectory of market interest rates—which are actually expressive of how people allocate their incomes to savings, consumption, and investment—is the crucial issue in the boom-and-bust cycle. And this is where central banks have increasingly taken control.

Controlling Interest Rates

Since the financial and economic crisis of 2008/2009, central banks have more than ever before taken control of market interest rates. They no longer limit themselves to setting short-term interest rates, but hope also to control interest rates with longer maturities. In fact, central banks have started to set long-term interest rates as well, through purchasing, say, government bonds, mortgage bonds, corporate bonds, and bank bonds. In this way, they directly influence bond prices and thus their yields. Market interest rates are no longer determined in a “free market.”

Not only have market interest rates been distorted and set at too low a level through central bank policies, they are also kept from returning to economically sensible levels. At least this is what financial market agents seem to think: they assume that central banks will continue to take care of the credit market—they know that if and when market interest rates rise, the boom will undoubtedly turn into a bust, something central banks wish to prevent at all costs.

And given the basically unlimited power of central banks in the determination of bond prices and thus bond yields, no investor (in his right mind) will want to bet against the monetary authority. In fact, investors have a great incentive to trade bond prices toward the level they think the central bank would like to establish in the marketplace. In other words: if the market thinks that the central bank does not want higher interest rates, interest rates will remain artificially low.

Mind the “Safety Net”

By controlling market interest rates, central banks have in fact put a “safety net” under the economies and financial markets. As central banks have signaled to the public that they feel responsible for a healthy economy, and, in particular, for ensuring that “financial market stability” prevails, investors can put two and two together: should the economies or financial markets get to the verge of collapse, investors can expect central banks to step in, fighting the impending crisis. This understanding encourages investors to take additional risks, step up their investments, and disregard and underestimate risk.

Central banks’ “safety net” is not only a powerful tool to sustain the boom, it is also a rather subtle, stealthy intervention in capital markets. It effectively brings about an entirely rigged financial market: prices are higher and yields are lower than unhampered market forces justify. The central banks’ safety net policies amount to a manipulation of the market system on the greatest scale possible. With basically all prices and all market yields distorted, the economy and financial markets enter a “hall of mirrors” regime, where consumers and firms must inevitably get disoriented and make wrong decisions.

However, under such conditions the boom can be kept going much longer compared to a scenario in which free market forces are allowed to do their job—that is, establishing financial asset prices as well as inflation, credit, and liquidity premia according to real-world realities. However, today’s environment is rather different: central banks, in their attempt to prevent the current boom turning into another bust, have effectively corrupted the vital roles that financial markets and market interest rates play in a free market system.

The Role of the Originary Interest Rate

It would be a mistake to conclude that a boom can be upheld indefinitely if central banks beat down the market interest rate to zero, or even push it into negative territory. In fact, without a positive market interest rate (in real terms), the modern economy, which rests on the division of labor and complex “roundabout production” processes, could not exist. This is an insight derived from the Austrian time preference theory of the interest rate. In a nutshell, time preference means that acting man values earlier satisfaction of a want more highly than the satisfaction of the same want at a later time.

The manifestation of time preference in the market is the “originary interest rate.” It denotes the value discount that a good that is available in the future suffers compared to the same good that is currently available. Acting man’s time preference and thus his originary interest rate are, for logical reasons, always and everywhere positive. They may well approach zero, but they can never hit zero, let alone become negative. This is a significant insight, as it tells us what would happen if the market interest rate were to drop to zero: the modern market economy would disintegrate. This is why:

Every acting man carries, so to speak, a positive originary interest rate in himself. So if the market interest rate is zero, no one would put their savings in time-consuming production processes any longer. People would not be willing to offer their savings for replacement investments or new investments. They would simply hoard them “under their mattresses.”Capital consumption would set in. In other words: by bringing the market interest rate down to zero, central banks would destroy the market economy with its division of labor as we know it today.

The End Game

In recent years, most central banks have concentrated on policies that push down selected types of market yields, in particular those in the funding markets for government debt, mortgage debt, and bank debt. However, the consequences of such actions are increasingly felt in other asset markets. In a search for yields, investors increasingly use their funds to purchase, say, stocks and real estate. As a result, these asset prices rise, thereby lowering their future returns. In other words: the zero interest rate policy of the central banks drags down basically all kinds of yields with it.

This may go on for quite a while.

But once all market interest rates hit zero, the real trouble starts: the boom turns to bust. Credit markets shut down, borrowers can no longer roll over their maturing debt, and no investor is willing to lend new funds. To prevent credit defaults and the collapse of the debt pyramid, central banks would presumably step in as “lenders of last resort,” refinancing basically all kinds of borrowers in need. An outright inflation policy would begin. Nevertheless, capital consumption and economic regression would set in. People’s living standards would nosedive; many would be thrown into outright misery.

Applying the ABCT to real-world developments yields the following insights: Central banks have done nothing to put an end to the boom-and-bust cycle. Instead, their unscrupulous interventions in credit markets just prolong the boom. However, it would be mistaken to assume that by bringing market interest rates to zero, a perpetual boom could be created. Such a policy is self-defeating: once all market interest rates have been dragged down to zero, the capitalistic economic system will collapse. Then—at the latest—the boom will definitely turn into bust.

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

In an hilarious hypocritical display, Hillary Clinton tweeted out “In America, no one is above the law,” on the same day that she used her secret service detail to turn away legal documents attempting to be served to her as part of a lawsuit.

Richard Nixon once made this argument: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

He was forced to resign in disgrace.

In America, no one is above the law. https://t.co/MXctxLr1sj

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 30, 2020

So no one is above the law, except if it’s Hillary Clinton, who has now TWICE refused to accept service from Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s lawyers, as part of a $50 million defamation suit relating to Clinton’s accusations that Gabbard is a “Russian asset”.

Gabbard’s attorney, Brian Dunne told The New York Post, “I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process. But I guess here we are.”

The Post notes that “Dunne said their process server first attempted to effect service at Clinton’s house in Chappaqua on Tuesday afternoon — but was turned away by Secret Service agents.”

The report continues, “The agents directed the server to Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, who on Wednesday claimed at his Washington, DC, firm, Williams & Connolly, that he was unable to accept service on Clinton’s behalf, said Dunne.”

Rep. Gabbard on her new $50M lawsuit against Hillary Clinton:

“It should have been for $50B. What is your life worth to you? What is your honor and loyalty, your identity, worth to you?” https://t.co/6jmfdwgnwp pic.twitter.com/UboUB7VBLy

— NBC News (@NBCNews) January 24, 2020

Of course, Hillary is no stranger to considering herself above the law:

“What difference does it make?”

“With a cloth, or something?”

Oh Hillary we miss you!

Shots were fired at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort after a woman in a black SUV tried to drive through a security checkpoint north of the resort shortly after Noon on Friday, according to WSVN 7, citing law enforcement.

LIVE: Police have responded to an incident at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach County. https://t.co/UbgPmUgY6R

— WSVN 7 News (@wsvn) January 31, 2020

A heavy police presence was seen after Police and Secret Service opened fire at the gate crasher. Two people are in custody following a short chase involving a police helicopter.

I’ve seen multiple FHP cars coming from Palm Beach Island heading west on Southern Blvd with lights and sirens activated. Ongoing investigation on the island with a heavy police presence near Mar-a-Lago. All we know is that PBSO is the lead agency investigating @WPTV pic.twitter.com/6EbxCbStu5

— Michelle Quesada (@M_Quesada) January 31, 2020

Here’s the car that reportedly tried to breach Mar-a-lago. You can see bullet holes on drivers side. #maralago reports say Secrete Service shot woman driving car pic.twitter.com/dJuM0gDCsn

— John Bachman (@JohnFBachman) January 31, 2020

President Trump and the First Lady were scheduled to travel to Mar a Lago on Friday for the weekend.

Developing…

 

They lied, and 200+ died.

For reasons that haven’t been shared with the public, the WHO has chosen to lavish praise on Beijing, insisting that travel to China isn’t dangerous even as more governments impose restrictions, and claiming that Beijing has been completely transparent and a ‘model’ for how countries should handle outbreaks like this.

When pressed by a reporter, Dr. Tedros, the director general of the WHO, replied that local authorities in Wuhan had been “very transparent” with the Chinese people by publishing up-to-date notices about new cases and deaths. First of all, many suspect that Beijing hasn’t been entirely truthful as far as these tallies are concerned.

Second, it’s not so much about what Beijing told the Chinese people. Everybody knows the government censors anything that might reflect badly upon the Communist Party. So to claim that the government has been completely transparent with the people is almost disingenuous. Of course that’s not true. But the real issue is what they did and didn’t tell the international news media, and their international partners.

Now, a new study has exposed the Communist Party’s lies.

The research has once again moved back the timeline of when senior Chinese leaders knew about the outbreak in Wuhan, suggesting that they waited longer to act, and longer to inform the international community, than they had led the world to believe. The claim appeared in a top American medical journal.

From Nikkei Asian Review:

The deadly new coronavirus from Wuhan was spreading from person to person as early as mid-December, weeks before China officially confirmed such transmission, government-funded Chinese researchers report in a top American medical journal.

The paper in the New England Journal of Medicine analyzes data on the first 425 confirmed cases in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, where the outbreak originated.

“On the basis of this information, there is evidence that human-to-human transmission has occurred among close contacts since the middle of December 2019,” it reads. The paper notes that seven health care workers contracted the virus between Jan. 1 and Jan. 11 – significant evidence of human-to-human transmission.

The findings sharply contrast with the accounts of Wuhan health authorities who had maintained until mid-January that there was “no clear evidence” that the virus could be passed among humans. Officials also claimed Jan. 11 that no health care workers had been infected.

But…but…but…the local authorities in Wuhan said they didn’t have evidence of person to person transmission until mid-January! That’s increasingly difficult to believe, seeing as the signs were clearly there after the first wave of patients was diagnosed and examined and interrogated.

Research suggests fewer than 60% of the early virus-carriers had been directly linked to the seafood market. The rest were associates, friends and relatives of the people who had. That, right there, is evidence of human-to-human transmission – and this was known as early as mid-December.

Some frustrated Chinese have chosen to defy censors and lash out on Chinese social media networks like Weibo.

Many of the paper’s authors work for the Chinese Center for Disease Control and local counterparts. Many were among the first batch of medical experts to have entered Wuhan for on-the-ground inspections, developing “a tailored surveillance protocol to identify potential cases” on Jan. 3.

“They all knew,” a user on the Weibo microblogging platform said. “They just didn’t say, but lied to us.”

“If only they could have told people earlier, we could have taken better preventive measures, and the virus would not have spread this fast,” another wrote.

There have even been reports of the government cremating bodies before they can be brought to a morgue and officially included with the statistics, helping to maintain the illusion that the mortality rate for the novel coronavirus outbreak is far below the rate for SARS at just 2%-3%. In reality, some have suggested the true mortality rate is closer to 11%, as thousands in dire need of treatment are confronted by shortages of supplies and doctors, even as Beijing sends legions of medical “personnel” (many of whom are likely just PLA soldiers) to Hubei.

Instead of embracing transparency, Beijing back in December arrested several researchers for “spreading false rumors” about the severity of the outbreak. Of course, their warnings have since been realized.

Some Weibo users have demanded that the authors of the paper expose whoever is responsible for this.

“I’m demanding an explanation from the paper’s authors,” wrote one Weibo user. “You clearly knew about people-to-people transmission three weeks earlier than the public, but did you do what you were supposed to do?”

The Ministry of Science and Technology issued a statement on Thursday urging researchers in the country to “not devote their efforts to writing essays before completing the task of combating the novel coronavirus.”

Some social media users in China pointed to another possibility.

“Perhaps the researchers did not have a way to share their findings, and publishing it in a scientific journal was their last resort to warn the public,” one WeChat user wrote on a group discussion.

In December, eight people were detained for “spreading false rumors” as they discussed the spread of a then-unknown coronavirus on the internet. The eight people were later identified as doctors working in Wuhan, which sparked a public outcry over government censorship.

When this is all said and done, we doubt the Chinese people will forget how their government lied not only to them, but to the world.

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

While we are being bombarded with news from the mainstream media that the current United States economy is “booming,” 90% of Americans say they are stressed out about money.

What could possibly be stressing us out if the employment rate is low, there’s no inflation, and everyone has disposable income?  Or are we being manipulated by the government’s lapdog media to keep us spending and consuming?

According to a study from Thriving Wallet, a new partnership between Thrive Global and Discover, the vast majority of Americans are stressed out about money.  The goal of Thriving Wallet is to: “Reframe our relationship with money so that we can reduce financial stress and achieve positive behavior changes,” Arianna Huffington, founder, and CEO of Thrive Global tells CNBC Select.

The key takeaways from the survey are:

• 90% of individuals say that money has an impact on their stress level

• About 65% report feeling that their financial difficulties are piling up so much they can’t overcome them

• Roughly 40% report that they are currently taking no notable steps to secure their financial future

• Over 40% wish that they could have a ‘fresh’ financial start

• Less than 25% feel extremely optimistic about their financial future

• Nearly 25% make purchases they later regret when experiencing significant stress

• 40% say managing their money on a daily basis limits the extent to which they can enjoy their day-to-day life

The study found that financial stress is either very or extremely influential on many major life milestones and everyday activities, including:

• Retiring: 51%

• Buying a home: 51%

• Purchasing/leasing a car: 44%

• Daily leisure activities: 36%

• Purchasing clothing/groceries: 34%

• Making social plans: 32%

• Getting married: 28%

• Having/adopting children: 28%

• Daily personal care routines: 26%

• Engaging in exercise: 24%

• Getting a pet: 23%

• Choosing what to eat: 1%

If you are one of the Americans struggling with stress related to money, there are some ways to alleviate some of the burdens. First, pay down debts and decrease the amount of outflow each month. This may require cutting back on extras like cable and eating out, but once you’ve eliminated several monthly bills, you’ll have extra money each month.  Not living paycheck to paycheck can go miles in reducing financial stress.

Next, reduce stress in other areas of your life. This will help free your mind for things like remembering to pay bills on time to avoid late fees. Stay on top of what you spend and stick to a budget.  This isn’t fun the first time you do it, but it gets easier and you end up wondering where all your money had been going before you started tracking it.

Whether it was today’s abysmal Chicago PMI print, or algos finally googling “pandemic” and realizing that what is going on in China could have catastrophic consequences for the global economy (as explained in “Coronavirus Has The Potential Coronavirus Has The Potential To Trigger A Global DepressionTo Trigger A Global Depression“), today’s sharp market drop, which pushed the Dow Jones back in the red for the year, is having adverse consequences for market positioning.

Starting with CTAs (which as we explained earlier this week, have emerged as the dominant price-setter in this momentum-driven market), Nomura’s Masanari Takada writes that they have finally emerged as sellers of equity futures as a result of the recent spike in VIX, to wit: “with market volatility on the rise, CTAs appear to be closing out the overlarge long positions they had accumulated in US equity futures. At current price levels, however, we think most of this is defensive unwinding, as we estimate that their recent long positions in S&P 500 futures (net buying since December 2019) break even around 3,270.” And with the S&P at 3245 currently, every CTA that bought in the past month is now underwater.

The good news is that CTA liquidation of long positions has been stop-and-go, as even below 3,270, bottom-up buying pressure from Long/Short funds and other bullish investors generally keeps the bottom from dropping out.

What is notable here is that as CTAs dump, Nomura sees traditional equity long/short funds rising to top the list of “stalwart bulls” who persist in their dip-buying:

L/S funds’ net exposure to US equity (estimated 30-day beta) continues to ramp up gradually, and we think they remain contrarian buyers even after the market shock caused by the novel coronavirus outbreak. But these L/S funds have been reshuffling their portfolios, replacing some cyclical stocks with defensive stocks, and they have increased their allocations toward low-vol and quality factors. As they also appear to be selectively buying up stocks reporting favorable earnings, we interpret their stance as the more conservative flavor of bullishness.

To be sure, it is rather perplexing that hedge funds which remained on the sidelines throughout most of the post-QE4 ramp, are now scrambling to buy stocks. One possible reason for this may be that dealer gamma was solidly in the green, providing a comfortable cushion for any new longs as stocks rallied. That “cushion” however is now gone, because as Nomura’s other quant, Charlie McElligott writes, not only is the prior gamma extreme greatly reduced now – at just 35th percentile since 2013 and nowhere close to as impactful as it was over the past week – and with the S&P now below as the strikes that matter, such as 3250 ($3.4B), 3300 ($4.9B) and 3350 ($3.7B)…

… but the S&P500 “Gamma Neutral/Flip” trigger point, which has rested on the 3250-3260 band, has now been taken out, as dealer gamma flips negative, and as dealers are now forced to sell into every selloff.

In short: with CTAs now liquidation and with gamma no longer a “natural” offset to any selloff, should the selloff accelerate here as L/S funds capitulate, the Fed may have no choice but to intervene to avoid a rout.

Authored by Richard Breslow via Bloomberg,

It isn’t hard to find assets that have clearly shown distress by how they’ve reacted to the current news. But it’s also easily enough done if you are looking for evidence of remarkable sangfroid in the face of what can only be described as scary events.

All in all, taken collectively, from an asset price point of view, things have held up remarkably well. How traders approach the coming weekend and the prospect of China’s market reopening will be very telling. Friday is unlikely to be quiet and whatever happens, someone is going to insist it was obvious.

What has been striking is that, on the face of it, markets appear to be debunking two cliches that we accept as so blatantly obvious that they need no discussion.

1. We take for granted that traders don’t like uncertainty,

2. and place the much-lamented diminished market liquidity near the top of any list of systemic concerns.

Maybe, these are worth reconsidering, at least in part

Watching how and, how far, things have moved, made me wonder if these don’t hold as true as we think. Or, we have been conditioned to simply ignore our natural instincts certain in the belief that the famous “put” is as alive and kicking as ever. And maybe it always will be.

Many economists and analysts are trying to fine-tune their calculations about the economic effects from the virus. And suggesting trades based on them. They are attempting to put a number on something that, at this point, can’t be measured. And appending a caveat like, “if things work out just so, this is how things will play out” really isn’t all that helpful. But it doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone from taking that ball and running with it.

If you survey various asset classes, however, you might come to very different conclusions about how investors are reacting. Traders are likely to pick the biggest and deepest markets to stock their portfolios and be far more circumspect about others. One market looking good won’t necessarily translate to an all-clear signal for everything else. Simplicity and familiarity will continue to look comparatively attractive. Esoterica will have to wait for a renewed day in the sun.

Correlation matrices should be used more carefully as they will churn out some difficult to interpret signals while they learn. Investors will need to reconsider how quickly they let their time series data decay. There is going to be a lot of asset-class rotation. And then, at a time uncertain, it will, hopefully, all have to be unwound. We will need to be much more circumspect when claiming we are, in some generalized fashion, risk-on or off.

It’s not that traders don’t dislike uncertainty. They have just found ways of dealing with it. But this strategy ultimately relies on central banks continuing to play their parts. They undoubtedly don’t want a repeat of the late 2008 price action where, just like now, everyone was busy getting long — or longer.

Investors have been forced to ignore liquidity concerns in order to survive in this low interest-rate, volatility-suppressed world. They’re probably going to have to give this more consideration, even if it’s precipitated by an upset. They’ve often been accused of protesting too much about the lack of liquidity but refusing to pay for it. Electronic platforms make it look like it’s for free when times are good. I suspect most traders just hope this too shall pass. It will be interesting to see if, in the interim, less liquid assets will finally be charged a liquidity premium.

It’s probably true that most traders still stick to the notion that uncertainty and liquidity concerns have merit. But if they don’t guide behavior in the way they used to in the past, we might want to stop taking them for granted. Sometimes they simply work in very different ways.

Well that escalated quickly…

Dow down over 400 points as reality bites on the the global pandemic

The Dow joins Trannies and Small Caps in the red for the year…

Testing its 50DMA for the first time since October…

And 30Y broke to a 1 handle…

It’s been quite a year already…

Somebody do something!

The war between chicken companies Popeye’s and Chick-Fil-A – most recently in the news for various fights and arguments in Popeye’s drive-thru lines – carries with it another negative consequence: the two companies are using up the world’s supply of little chickens.

Both companies use little chickens because the size of the quarter pound breasts fits perfectly inside of a bun. 

A shortage of the little chickens was the cause of Popeye’s having to halt their challenge to Chick-Fil-A last summer. The supply is going to be further put to the test as McDonald’s is now also entering the fray, testing fried chicken sandwiches in four U.S. cities. Wendy’s is also spending $30 million to “beef up” its chicken supply chain. 

Scott Sechler, owner of poultry producer Bell & Evans, said: “Consumers don’t want tough and tasteless big chickens. There’s increasing consumer demand for smaller, premium-quality birds.”

Chickens have been the most popular meat in the U.S. for a long time and more chicken is eaten in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world. The average person in the U.S. eats 93.5 pounds of chicken per year, according to the National Chicken Council (yes, apparently this is actually an organization). 

Today’s chickens raised for meat average about 6 pounds, compared to the 2.5 pounds they weighed on average in 1925. But birds lighter than 4.25 pounds are the ones now in demand by restaurants in the chicken sandwich market. 

David Maloni, executive vice-president of analytics at supply-chain consultant ArrowStream said: “It’s getting harder and harder to get that smaller bird, so they’re paying a premium. The fast-food chains won’t settle for bigger birds.”

Chick-Fil-A total sales were up 13% last year on the backbone of its flagship chicken sandwich, leading analysts to believe it poses “the largest competitive threat” to McDonald’s in the U.S. 

Popeye’s said the demand for its chicken sandwich was so overwhelming last year that it went through several months of supply in just 14 days. The sandwich, which debuted in the summer, didn’t come back until November. In the 3rd quarter, it helped propel Popeye’s same store sales to rise 10%, the highest it has risen in decades. 

McDonald’s and Wendy’s are now targeting the same success. In 2017, Wendy’s said it was cutting its average chicken size by 20%. 

“We saw instant feedback from our customers, who told us our sandwiches across the entire chicken lineup were juicier and more tender,” said Liliana Esposito, chief communications officer for Wendy’s. 

The demand has redlined production for suppliers. 

Will Sawyer, an animal-protein economist at Colorado-based rural lender CoBank ACB said: “Whatever demand growth we might have on smaller breasts, there’s no new supply to meet that demand. Everyone wants a bite out of that market.”

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

According to CNN, the real concern about the coronavirus is not the potential for a global pandemic, it’s the fact there are too many white people trying to stop it.

That was the message sent by an article posted on the news network’s website entitled ‘Coronavirus task force another example of Trump administration’s lack of diversity’.

The two images illustrating the article showed Barack Obama’s circle of advisers during the 2017 Ebola outbreak and President Trump’s advisers during a recent meeting about the coronavirus outbreak. In the photograph showing Trump’s advisers, most of them are, God forbid, white men.

Coronavirus task force another example of Trump administration’s lack of diversity | Analysis https://t.co/bs7L1rUZzc pic.twitter.com/MzzoslqZpT

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 30, 2020

“Who are these experts?” whined CNN’s Brandon Tensley. “They’re largely the same sorts of white men (and a couple women on the sidelines) who’ve dominated the Trump administration from the very beginning.”

Tensley called the image, “a statement that’s as predictable as it is infuriating: President Donald Trump’s administration lacks diversity.”

He concludes by complaining about how “Trump values the opinions of: mostly white men who are mirror images of the President himself.”

Apparently, wanting to not appear racist is more important than stopping a rapidly spreading global pandemic which has now reached at least 23 countries.

This is yet another example of how “diversity” just means ‘less white people’. At its heart is the flagrantly racist premise that people should not be judged on the content of their character but on the color of their skin and that people with white skin should be discriminated against.

Respondents on Twitter were incredulous.

“When I lay dying of bat soup fever, I want to be able to say that the task force may not have been the most qualified, but goddamn they were a diverse bunch,” joked Carpe Donktum.

This needs to be fixed immediately.

When I lay dying of bat soup fever, I want to be able to say that the task force may not have been the most qualified, but goddamn they were a diverse bunch.

— Carpe Donktum🔹 (@CarpeDonktum) January 30, 2020

“Maybe, when the goal is to protect the country against a deadly virus, there are more important things than the race and genitals of the people in the room,” remarked Garrett Gutierrez.

Maybe, when the goal is to protect the country against a deadly virus, there are more important things than the race and genitals of the people in the room.

— Garrett Gutierrez 🚫👢🐍 (@GGarrett2000) January 30, 2020

“I completely agree with you. A solution to any epidemic requires the input of non-binary people of color. Diversity of gender expression and of skin color is the only way to crack major epidemiological challenges,” commented Professor Gad Saad.

I completely agree with you. A solution to any epidemic requires the input of non-binary people of color. Diversity of gender expression and of skin color is the only way to crack major epidemiological challenges.

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) January 31, 2020

And that in a nutshell is why CNN is a complete joke.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.