Tag: finance

Many researchers and experts around the world are in agreement that a safe, effective and cheap COVID-19 vaccine is still months away. Still, that isn’t stopping politicians from pressuring vaccine makers, misinformation from spreading across social media and the digital realm, and Kamala Harris casting doubt on any vaccine under Trump.

In fact, as Statista’s Willem Roper points out, new data shows how the public is growing more skeptical of a potential vaccine, and how that skepticism is being amplified within Black communities in the country.

According to a joint survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation and The Undefeated, 49 percent of Black respondents said they either probably won’t or definitely won’t get a COVID-19 vaccine even if it was deemed safe by scientists and provided for free. That’s a large discrepancy when compared to Hispanic and white respondents, with 37 percent and 33 percent, respectively, saying they probably or definitely won’t take the vaccine.

You will find more infographics at Statista

The survey and writers with The Undefeated focus on Black American’s distrust with the current health care system, as well as with politicians in charge of informing people on vaccine plans. The survey goes on to show how 46 percent of Black parents say the pandemic has had a major impact on the ability to afford basic necessities, with a third of Black parents saying the pandemic has had a major negative impact on the ability to care for their children.

Authored by David Krayden via HumanEvents.com,

If you’re in the unfortunate habit of watching the mainstream media, you might be forgiven for being unaware that there is a presidential election next Tuesday. You see, the network newscasts and most of the cable news stations have been treating Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s daily activities as those of a man approaching his coronation—not of a politician going into battle with an adversary. As far as the media is concerned, President Donald Trump is already defeated, and the Democrats have secured control of the House and taken a majority of the Senate. God is in His Heaven, and the (Democratic) order in the United States has been restored.

When the former Vice President emerges from his basement for a news conference or one of those drive-in campaign events (the kind that attracts a handful of participants, unsure whether this is a campaign event or a movie premier), there are never any questions forwarded by the fourth estate that even approach the levels of difficulty one would expect in the context of a presidential race. Much of the media is not just in the bag for Biden—it might as well be writing his speeches.

A study released this week from MRC Newsbusters found, unsurprisingly, that while Trump received 92% negative coverage from ABC, CBS, and NBC nightly newscasts during the period of July 29th through October 20nd, 2020, Biden enjoyed 66% positive reporting.

“This time around, it’s obvious that the networks are pouring their energy into confronting and criticizing the President, not equally covering both campaigns. During the twelve weeks we examined, Trump received 839 minutes of coverage, compared to just 269 minutes of airtime for Biden, a three-to-one disparity,” the report reads.

That trend has continued, both in terms of their treatment of him, and in terms of their selective amnesia given recent scandals that would have left similar campaigns in embers.

Since last Thursday’s presidential debate, Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski has appeared on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in an hour-long interview that exposed Joe Biden as a globe-trotting politician with his hands in everyone’s pocket—a would-be businessman with nothing to sell but his influence.

But if you’re not watching Fox or reading select conservative media, you might be asking, “Bubba who?” Carlson might have the largest audience in cable news history, but he might as well have been interviewing his grocer for all they cared over at CNN or MSNBC. All of the networks, the cable news stations (except Fox of course), as well as the stalwartly liberal New York Times and Washington Post boycotted the story.

For whatever reason, Joe Biden seems to have curried favor with the Democratic electorate, the mainstream media—even some so-called Republicans who see the career politician as a way to undo the recent gains of popular nationalism. Voters should not be hoodwinked. A Biden victory would be a loss for all Americans—all Americans who aren’t also Bidens, anyway.

BEWARE THE MACHINATIONS OF TURNCOAT REPUBLICANS

Perhaps the most odious of Biden’s supporters are turncoat Republicans, who are so blinded by their hatred of President Trump, and supposedly so fastidious about GOP purity, that they are prepared to roll the dice on a Biden administration that forebodes left-wing activism and socialist policy.

Take Michael Steele (please). The former chairman of the Republican National Committee is now a spokesman for The Lincoln Project – a Never Trumper enterprise that has absolutely nothing to do with the late, great President Abraham Lincoln, and everything to do with vilifying Donald Trump and ousting him from public service.

“This ballot is how we restore the soul of our nation,” the oleaginous Steele stated in a Lincoln Project ad promoting Biden’s candidacy. He suggested that Americans have a clear choice this November, between “electing a good man, Joe Biden, and a trailblazer, [California Sen.] Kamala Harris and ensure an orderly transfer of power, or plunge our country into chaos.”

“America or Trump?” he further provoked. “I choose America.” 

What Steele and The Lincoln Project are choosing, in fact, is the Democratic Party and a socialist America—as evidenced by the millions they’ve spent on negative ad campaigns, not just against President Trump, but against Republican targets they deem too friendly with the Administration. 

What about the widow of the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Cindy McCain, who now thinks the hapless Joe Biden is the very beacon of the American spirit.  When endorsing Biden, McCain tweeted:

“My husband John lived by a code: country first. We are Republicans, yes, but Americans foremost. There’s only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is @JoeBiden.”

Apparently, Cindy Biden lives by a code too: that of a sell-out. Is she expecting a political reward from Biden for betraying the party that her late husband served, and that selected him as its 2008 standard-bearer? We can only assume.

We could go on and on about RINO (Republican In Name Only) legislators, like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who have destroyed their reputations in large part because of their status as Never Trumpers. Romney has not only refused to endorse President Trump’s re-election, he voted to impeach him on one of the Articles of Impeachment. Flake, for his part, released an ode to Joe Biden video this week where the retired has the gall to call himself a “conservative Republican.”

Former Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) should be publicly ridiculed for his fawning admiration of Joe Biden. Kasich is most known for his failed attempts at the GOP presidential nomination, in 2000 and then again 2016, and his role as a fill-in host for Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor” when former Fox News star Bill O’Reilly was on vacation. Why is this former conservative and formerly credible individual actively hoping a socialist administration seizes power in Washington? Kasich went as far as to make an appearance at the Democratic National Convention this year, delivering a speech that urged Republicans to put on their “nation first” hats and vote Democrat. Of course, Kasich never stops to ask, when did Joe Biden ever put on his “nation first” hats—instead of the “Biden above all” one he’s donned for 47 years?

It is noteworthy that the Republican resistance is rooted in a personal animus towards Donald Trump, and not owing to any real objection to policy, let alone specific criticism of administration objectives. These cowering so-called conservatives have traded integrity to gain political advantage, going all-in on anyone by Trump—no matter how corrupt, senile, or ineffectual.

LET’S FACE IT: MOST DAYS, BIDEN LOOKS LIKE HE JUST DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN

This is a seminal and potentially catastrophic election. This is nothing like, say, the 1960 contest between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon—a time in history when the two candidates who were almost identical in policy objectives, if not in temperament and personality, and it really didn’t matter who won.

Exactly 60 years later, it very much matters who wins. Donald Trump and Joe Biden might be of the same generation and may have experienced much of the same history, but these two candidates stand in polar opposition to one another. Joe Biden is the nominal leader of a Democratic Party that would have been aligned with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is a party dominated by hardline socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—and, yes, even Biden’s running-mate Sen. Kamala Harris, who was recognized as the most liberal senator of 2019.

There are many reasons why Joe Biden should not be the next President of the United States—here are some of my favorites:

He’s too old. President Ronald Reagan was on the verge of turning 78 when he left office in 1989. Joe Biden, if elected, will be the same age on inauguration day. Given his age, it’s no wonder that he’s frequently demonstrated impaired mental acuity, failing to remember basic facts such as where he is and who he is with. (He once memorably thought that Bernie Sanders was the President of the United States—while on a stage competing with him for that very title). 

Joe Biden’s best days are not just behind him—they are a distant memory. Biden’s campaign schedule has resembled that of a high school student cutting classes—giving new life to the term senioritis. He has not worked anywhere near as hard as he should have to win the presidency. In fact, on most days, he looks like he just doesn’t give a damn.

Of course, if age was the only factor to bring opprobrium against Biden, it might be forgiven, if he at least espoused sound policies. But he does not. Biden has promised that, if elected, he is going to raise taxes and repeal the Trump tax cuts. He is going to shut down the economy. He is going to pursue a green energy plan, one that not only envisions the end of fossil fuels but pretends that solar, wind, and electric power can actually power a modern economy and a state with the population and energy needs of the United States. A disastrous premise because, until that miracle fuel is discovered that can replace oil and gas, the economy will not function without them, and shutting down our oil economy will have cascading effects on everything from how we drive to the grocery store to what will be on the shelves once we get there.  Though he’s been careful not to stand beside a Green New Deal sign (during his two hours a day of campaigning), he has signed off on the policy, and has appointed Ocasio-Cortez—the plan’s apparent author—as his “climate change advisor.” 

Under Biden, America’s borders will ostensibly disappear, and the country will lose its sovereignty to illegal immigrants streaming across the border, demanding taxpayer-funded health care and government benefits. During a June 2019 Democratic presidential debate, Biden’s endorsement of government-run health care that covers illegal immigrants did not go unnoticed. Now, as a presidential candidate, his lackadaisical views on immigration seems only to escalate: in April, suggested the country implement a 100-day deportation freeze in order to “take stock.” This was just after he revealed, during a town hall in South Carolina, that he wanted all detention centers for illegal immigrants to be shut down. 

A Democratic administration will pack the Supreme Court: you can be certain of it. Joe Biden will expand the court, and use the newly-created seats to appoint leftist judges to turn the Court into a legislative appendage of Congress that enforces and promotes left-wing policies. Sure, he’s recently been suggesting some nonsense of appointing some bipartisan “commission” to “study” the matter for half, in the hopes of “reforming” the legislative body—but that’s just more of his campaign larder. There is a good reason that Biden repeatedly refused to answer the question and even said voters don’t deserve to know!

This move to control the Court is in lockstep with a greater project of transforming the constitutional order of this country. Your Second Amendment rights are endangered by Biden. For evidence of that, we need look no further than his campaign website to see what Biden has planned in terms of confiscating “assault rifles” and getting “weapons of war off our streets.” His campaign website continues:

“Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.”

Joe Biden has spent 47 years “serving” the American people at the public trough. He has looked after himself and his family, endlessly promoting and exchanging his influence for favors and cold, hard cash. A cache of Hunter Biden’s emails reportedly found in a laptop indicate that in April 2015, Biden met with a top official of a Ukrainian natural gas company where Hunter eventually sat on the board of directors. One of those emails was authenticated by a cybersecurity expert after being submitted by the Daily Caller News Foundation. If the emails are authentic, it means that Joe Biden has been lying when he said he didn’t know about his son’s business activities and almost certainly mixed that business with his political position.

He’s a serial plagiarizer who once lifted a speech whole cloth from a British Labour Party leader, and who cannot seem to distinguish between what he did and what he imagined he did—what he wrote and what he stole from someone else. At the heart of his being, Biden is an archetypical politician who has never believed so strongly in any belief or conviction that he could not jettison it for sheer political expediency. Without politics, he would most probably have been an acute failure at every legal venture that he attempted. And, if the Democrats and their so-called Republican Never Trumper associates have their way, he’ll continue to fail up—all the way into the White House.

TRUMP PROMISED TO GOVERN LIKE A CONSERVATIVE—AND HE HAS

Maybe you, like the mainstream media and the Never Trumpers, find it hard to like Donald Trump. You might find his speeches a little overbearing at times, his talk somewhat coarse and his manners underdeveloped. You could even think he appeals to the kind of folks who populate a late-night comedy show in Las Vegas.

But he came to the White House and promised to govern like a conservative. And he has done just that: He’s lowered taxes for the middle class and is promising more of the same in his second term, he fought to keep the economy open during the coronavirus pandemic, he rehabilitated the military, he appointed three conservative judges to the Supreme Court and 200 to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He fearlessly defended the lives of the unborn and was perhaps the most pro-life president since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States. 

President Trump stands in stark opposition to Joe Biden, who remains ever committed to another cycle of endless wars. But his refusal to continue in his predecessors’ custom of deploying American soldiers around the world has not made President Trump an isolationist president. He doesn’t ignore foreign threats, and he is keenly aware that the United States has enemies that need to be defeated. He believes in military action when required and has effectively built a third-way of policing the world. But he is not a proponent of occupying other nations for decades in the vain hope that they will adopt and nurture democratic institutions while obsequiously thanking American soldiers for their efforts. As Commander in Chief, President Trump has exhibited strength of character.

Joe Biden, meanwhile, has been hiding in his basement and scared witless of catching COVID-19. 

President Trump deserves to win on November 3rd—not just because he has delivered on his promises, but because he has worked hard on his re-election—campaigning three to four times as hard as his indolent Democratic opponent. Hand Biden a victory, and he won’t even bother (let alone remember) to thank the people who waged the campaign on his behalf. 

Bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. has been a hotbutton issue on the campaign trail this year. Despite the fact that President Trump ran on the idea back in 2016 and has been repatriating manufacturing (or at least trying to) for the better part of his entire term, Joe Biden is now also trying to campaign on the issue. 

We wonder if either candidate has considered the automation that is likely going to be necessary for a broad manufacturing move back to the United States. 

One man who definitely has is Arnold Kamler, best known for being the man behind Kent Bicycles. He thinks that the only way manufacturing can come back to the U.S. in full force, is going to be through the use of robotics. His company employs 150 people at a plant in South Carolina, but still does most of its manufacturing in Taiwan and China. 

Kamler told Bloomberg that while he wants to potentially 4x his output in the U.S., he isn’t getting help from the U.S. government. He claims that actions taken by President Trump and promises made by Joe Biden – both relating to taxes and tariffs – simply don’t help him. What would help him, however, is automation.

He said: “Everyone on both sides likes to make big announcements of taxes and tariffs -– that doesn’t help. The very first thing the U.S. government should do is to help U.S. companies automate.”

He said of the tariffs: “We went months of shipping lots of bicycles and losing money. Now, business is off-the-charts crazy good.”

And he’s right. The U.S. has “one of the lowest rates of automation among the world’s top industrial powers” according to Bloomberg.

While the U.S. used to be an industrial powerhouse decades ago, manufacturing and costs related to it have evolved. Instead of yearning for the days of old, lawmakers and business owners should be embracing a new hybrid model of production involving more robotics. 

That’s what Kamler is doing. While human workers assemble bikes by threading brake cables or installing chains, machines are tasked with painting the bike frames.

He commented: “If we’re going to make bicycles in a big way, we need a lot more automation. We just can’t do it the way we used to do it years ago.”

Kamler aims to automate even more of his process and, ironically, says he will need to hire more workers to oversee the robotics he intends to buy. The Manufacturing Institute, which represents executives in the industry, shows that Kamler is representative of a larger trend. 75% of manufacturers are planning on boosting “smart factory” technology investments over the next year. 

Carolyn Lee of TMI said: “One of the prime benefits of automation is that it replaces tasks that are repetitive or physically taxing, freeing people to focus on tasks that require human skills and creativity and creating even more jobs along the way.”

She says there are about 400,000 new openings to tend to manufacturing equipment and that 4.6 million new, similar positions will need to be filled by 2028. 

Via InternationalMan.com,

Democracy is vastly overrated.

It’s not like the consensus of a bunch of friends agreeing to see the same movie. Most often, it boils down to a kinder and gentler variety of mob rule, dressed in a coat and tie. The essence of positive values like personal liberty, wealth, opportunity, fraternity, and equality lies not in democracy, but in free minds and free markets where government becomes trivial. Democracy focuses people’s thoughts on politics, not production; on the collective, not on their own lives.

Although democracy is just one way to structure a state, the concept has reached cult status; unassailable as political dogma. It is, as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed, “a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion.” Most of the founders of America were more concerned with liberty than democracy. Tocqueville saw democracy and liberty as almost polar opposites.

Democracy can work when everyone concerned knows one another, shares the same values and goals, and abhors any form of coercion. It is the natural way of accomplishing things among small groups.

But once belief in democracy becomes a political ideology, it’s necessarily transformed into majority rule. And, at that point, the majority (or even a plurality, a minority, or an individual) can enforce their will on everyone else by claiming to represent the will of the people.

The only form of democracy that suits a free society is economic democracy in the laissez-faire form, where each person votes with his money for what he wants in the marketplace. Only then can every individual obtain what he wants without compromising the interests of any other person. That’s the polar opposite of the “economic democracy” of socialist pundits who have twisted the term to mean the political allocation of wealth.

But many terms in politics wind up with inverted meanings. “Liberal” is certainly one of them.

The Spectrum of Politics

The terms liberal (left) and conservative (right) define the conventional political spectrum; the terms are floating abstractions with meanings that change with every politician.

In the 19th century, a liberal was someone who believed in free speech, social mobility, limited government, and strict property rights. The term has since been appropriated by those who, although sometimes still believing in limited free speech, always support strong government and weak property rights, and who see everyone as a member of a class or group.

Conservatives have always tended to believe in strong government and nation­alism. Bismarck and Metternich were archetypes. Today’s conservatives are some­times seen as defenders of economic liberty and free markets, although that is mostly true only when those concepts are perceived to coincide with the interests of big business and economic nationalism.

Bracketing political beliefs on an illogical scale, running only from left to right, results in constrained thinking. It is as if science were still attempting to define the elements with air, earth, water, and fire.

Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people, which is to say, in restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis. Since freedom is indivisible, it makes little sense to compartmentalize it; but there are two basic types of freedom: social and economic.

According to the current usage, liberals tend to allow social freedom, but restrict economic freedom, while conservatives tend to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom. An authoritarian (they now sometimes class them­selves as “middle-of-the-roaders”) is one who believes both types of freedom should be restricted.

But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom? Unfortunately, something without a name may get overlooked or, if the name is only known to a few, it may be ignored as unimportant. That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians.

A useful chart of the political spectrum would look like this:

A libertarian believes that individuals have a right to do anything that doesn’t impinge on the common-law rights of others, namely force or fraud. Libertarians are the human equivalent of the Gamma rat, which bears a little explanation.

Some years ago, scientists experimenting with rats categorized the vast major­ity of their subjects as Beta rats. These are basically followers who get the Alpha rats’ leftovers. The Alpha rats establish territories, claim the choicest mates, and generally lord it over the Betas. This pretty well-corresponded with the way the researchers thought the world worked.

But they were surprised to find a third type of rat as well: the Gamma. This creature staked out a territory and chose the pick of the litter for a mate, like the Alpha, but didn’t attempt to dominate the Betas. A go-along-get-along rat. A libertarian rat, if you will.

My guess, mixed with a dollop of hope, is that as society becomes more repressive, more Gamma people will tune in to the problem and drop out as a solution. No, they won’t turn into middle-aged hippies practicing basket weaving and bead stringing in remote communes. Rather, they will structure their lives so that the government—which is to say taxes, regulations, and inflation—is a non-factor. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted, gave a tax and nobody paid, or imposed a regulation and nobody obeyed it?

Libertarian beliefs have a strong following among Americans, but the Liber­tarian Party has never gained much prominence, possibly because the type of people who might support it have better things to do with their time than vote. And if they believe in voting, they tend to feel they are “wasting” their vote on someone who can’t win. But voting is itself another part of the problem.

None of the Above

At least 95% of incumbents in Congress typically retain office. That is a higher proportion than in the Su­preme Soviet of the defunct USSR, and a lower turnover rate than in Britain’s hereditary House of Lords where people lose their seats only by dying.

The political system in the United States has, like all systems which grow old and large, become moribund and corrupt.

The conventional wisdom holds a decline in voter turnout is a sign of apathy. But it may also be a sign of a renaissance in personal responsibility. It could be people saying, “I won’t be fooled again, and I won’t lend power to them.”

Politics has always been a way of redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who are politically favored. As H.L. Mencken observed, every election amounts to no more than an advance auction on stolen goods, a process few would support if they saw its true nature.

Protesters in the 1960s had their flaws, but they were quite correct when they said, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” If politics is the problem, what is the solution? I have an answer that may appeal to you.

The first step in solving the problem is to stop actively encouraging it.

Many Americans have intuitively recognized that government is the problem and have stopped voting. There are at least five reasons many people do not vote:

1. Voting in a political election is unethical. The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force. If you disapprove of those things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.

2. Voting compromises your privacy. It gets your name in another government computer database.

3. Voting, as well as registering, entails hanging around government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time.

4. Voting encourages politicians. A vote against one candidate—a major, and quite understandable, reason why many people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent. And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society.

5. Your vote doesn’t count. Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode. But, statistically, one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. That’s entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are in office.

Some of these thoughts may impress you as vaguely “unpatriotic”; that is certainly not my intention. But, unfortunately, America isn’t the place it once was, either. The United States has evolved from the land of the free and the home of the brave to something more closely resembling the land of entitlements and the home of whining lawsuit filers.

The founding ideas of the country, which were highly libertarian, have been thoroughly distorted. What passes for tradition today is something against which the Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution.

This sorry, scary state of affairs is one reason some people emphasize the importance of joining the process, “working within the system” and “making your voice heard,” to ensure that “the bad guys” don’t get in. They seem to think that increasing the number of voters will improve the quality of their choices.

This argument compels many sincere people, who otherwise wouldn’t dream of coercing their neighbors, to take part in the political process. But it only feeds power to people in politics and government, validating their existence and making them more powerful in the process.

Of course, everybody involved gets something out of it, psychologically if not monetarily. Politics gives people a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves and so has special appeal for those who cannot find satisfaction within themselves.

We cluck in amazement at the enthusiasm shown at Hitler’s giant rallies but figure what goes on here, today, is different. Well, it’s never quite the same. But the mindless sloganeering, the cult of the personality, and a certainty of the masses that “their” candidate will kiss their personal lives and make them better are identical.

And even if the favored candidate doesn’t help them, then at least he’ll keep others from getting too much. Politics is the institutionalization of envy, a vice which proclaims “You’ve got something I want, and if I can’t get one, I’ll take yours. And if I can’t have yours, I’ll destroy it so you can’t have it either.” Participating in politics is an act of ethical bankruptcy.

The key to getting “rubes” (i.e., voters) to vote and “marks” (i.e., contribu­tors) to give is to talk in generalities while sounding specific and looking sincere and thoughtful, yet decisive. Vapid, venal party hacks can be shaped, like Silly Putty, into salable candidates. People like to kid themselves that they are voting for either “the man” or “the ideas.” But few “ideas” are more than slogans artfully packaged to push the right buttons. Voting for “the man” doesn’t help much either since these guys are more diligently programmed, posed, and rehearsed than any actor.

This is probably more true today than it’s ever been since elections are now won on television, and television is not a forum for expressing complex ideas and philosophies. It lends itself to slogans and glib people who look and talk like game show hosts. People with really “new ideas” wouldn’t dream of introducing them to politics because they know ideas can’t be explained in 60 seconds.

I’m not intimating, incidentally, that people disinvolve themselves from their communities, social groups, or other voluntary organizations; just the opposite since those relationships are the lifeblood of society. But the political process, or government, is not synonymous with society or even complementary to it. Government is a dead hand on society.

So where does that leave us for the election coming up in a few days?

It’s likely to be the most important one in the country’s history, including that of 1860. Unfortunately, no matter how you vote, it’s unlikely to head off what history likely has in store for us. Something wicked this way comes.

*  *  *

The political trajectory is troubling. Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion. Do you want to know exactly what you should be doing differently with your portfolio and in your personal life? It reveals what you can do to prepare so that you can avoid getting caught in the crosshairs. Click here to watch it now.

Here’s how the Associated Press responded to the latest terrorist beheadings to rock France which has placed the country in a state of ‘maximum security alert’: the major US-based international news organization essentially blamed France itself. 

This despite that in the two decapitation attacks and stabbings which came within two weeks of each other (leaving multiple innocent French citizens dead), the perpetrators made it very clear they were committing the brutal murders in the name of Islam as revenge against President Macron and France’s supposed ‘anti-Islamic’ stance and statements, specifically free speech related remarks made in defense of Charlie Hebdo cartoons which depicted Muhammad in a mocking fashion.

AP Explains: Maybe France’s skirt is just too short pic.twitter.com/pzLIBsZ3sK

— Ben McDonald (@Bmac0507) October 31, 2020

Astoundingly, AP’s verified Twitter account appeared to offer some level of ‘justification’ for the killings that included blame of the country’s “staunch secular policies” and the “tough-talking president” who appears “insensitive” to Muslims.

While linking to an article the prominent news outlet wrote: “AP Explains: Why does France incite anger in the Muslim world? Its brutal colonial past, staunch secular policies and tough-talking president who is seen as insensitive toward the Muslim faith all play a role.” 

The backlash was so immediate and fierce that the AP soon deleted its outrageous tweet, replacing it with this:

This replaces a tweet about France and the Muslim world that asked why France “incites” anger. The word was not intended to convey that France instigates anger against it.

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 1, 2020

Though short of an apology, the fact that it was deleted constitutes a rare, embarrassing moment for the press agency. However, the follow-up message did little to alleviate suspicions that this is yet another case of media elites trying to downplay or ignore Islamic terrorism.

More worrisome, the outlet is in reality “inciting hatred against France and its people” – as one journalist observed.

The article itself that the original tweet link to also seemed to lay blame for the slayings on France’s secular traditions and on the government and people themselves. 

Many angry commenters underscored that it was a blatant and unbelievable case of victim blaming, while simultaneously failing to condemn the murderers and essentially ignoring their own statements and motives. One emphasized that it was no less than a “justification for decapitation”. 

This paragraph from the @AP is astonishing for where it selects to place its emphasis. It glances at the beheading, but only as a means of teeing up the real rebuke of Macron for not renouncing cartoons. There’s not even a hint of awareness that decapitations must stop first. pic.twitter.com/Pan4DcL1Kd

— Thomas Chatterton Williams 🌍 🎧 (@thomaschattwill) November 1, 2020

Especially in the case of French school teacher Samuel Patty’s murder, his killer made it abundantly clear what his motives were.

The 18-year old murderer was shot and killed by police just after the Oct. 16 attack. But just prior to the shoot-out he posted a gruesome image of the aftermath of the beheading to social media as a “message” to others who promote the Charlie Hebdo cartoons or “insults” to Muhammad.

By Eric Peters, CIO Of One River Asset Management

When 2020 started, Trump seemed destined to win. The economy was strong, unemployment low, markets were priced accordingly. The odds of a Democrat victory were low, though market consequences of such an outcome seemed clear – higher taxes and re-regulation would knock equities lower. A 25% S&P 500 decline, give or take 10%, seemed reasonable.

Then came Covid. When stocks bottomed on March 23rd, Trump narrowly led Biden in betting markets. But pandemics have consequences and this catastrophe hit a nation that had spent decades optimizing its economy to spur asset price appreciation. America’s financial system was as overleveraged as it was unstable. A depression was inevitable in the absence of something utterly unprecedented.

On March 27th Trump signed the $2.2trln CARES Act, and this, combined with a breathtaking array of asset purchase programs marked the effective start of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) – with the Fed and Treasury coordinating policy.

And ever since, it has mattered less who wins this election. Because you see, once the link is broken between what the government must collect and what it can spend, who leads the nation is less consequential – at least to stock markets in the near-term.

Tuesday’s election will be a critical one for the nation. No matter who wins, investors can rest easy knowing there will still be long-term opportunities in the market—and Jerome Powell will still be running the Fed. In this week’s issue: pic.twitter.com/gsFIQI5teO

— Barron’s (@barronsonline) October 31, 2020

But to a nation descending into tribalism, who wins elections matters greatly. And by early September, with betting markets showing Trump and Biden tied, a new risk emerged: a contested election that would tear the nation to shreds. Provoking civil conflict. War. Stocks declined. But since the first presidential debate on Sept 29th, Biden gained on Trump in the polls.

This is how a decisive Biden victory that had once been seen to be bearish has now become bullish, thanks to MMT which ensures that whoever runs the nation will spend money with reckless abandon.

And we are thus left to trade the impact of a virus that is not finished with us, even if we are desperate to be done with it. As we all pray for a decisive electoral outcome.

Anecdote:

Ten years from today, what will market historians write about the present time? This is among the most important questions.

In 2012, they wrote that Gordon Brown sold half of the UK government’s gold between 1999-2002 at 20yr lows, around $300/ounce. The world had lost its mind, wildly overvaluing intangibles, shunning hard assets. No sooner had Brown hit sell then gold began a 10yr rally to $1,915/ounce.

What will market historians write in 2029 about the 2019 Saudi Aramco IPO with oil at $75/barrel? That was the world’s largest exporter puking reserves. They’re nowhere near finished. The pain for exporters has only just begun.

But far more importantly, what will historians write about the panic adoption of today’s new policy paradigm? Without even a brief public debate, the US government chose to borrow somewhere between 15-20% of GDP from the central bank, which itself engaged in all sorts of financial asset purchases to inflate their prices.

And this shielded those people least touched by the pandemic from pain, as those who hold no stocks and bonds were simultaneously devastated. And this dramatically amplified the inequality that was already tearing the nation’s fabric to shreds.

Traders who spent a decade watching quantitative easing and low interest rates fuel stock price gains, applied yesterday’s lessons to tomorrow. Equity prices surged. While this felt somehow wrong, they could no longer bear the pain of underperformance and convinced themselves that there is no alternative.

But never in the history of humanity has a state of no alternatives sustained for long. For decades, an ever-growing share of the economy’s profits had been awarded to capital owners at the expense of laborers. And as financial asset prices were lifted to record highs, forming a secular top, the system that had driven itself to a state of severe imbalance, instability, was facing tumultuous change. And lurking below, suspended in those watery vaults, a white whale.

In a move we are sure won’t have any negative repercussions on the state’s quality of life going forward, Oregon looks slated to the be the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize “hard drugs” like heroin, cocaine and LSD.

The move could come as part of a ballot measure that voters will decide on during election day. 

The initiative, called Measure 110, could “drastically change” the state’s justice system, ABC News noted. Those who are caught with hard drugs would now have the option of paying a $100 fine or attending new addition recovery centers, paid for with taxes from retail marijuana sales.

Under the new measure, possession of less than 1 gram of heroin or meth, 2 grams of cocaine, 12 grams of psilocybin, 40 doses of LSD, oxycodone or methadone and 1 gram of MDMA would all be decriminalized. 

Countries like Portugal, the Netherlands and Switzerland have already implemented similar decriminalizations. In Portgual, the change saw “no surge” in new drug use. In fact, drug deaths fell while the number of people in the country treated for addiction rose 20% between 2001 and 2008. Then, the number stabilized. 

The U.N. Chief Executives Board for Coordination announced in 2019 that it would also “promote alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalization of drug possession for personal use” in order to “address prison overcrowding and overincarceration by people accused of drug crimes.”

The new proposed measure in Oregon has the backing of “the Oregon Nurses Association, the Oregon chapter of the American College of Physicians and the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians,” according to ABC.

The groups contend that: “Punishing people for drug use and addiction is costly and hasn’t worked. More drug treatment, not punishment, is a better approach.” 

On the other side of the argument is 24 district attorneys, who claim the measure “recklessly decriminalizes possession of the most dangerous types of drugs (and) will lead to an increase in acceptability of dangerous drugs.”

Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt argued back: “Misguided drug laws have created deep disparities in the justice system. Arresting people with addictions is a cruel punishment because it slaps them with a lifelong criminal record that can ruin lives.”

Jimmy Jones, executive director of Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action, a group that helps the homeless, said: “Every time that this happens, not only does that individual enter the criminal justice system but it makes it very difficult for us, on the back end, to house any of these folks because a lot of landlords won’t touch people with recent criminal history.”

He continued: “They won’t touch people with possession charges.”

So now, landlords simply won’t know when their renters have a hard drug problem. That should fix things, Jimmy. 

Authored by Professor Sunetra Gupta, op-ed via The Daily Mail,

Lockdown is a blunt, indiscriminate policy that forces the poorest and most vulnerable people to bear the brunt of the fight against coronavirus. As an infectious diseases epidemiologist, I believe there has to be a better way. 

That is why, earlier this month, with two other international scientists, I co-authored a proposal for an alternative approach — one that shields those most at risk while enabling the rest of the population to resume their ordinary lives to some extent.

I expected debate and disagreement about our ideas, published as the Great Barrington Declaration.

As a scientist, I would welcome that. After all, science progresses through its ideas and counter-ideas.

But I was utterly unprepared for the onslaught of insults, personal criticism, intimidation and threats that met our proposal. The level of vitriol and hostility, not just from members of the public online but from journalists and academics, has horrified me.

I am not a politician. The hurly-burly of political life and being in the eye of the media do not appeal to me at all.

I am first and foremost a scientist; one who is far more comfortable sitting in my office or laboratory than in front of a television camera.

Of course, I do have deeply held political ideals — ones that I would describe as inherently Left-wing. I would not, it is fair to say, normally align myself with the Daily Mail.

I have strong views about the distribution of wealth, about the importance of the Welfare State, about the need for publicly owned utilities and government investment in nationalised industries.

But Covid-19 is not a political phenomenon. It is a public health issue — indeed, it is one so serious that the response to it has already led to a humanitarian crisis. So I have been aghast to see a political rift open up, with outright abuse meted out to those who, like me, question the orthodoxy.

At the heart of our proposal is the recognition that mass lockdowns cause enormous damage.

We are already seeing how current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.

The results — to name just a few — include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health.

Such pitfalls of national lockdowns must not be ignored, especially when it is the working class and younger members of society who carry the heaviest burden.

I was also deeply concerned that lockdowns only delay the inevitable spread of the virus. Indeed, we believe that a better way forward would be to target protective measures at specific vulnerable groups, such as the elderly in care homes.

Of course, there will be challenges, such as where people are being cared for in their own multi-generational family homes.

I am certainly not pretending I have all the answers, but these issues need to be discussed and thrashed out thoroughly.

That is why I have found it so frustrating how, in recent weeks, proponents of lockdown policies have seemed intent on shutting down debate rather than promoting reasoned discussion.

It is perplexing to me that so many refuse even to consider the potential benefits of allowing non-vulnerable citizens, such as the young, to go about their lives and risk infection, when in doing so they would build up herd immunity and thereby protect the lives of vulnerable citizens.

Yet rather than engage in serious, rational discussion with us, our critics have dismissed our ideas as ‘pixie dust’ and ‘wishful thinking’.

This refusal to cherish the value of the scientific method strikes at the heart of everything I, as a scientist, hold dear. To me, the reasoned exchange of ideas is the basis of civilised society.

So I was left stunned after being invited on to a mid-morning radio programme recently, only for a producer to warn me minutes before we went on air that I was not to mention the Great Barrington Declaration. The producer repeated the warning and indicated that this was an instruction from a senior broadcasting executive.

I demanded an explanation and, with seconds to go, was told that the public wouldn’t be familiar with the meaning of the phrase ‘Great Barrington Declaration’.

And this was not an isolated experience. A few days later, another national radio station approached my office to set up an interview, then withdrew the invitation. They felt, on reflection, that giving airtime to me would ‘not be in the national interest’.

But the Great Barrington Declaration represents a heartfelt attempt by a group of academics with decades of experience in this field to limit the harm of lockdown. I cannot conceive how anyone can construe this as ‘against the national interest’.

Moreover, matters certainly are not helped by outlets such as The Guardian, which has repeatedly published opinion pieces making factually incorrect and scientifically flawed statements, as well as borderline defamatory comments about me, while refusing to give our side of the debate an opportunity to present our view.

I am surprised, given the importance of the issues at stake — not least the principle of fair, balanced journalism — that The Guardian would not want to present all the evidence to its readers. After all, how else are we to encourage proper, frank debate about the science?

On social media, meanwhile, much of the discourse has lacked any decorum whatsoever.

I have all but stopped using Twitter, but I am aware that a number of academics have taken to using it to make personal attacks on my character, while my work is dismissed as ‘pseudo- science’. Depressingly, our critics have also taken to ridiculing the Great Barrington Declaration as ‘fringe’ and ‘dangerous’.

But ‘fringe’ is a ridiculous word, implying that only mainstream science matters. If that were the case, science would stagnate. And dismissing us as ‘dangerous’ is equally unhelpful, not least because it is an inflammatory, emotional term charged with implications of irresponsibility. When it is hurled around by people with influence, it becomes toxic.

But this pandemic is an international crisis. To shut down the discussion with abuse and smears — that is truly dangerous.

Yet of all the criticisms flung at us, the one I find most upsetting is the accusation that we are indulging in ‘policy-based evidence-making’ — in other words, drumming up facts to fit our ideological agenda.

And that ideology, according to some, is one of Right-wing libertarian extremism.

According to Wikipedia, for instance, the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by a Right-wing think-tank with links to climate-change deniers.

It should be obvious to anyone that writing a short proposal and posting it on a website requires no great financing. But let me spell it out, since, apparently, I have to: I did not accept payment to co-author the Great Barrington Declaration.

Money has never been the motivation in my career. It hurts me profoundly that anyone who knows me, or has even a passing professional acquaintance, could believe for a minute that I would accept a clandestine payment for anything.

I am very fortunate to have a house and garden I love, and I couldn’t ask for more material wealth than that. Far more important to me are my family and my work. Yet the abuse continues to flood in, increasingly of a personal nature.

I have been accused of not having the right expertise, of being a ‘theoretical’ epidemiologist with her head in the clouds. In fact, within my research group, we have a thriving laboratory that was one of the first to develop an antibody test for the coronavirus.

We were able to do so because we have been working for the past six years on a flu vaccine, using a combination of laboratory and theoretical techniques. Our technology has already been patented and licensed and presents a rare example of a mathematical model leading to the development of a vaccine.

Even more encouraging, however, is that there is now a groundswell of movements — Us For Them, PanData19 and The Price of Panic, to name but three — seeking to give a voice to those, like me, who believe that the collateral damage of lockdown can be worse than the virus itself.

On Thursday, a broad coalition was launched under the banner of Recovery. Drawing people from across the mainstream of political views, the movement is calling for balance and moderation in our response to Covid-19, backed by a proper public debate and a comprehensive public inquiry.

I am delighted that it has received such a level of support.

For, ultimately, lockdown is a luxury of the affluent; something that can be afforded only in wealthy countries — and even then, only by the better-off households in those countries.

One way to go about shifting our perspective would be to catalogue all the ways in which lockdowns across the world are damaging societies. At present, I am collaborating with a number of colleagues to do just this, under the banner www.collateralglobal.org.

For the simple truth is that Covid-19 will not just go away if we continue to impose enough meaningless restrictions on ourselves. And the longer we fail to recognise this, the worse will be the permanent economic damage — the brunt of which, again, will be borne by the disadvantaged and the young.

When I signed the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, I did so with fellow scientists to express our view that national lockdowns won’t cure us of Covid.

Clearly, none of us anticipated such a vitriolic response.

The abuse that has followed has been nothing short of shameful.

But rest assured. Whatever they throw at us, it won’t do anything to sway me — or my colleagues — from the principles that sit behind what we wrote.

* * *

Professor Sunetra Gupta is an infectious disease epidemiologist and a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.

As discussed earlier, the record-shattering growth in vote-by-mail which means that the bulk of votes in key battleground states has already been cast…

… is likely to distort the pattern of vote counting and reporting on election night that we’ve become accustomed to. And, as we also touched upon in an earlier post, there’s potential for many twists and turns, with candidates seemingly ahead falling back quickly behind as different types of votes are counted at different times.

But, according to Morgan Stanley, there’s an increasingly viable path to knowing the result on election night. For investors, the bank laconically notes that “knowing the result is all about when markets will conclude who has won, not necessarily when a candidate has conceded or when media networks call the winner.” And the road to having a result on election night goes through Florida and North Carolina.

According to Morgan Stanley’s chief political strategist Michael Zezas, 65% of Florida mail-in ballots have been returned, as have 56% of NC ballots. Both states can count those votes ahead of Election Day, and have stated publicly those counts will be quickly released upon poll closing. Hence, both states could return quick results, which opens the possibility of knowing the election outcome early in the night. For example, President Trump’s path to victory without Florida is a much more narrow one. In fact, if he appears to have lost Florida, markets may quickly conclude he has probably lost the presidency.

Similarly, if the North Carolina senate race is won by Cal Cunningham (the Democratic candidate), then that, Morgan Stanley believes, will be an indicator to markets that Democrats have taken control of the Senate by also winning seats in other close races, like Colorado or Arizona where polls close later in the night. And while networks likely won’t call it that early because there are slow-counting states with enough electoral votes in play still out there, in particular Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Morgan Stanley thinks “markets would bake it in relatively quickly.“

Still, the bank sees as more likely that markets will need 24 hours or more to form a reliable view. If President Trump wins Florida or keeps the vote count close, both of which are viable possibilities given close polling numbers, then the Electoral College outcome may depend on those slower-counting states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

And while they have substantial amounts of mail-in ballots already returned, 65%, 62%, and 50%, respectively, they can’t count these votes until Election Day, so those results could take a few days to come in reliably.

As a result, Morgan Stanley is adjusting its election night timing probabilities, and while it no longer sees the odds of an “election week” at 70% as it did last month, it still gives 65% odds that we will not know the result on election night.

Authored by Don Brown via AmericanThinker.com,

In the last twenty years, Democrats have twice lost presidential elections when the Electoral College has “trumped” the popular vote, leading to Republican victories. First came George W. Bush’s presidential victory over Al Gore in 2000, then Trump’s shocker over Hillary Clinton in 2016.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Thus, radical Democrats demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

 “It’s undemocratic,” they say.  “The will of the people should rule,” they cry.

Yes, it’s undemocratic, which, believe it or not, is an exceptionally good thing.

That’s because the United States is not, and never has been a “democracy.”

The word “democracy” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the founders hated pure, unrestrained democracies.

Instead, Article 4, Section 4, states that the Constitution provides a “Republican” form of government. Not a democracy. There’s a difference.

“Democracy” equals mob rule, where angry, fist-shakers “vote” for or demand whatever they want. Imagine that, against the rights and interests of others. Think of the mobs burning Portland and Seattle.

“Republic” equals freedom and the rule of law, featuring internal checks-and-balances against overconcentration of power.

Remember that phrase, checks-and-balances. It’s key to understanding the Electoral College.

That’s because the Electoral College erects a constitutional check-and-balance to prevent corrupt urban politicians and voters from wielding disproportionate power over the less powerful. In this case, that means rural and small-town America.

Though the Constitution contains 7 Articles and 27 Amendments, two powerful concepts emerge as keys to understanding the Constitution. 

1. To Protect Freedom

First, the Constitution establishes government’s primary role, which is to protect individual freedom.  The broadest freedoms designated for governmental protection are found at the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, guaranteeing Americans the right to life, liberty and property. Jefferson expresses a similar concept in the Declaration of Independence, discussing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, protecting freedom is the government’s principal role, not to become a giant lollypop factory dispensing free goodies as the Democrats advocate.

2. A Restraining Device Against Overconcentration of Power

Here’s the second concept: The Constitution is also a restraining device against over-concentrated governmental power.         

When lecturing on the Constitution, to illustrate a point, I often show a photograph of a drunk driver, just after being arrested by police officers, with handcuffs clamping his hands behind his back.

Likewise, the Constitution handcuffs government on multiple levels, restraining excessive governmental power to protect citizens.

That’s because the Founders understood an age-old concept: “Power corrupts absolutely, and absolute power corrupts.”  So, to deter overconcentrated governmental power, the Constitution features many internal restraining devices known as checks-and-balances.

Some of these checks-and-balances we may know, like divided government.

Our federal government is divided to prevent overconcentrated power.  Congress passes bills. The president signs bills into law, or vetoes bills. Congress may override vetoes. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, etc, etc. The courts decide cases based on federal law.  It’s about dividing power.

The Bill of Rights places even more restraints on power. The First Amendment provides that Congress cannot pass any laws infringing upon (1) freedom of religion, or (2) of the press, or (3) speech, or (4) the right of the people to peaceably assemble, (5) or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The Constitution creates many other checks against government: No search without a warrant. No warrant without probable cause.  No taking property without just compensation. No criminal trial without a right to confront witnesses. These are but a few of many governmental checks in the Bill of Rights.

3. The Electoral College – The Ultimate Check-and-Balance

Then comes the Electoral College.

The Founders understood that festering like a deadly cancer, political corruption metastasizes within large cities. They were right. Urban corruption has been a common thread since the beginning of the Republic.

In recent years, we’ve seen graft in Chicago, New York, Detroit, and others, run by corrupt city bosses like Richard Daley.

More recently, we’ve seen big-city Democrat corruption on national television after George Floyd died while in police custody. We’ve seen Portland, Chicago, Seattle, New York, Minneapolis, and other cities burn and get looted while corrupt city governments don’t lift a finger to protect citizens.

In fact, liberal big-city leaders encouraged the violence, by ordering police stand-downs, and allowing thugs to burn and destroy property and lives without legal consequence.

Understanding this danger of urban graft, the founders created the Electoral College to protect small-town and rural America from being overrun by faraway, big-city corruption.

Perhaps the founders’ crystal ball foresaw modern-day Democrat urban corruption.

Consider this partial list of major Democrat mayors and city council members convicted on corruption-type  charges in recent years: Dwaine R. Caraway, Dallas; Megan Barry, Nashville;  Ray Nagin, New Orleans; Patrick Cannon, Charlotte; Kwame Kilpatrick Detroit; Larry Langford, Birmingham; Sheila Dixon, Baltimore; Joe Ganim, Bridgeport, CT; Gerald McCann,Jersey City;  Hugh Addonizio, Newark; Isaac Carothers, William Carothers, Wallace Davis – Chicago; Monica Conyers, Detroit; Miguel Martinez, Larry Seabrook, Alex Rodriguez – New York.

And the list goes on.

Electoral maps of the country from 2000 and 2016 show most of the nation’s counties voting red, with dots of blue concentrated around major urban cities. Geographically, it’s not even close. America remains an overwhelmingly red tapestry in terms of land.

Without the Electoral College, corrupt mobs in big cities like New York and Chicago, and shady socialist mayors like Bill DeBlasio and Lori Lightfoot who control election machines and graft in their cities, could always manipulate presidential elections, and control and manipulate the lives of farmers in Kansas, of coal miners in West Virginia, of fishermen working off the Carolina coast, of natural gas workers in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas.

The Electoral College remains one of America’s last defenses to protect middle America against corrupt urban power, and a great check-and-balance against totalitarian rule-by-the mob.It must be defended at all costs.