Researchers Warn Of “Jaw Dropping” Crash In Global Fertility Rate

Researchers Warn Of “Jaw Dropping” Crash In Global Fertility Rate

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/15/2020 – 11:49

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation have warned that the planet is not prepared for an ongoing global population crash, and that the impact will be “jaw dropping”.

The BBC reports that the research, published in the Lancet highlights that the global fertility rate almost halved to 2.4 in 2017, and projections indicate that it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

For further context, In 1950, an average of 4.7 children were being born for every woman.

The research suggests that almost every country on the planet could have shrinking populations by the end of this century, with 23 nations projected to see their populations halve by 2100.

The research indicates that the total global population will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064, and then naturally shrink back to 8.8 billion come the end of the century.

Fewer births and longer life expectancy will also mean a drastically older population.

“That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” Professor Christopher Murray noted.

“I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganise societies,” Murray further warned.

The research highlights that Japan’s population likely peaked at 128 million in 2017 yet will fall below 53 million by 2100.

In addition, Italy’s population is expected to crash from 61 million to 28 million in the same time period.

“It will create enormous social change,” Professor Murray urged, adding “Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?”

“We need a soft landing,” Murray warned.

When asked whether the trend could threaten the human race, Murray said “I find people laugh it off; they can’t imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids.”

“If you can’t [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears, but that’s a few centuries away.” Murray added.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CCDryx Tyler Durden

Boeing Exec Resigns Over 1987 Article Arguing Against Women in Combat

iwantnavy

Against a backdrop of cancel culture, what is the statute of limitations on being canceled for having once held opinions shared by a large majority of Americans? Boeing’s top communications officer has resigned over an article he wrote for a military publication over 30 years ago. The piece argued against women fighting in combat, a position shared by 56 percent of Americans as recently as 1991.

In 1987, Niel Golightly was a 29-year-old Navy pilot. In an article for the U.S. Naval Institute’s publication Proceedings, he took pains to come out in favor of workplace equality in civilian life. “A woman may have as much or more to offer in mental and manual skills as her male competitor; her uniquely feminine emotional qualities are largely irrelevent [sic], if not assets,” he wrote. “Legislating equal access to those roles is imperative in a society dedicated to the free pursuit of happiness.” But after running through a series of cultural and biological arguments against women serving in combat, Golightly concluded:

On a 5,000-man aircraft carrier where 19-year-old sailors are working 12, 15, sometimes even 20 hours a day on a blistering, howling flight deck where a simple mistake can kill even during routine peacetime operations, there is simply no room for the problem of sexual harassment, rape, prostitution, pregnancy, love triangles, and adolescent emotional crises that have plagued most Navy supply ships and tenders since the Navy began its experiment in coeducation in the 1970s.

Golightly had been at Boeing for six months when he tendered his resignation. He told The New York Times that he no longer opposed women serving in combat, a position reached by a majority of Americans in 1992, according to Gallup. A colleague of Golightly at his previous company, Royal Dutch Shell, told the Times that he “promoted female talent within the team and was an exemplary employee. … ‘This is just astounding that something someone wrote 33 years ago should lead to termination like this.'”

The Times notes that Boeing has been rocked by “fallout” from crashes of two of its 737 Max jets in 2018 and 2019 that killed 346 people, as well as the downturn in air travel. Additionally, the company has recently dismissed “several employees” for making racist comments. David Calhoun, the CEO of Boeing, told the Times that he valued Golightly’s contributions but also readily accepted his resignation. “I want to emphasize our company’s unrelenting commitment to diversity and inclusion in all its dimensions, and to ensuring that all of our employees have an equal opportunity to contribute and excel,” Calhoun said.

Even in a world where art curators are forced out for saying they would continue to collect work by “white men,” opinion writers leave plum posts complaining of hostile workplaces borne out of ideological zealotry, and leading liberal academics are attacked for being insufficiently woke, Golightly’s case staggers the imagination. He no longer holds the views that led to his resignation, which can only be seen as forced. His expression of those views back during the second Reagan administration are starkly out of step with contemporary sensibilities but betray none of the rhetorical excesses one might associate with irredeemable misogyny. He has, apparently, a track record of promoting women under his supervision. Yet out of the C-suite he must go.

“Cancel culture” doesn’t exist, we’re told, yet we see its manifestations everywhere around us. If every thought and word ever uttered is open for reinvestigation, the present will be unlivable. Last fall, in discussing “wokeness” and politics, former President Barack Obama cautioned against creating impossible purity tests. “People who do really good stuff have flaws,” he noted. Such basic wisdom has sadly gone missing, it seems.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32jTzzz
via IFTTT

Cash Remains Healthy as the Pandemic Rages

westendrf516435

Will the COVID-19 pandemic hasten the abolition of cash? That was certainly the hope of central bankers and politicians who don’t like the uncontrollable nature of physical money. Banknotes and coins are virtually impossible to trace, allowing people to engage in anonymous transactions and to store value out of reach of grasping officials, which had officials hoping that the arrival of the pandemic would taint physical money as a nasty virus vector and so accelerate the move to a cashless world.

But that’s not what’s happening. Sure, contactless transactions have increased while people make purchases from home. But demand for cash is also up, as people hedge against uncertainty by holding on to a means of exchange that weathers emergencies and circulates beyond the reach of political whims.

It’s not that officialdom hasn’t put in the effort to kill cash.

“We know that money changes hands frequently and can pick up all sorts of bacteria and viruses and things like that,” a World Health Organization (WHO) spokesman told The Telegraph in March. “When possible it’s a good idea to use contactless payments.”

Amidst massive uproar, WHO immediately backpedaled from the notion that it had ever warned against the use of banknotes. And well it didcash and coins are popular in most parts of the world. Cash enjoys public support largely for the same reason it is unpopular with officials: it makes it difficult to track and tax transactions, and to impose negative interest rates.

The popularity of cash was quite healthy even before the pandemic.

“It would seem that physical currency should be fading out as the world of payments is increasingly electronic, with new technologies emerging at a rapid pace, and as governments look to restrictions on large-denomination notes as a way to reduce crime and tax evasion,” Ruth Judson, a Federal Reserve economist, wrote in 2017. “Nonetheless, demand for U.S. dollar banknotes continues to grow, and consistently increases at times of crisis both within and outside the United States because it remains a desirable store of value and medium of exchange in times and places where local currency or bank deposits are inferior.”

Many U.S. dollars are held outside the United States by people who have limited faith in the political and economic stability of their own countries and see American currency as a reasonably stable store of value. But about a quarter of Americans make little or no use of banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation found in 2017. These “unbanked” and “underbanked” Americans primarily do business in cash, fueling demand for banknotes and coins.

That’s not just an American phenomenon. “Banks are issuing more notes than ever and yet they seem to be disappearing off the face of the earth,” the Wall Street Journal reported at the end of 2019. “Central banks don’t know where they have gone, or why, and are playing detective, trying to crack the same mystery.”

The article went on to add that demand for banknotes is not that big a mystery, since central bankers are quite aware that “households feel distrustful of the banking system or people want to make transactions anonymously” out of sight of regulators and tax collectors.

Such distrust only increases when you add to the turmoil, such as with a pandemic and with tight economic controls imposed by panicked governments. That’s caused a surge in demand for physical cash in the U.S., Europe, Australia, India, and elsewhere in the months since the virus began spreading.

This doesn’t mean that people are spurning the convenience of digital payment systems; to the contrary, contactless transactions are surgingby 10 to 15 percent, according to some reports. Unsurprisingly, during a health crisis, people like the flexibility and perceived safety of paying for things from home and with a minimum of physical contact.

But people also like the reliability and anonymity of old-fashioned cash. Payment methods that were supposed to replace paper and coins are instead coexisting with them. That’s because people’s priorities are very different from those of the powers-that-be.

“The drive toward cashlessness is mostly driven by two factors: fiscal concerns over revenue collection and industry interest in capturing additional data about people’s lives,” notes Bill Maurer, dean of the University of California’s School of Social Sciences. “If you’re a state tax authority, eliminating physical currency means that transactions have to pass through a bank or other institution. Despite secrecy rules and privacy regulations, if they have due cause, officials can still peer into people’s financial affairs.”

Easily peering into people’s financial affairs runs exactly contrary to what many members of the public actually want. Add to that the large number of Americans who live almost exclusively in the cash economy, and the fact that “when there’s a natural or manmade disaster, paper money becomes absolutely essential to community resiliency,” and you have Maurer’s rationale for why banknotes and coins are “not going away anytime soon.” But he does worry that continued efforts to marginalize cash will hit the poor hardest.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the European Central Bank (ECB) shares that concern. It came out against the Spanish government’s plan to gradually eliminate physical money, warning that many poor Spaniards rely on the cash economy.

The ECB’s own figures (ECB) show that, as of 2016, 79 percent of all point-of-sale purchases in the Eurozone87 percent in Spainwere made in cash.

Eliminating banknotes and coins would require massive changes to the way people conduct their lives. And, as the pandemic-era surge in demand for physical euros, dollars, and other currencies demonstrates, that would certainly be change imposed from above, against the wishes of the people earning, buying, and selling through their preferred means of exchange.

Those preferred means of exchange may well be through cards and apps when it’s convenient and the stakes are low. But when privacy is a concern, or when a global crisis threatens the infrastructure required to keep digital payment systems up and running, people continue to rely on physical money they can hold in their hands.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fzFhi0
via IFTTT

Cash Remains Healthy as the Pandemic Rages

westendrf516435

Will the COVID-19 pandemic hasten the abolition of cash? That was certainly the hope of central bankers and politicians who don’t like the uncontrollable nature of physical money. Banknotes and coins are virtually impossible to trace, allowing people to engage in anonymous transactions and to store value out of reach of grasping officials, which had officials hoping that the arrival of the pandemic would taint physical money as a nasty virus vector and so accelerate the move to a cashless world.

But that’s not what’s happening. Sure, contactless transactions have increased while people make purchases from home. But demand for cash is also up, as people hedge against uncertainty by holding on to a means of exchange that weathers emergencies and circulates beyond the reach of political whims.

It’s not that officialdom hasn’t put in the effort to kill cash.

“We know that money changes hands frequently and can pick up all sorts of bacteria and viruses and things like that,” a World Health Organization (WHO) spokesman told The Telegraph in March. “When possible it’s a good idea to use contactless payments.”

Amidst massive uproar, WHO immediately backpedaled from the notion that it had ever warned against the use of banknotes. And well it didcash and coins are popular in most parts of the world. Cash enjoys public support largely for the same reason it is unpopular with officials: it makes it difficult to track and tax transactions, and to impose negative interest rates.

The popularity of cash was quite healthy even before the pandemic.

“It would seem that physical currency should be fading out as the world of payments is increasingly electronic, with new technologies emerging at a rapid pace, and as governments look to restrictions on large-denomination notes as a way to reduce crime and tax evasion,” Ruth Judson, a Federal Reserve economist, wrote in 2017. “Nonetheless, demand for U.S. dollar banknotes continues to grow, and consistently increases at times of crisis both within and outside the United States because it remains a desirable store of value and medium of exchange in times and places where local currency or bank deposits are inferior.”

Many U.S. dollars are held outside the United States by people who have limited faith in the political and economic stability of their own countries and see American currency as a reasonably stable store of value. But about a quarter of Americans make little or no use of banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation found in 2017. These “unbanked” and “underbanked” Americans primarily do business in cash, fueling demand for banknotes and coins.

That’s not just an American phenomenon. “Banks are issuing more notes than ever and yet they seem to be disappearing off the face of the earth,” the Wall Street Journal reported at the end of 2019. “Central banks don’t know where they have gone, or why, and are playing detective, trying to crack the same mystery.”

The article went on to add that demand for banknotes is not that big a mystery, since central bankers are quite aware that “households feel distrustful of the banking system or people want to make transactions anonymously” out of sight of regulators and tax collectors.

Such distrust only increases when you add to the turmoil, such as with a pandemic and with tight economic controls imposed by panicked governments. That’s caused a surge in demand for physical cash in the U.S., Europe, Australia, India, and elsewhere in the months since the virus began spreading.

This doesn’t mean that people are spurning the convenience of digital payment systems; to the contrary, contactless transactions are surgingby 10 to 15 percent, according to some reports. Unsurprisingly, during a health crisis, people like the flexibility and perceived safety of paying for things from home and with a minimum of physical contact.

But people also like the reliability and anonymity of old-fashioned cash. Payment methods that were supposed to replace paper and coins are instead coexisting with them. That’s because people’s priorities are very different from those of the powers-that-be.

“The drive toward cashlessness is mostly driven by two factors: fiscal concerns over revenue collection and industry interest in capturing additional data about people’s lives,” notes Bill Maurer, dean of the University of California’s School of Social Sciences. “If you’re a state tax authority, eliminating physical currency means that transactions have to pass through a bank or other institution. Despite secrecy rules and privacy regulations, if they have due cause, officials can still peer into people’s financial affairs.”

Easily peering into people’s financial affairs runs exactly contrary to what many members of the public actually want. Add to that the large number of Americans who live almost exclusively in the cash economy, and the fact that “when there’s a natural or manmade disaster, paper money becomes absolutely essential to community resiliency,” and you have Maurer’s rationale for why banknotes and coins are “not going away anytime soon.” But he does worry that continued efforts to marginalize cash will hit the poor hardest.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the European Central Bank (ECB) shares that concern. It came out against the Spanish government’s plan to gradually eliminate physical money, warning that many poor Spaniards rely on the cash economy.

The ECB’s own figures (ECB) show that, as of 2016, 79 percent of all point-of-sale purchases in the Eurozone87 percent in Spainwere made in cash.

Eliminating banknotes and coins would require massive changes to the way people conduct their lives. And, as the pandemic-era surge in demand for physical euros, dollars, and other currencies demonstrates, that would certainly be change imposed from above, against the wishes of the people earning, buying, and selling through their preferred means of exchange.

Those preferred means of exchange may well be through cards and apps when it’s convenient and the stakes are low. But when privacy is a concern, or when a global crisis threatens the infrastructure required to keep digital payment systems up and running, people continue to rely on physical money they can hold in their hands.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fzFhi0
via IFTTT

Navarro Slams ‘Flip-Flop-Fauci’ In Scathing Op-Ed; White House Issues Statement

Navarro Slams ‘Flip-Flop-Fauci’ In Scathing Op-Ed; White House Issues Statement

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/15/2020 – 11:31

For months, President Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro has been a vocal critic of Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-disease official – including a heated White House showdown over the use of hydroxychloroquine.

On Tuesday, Navarro kicked it up a notch – penning a scathing Op-Ed in USA Today titled: “Anthony Fauci has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.”

The first few paragraphs are devastating:

Dr. Anthony Fauci has a good bedside manner with the public, but he has been wrong about everything I have interacted with him on.

In late January, when I was making the case on behalf of the president to take down the flights from China, Fauci fought against the president’s courageous decision — which might well have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.

When I warned in late January in a memo of a possibly deadly pandemic, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was telling the news media not to worry.

When I was working feverishly on behalf of the president in February to help engineer the fastest industrial mobilization of the health care sector in our history, Fauci was still telling the public the China virus was low risk.

When we were building new mask capacity in record time, Fauci was flip-flopping on the use of masks.

And when Fauci was telling the White House Coronavirus Task Force that there was only anecdotal evidence in support of hydroxychloroquine to fight the virus, I confronted him with scientific studies providing evidence of safety and efficacy. A recent Detroit hospital study showed a 50% reduction in the mortality rate when the medicine is used in early treatment. -Peter Navarro

On Wednesday, the White House sought to distance itself from Navarro’s Op-Ed.

“The Peter Navarro op-ed didn’t go through normal White House clearance processes and is the opinion of Peter alone,” tweeted White House spokeswoman Alyssa Farah on Wednesday, adding “@realDonaldTrump values the expertise of the medical professionals advising his Administration.”

But while the White House took a diplomatic approach to Navarro’s Op-Ed, the Washington Post points out that President Trump disparaged Fauci during a Fox News interview last Thursday with Sean Hannity – saying that he “is a nice man, but he’s made a lot of mistakes.”

The Post also reports that Fauci and Trump haven’t spoken in at least two weeks.

White House aides previously circulated talking points questioning statements Fauci has made about the novel coronavirus, which Navarro repeated in the article.

Among the criticisms listed by the White House officials and Navarro is that Fauci didn’t urge caution when the cases were first reported in China in January, that he gave varied advice on face masks and that he has said that he didn’t believe there was concrete scientific evidence to support that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment against the coronavirus. –Washington Post

No wonder nobody knows what to believe.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/38WKCgS Tyler Durden

(Re)Destroying The Myth Of “Cash On The Sidelines”

(Re)Destroying The Myth Of “Cash On The Sidelines”

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/15/2020 – 11:10

With the markets breaking out to new highs and entirely decoupling from economic and medical realities, it is not surprising to see a continued stream of analysis grappling for bits of data to support the bullish momentum.

One of the most prevalent myths that seemingly will not die is that of “cash on the sidelines.”

We have tried to debunk this inane thinking previously, as Clifford Asness wrote:

“There are no sidelines. Those saying this seem to envision a seller of stocks moving her money to cash and awaiting a chance to return. But they always ignore that this seller sold to somebody, who presumably moved a precisely equal amount of cash off the sidelines.”

And now, John Hussman takes the debunking to a whole new level in his latest Market Comment,

As I observed early in the global financial crisis, you’re going to see a lot of chatter about “cash on the sidelines” in the months and years ahead. That’s because the Federal Reserve is creating a mountain of the stuff. The moment the Federal Reserve creates base money (currency and bank reserves) to purchase some asset, the base money it creates must be held by someone in the economy, at every moment in time, until it’s retired. A dollar of base money is just another type of “security.” A given holder of cash can try to get rid of it by buying other pieces of paper like stock shares or bond certificates, but the seller of the stocks or bonds immediately becomes the new holder of the cash.

So “cash on the sidelines” can certainly change ownership, but it can’t go “into” the stock market, or the bond market, or anywhere else, without coming right back out in someone else’s hands. Once a security is issued, that security has to be held by someone, at every moment in time, exactly in the form it was issued in, until that security is retired. That holds for base money as well.

Also remember that the moment the government runs a deficit, somebody has to run a “surplus” of income over and above consumption and net investment. That “surplus,” in equilibrium, is held in the form of whatever liabilities the government issued to do the spending. If the government finances the deficit by issuing Treasury bonds, someone is going end up holding more Treasury bonds. If the Fed buys the Treasury bonds and replaces them with base money, someone is going to end up holding more base money.

If investors are inclined to speculate, the pile of zero-interest hot potatoes created by the Fed can certainly encourage them to chase other assets, which is how the Fed has created an “everything bubble” in recent years. The problem is that as valuations rise, future return prospects fall, and we’ve now got the worst investment menu for passive investors in the history of the U.S. financial markets. Everything is priced for near-zero returns.

Saying that extreme stock market valuations are ‘justified’ by low interest rates is like saying that poking yourself in the eye is ‘justified’ by smashing your thumb with a hammer.

The chart below shows our estimates of prospective returns for a variety of asset classes based on methods which have a correlation of 0.89 or better with actual subsequent market returns. Each line shows a point of strong or dismal investment opportunity in recent decades. The current menu is among the most dismal investment profiles in history.

Meanwhile, the growing pile of “cash on the sidelines” is unlikely to stimulate consumption either. Why would holding “savings” in the form of zero-interest cash rather than zero-interest bonds materially change the financial planning of households or anyone else? The assumption seems to be that cash (ooh! cash!) must be consumed on goods, rather than paying down debt or remaining as bank balances.

In the end, someone is going to hold the base money, in the form of base money, until the base money is retired. The long-term financial planning of households and other sectors isn’t abandoned in favor of consumption the moment assets are held in a bank rather than a brokerage.

*  *  *

So now you know:

Cash on the sidelines? Not really.

Everyone “all in the boat?” Absolutely.

Historical outcomes from such situations? Not Great.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OpCD2n Tyler Durden

Seven Ships On Fire At Southern Iran Port In Another ‘Mystery’ Disaster

Seven Ships On Fire At Southern Iran Port In Another ‘Mystery’ Disaster

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/15/2020 – 10:51

Over the past three weeks there’s been a spate of ‘mystery’ explosions rocking key facilities and military sites in Iran, including a blast two weeks ago that destroyed a building at Natanz nuclear facility

And now a series of ships at the southern Iranian port of Bushehr have reportedly caught fire under mysterious circumstances. Firefighters on Wednesday struggled to put out blazes on no less than seven ships at the port, as Reuters reports

At least seven ships have caught fire at the port of Bushehr in southern Iran, the Tasnim news agency reported on Wednesday.

No casualties have been reported so far, the agency said.

This marks at least a half-dozen strange blasts and fires at missile sites, hospitals, and sensitive military locations across Iran, mostly concentrated near Tehran.

As we’ve noted recently, major media in the West – including The New York Times – have begun to speculate that the ‘random’ explosions are anything but: instead, there’s growing attention focused on the likelihood of Israeli or US intelligence sabotage

Via Iranian State TV IRIB on July 15, 2020.

There’s also the possibility of domestic terror groups and well as Iranian opposition and revolutionary paramilitary groups causing havoc at Iranian sites.

One prominent group which has conducted assassinations of Iranian officials in the past while seeking to bring down the regime is People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, or the Mujahedin-e Khalq.

It should be noted that the Bushehr region is home to a vital Iranian nuclear power plant

Importantly, they enjoy the support of prominent American politicians and officials, and reportedly have ties to Israeli intelligence. 

However, Iran has lately sought to downplay a number of the recent blasts and fired. But Iranian officials have also said they are investigating whether they could be under cyber attack from either Israel or the United States. They’ve vowed to respond if so. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Wo5uZn Tyler Durden

In Latest China Sanctions, Pompeo Says US Will Impose Visa Restrictions On Huawei Execs

In Latest China Sanctions, Pompeo Says US Will Impose Visa Restrictions On Huawei Execs

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/15/2020 – 10:44

Just days after the State Department announced that the U.S. would no longer recognize the South China Sea as Chinese territory, and one day after the president signed an executive order on Tuesday that would hold China accountable for its oppressive actions against the people of Hong Kong – Mike Pompeo unveiled the latest escalation in the ongoing US-Sino sanction tit-for-tat when the Secretary of State said the US will impose Visa restrictions on Chinese corporate executives within companies like Huawei who facilitate human rights violations. 

Pompeo – who said Washington continues to have a dialogue with China “on every level ” despite rising tensions – added the China Community Party is “putting freedom and democracy at risk” by its “expansionist” and “imperialist” behaviors. And with that, we somehow doubt that Beijing shares Pompeo’s cheerful assessment of the ongoing US-Sino dialogue.

Pompeo is expected to head to Europe next week to meet with European leaders and discuss China’s treatment of Hong Kong. He will leave Monday and visit top leaders in Britain and Denmark. According to Reuters, Pompeo will also discuss other subjects such as the controversial Nord Stream pipeline which has split Europe into pro and anti-US factions, as the question of who gets Russian oil threatens to spark the next geopolitical crisis.

Get out now or risk the consequences,” Pompeo said in Washington, referring to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, or Caatsa.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2C4tsSL Tyler Durden

WTI Rebounds On Big Crude Draw, Continued Demand Rebound

WTI Rebounds On Big Crude Draw, Continued Demand Rebound

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/15/2020 – 10:38

Oil prices surged overnight after API reported a big surprise crude draw, but erased all those gains as OPEC+ pushed to taper its record output curbs.

Prices of “$41 on WTI and $44 on Brent are huge numbers,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodities strategy at Saxo Bank.

“We need the EIA to confirm API’s stock draw before an attempt can be made” at breaking those levels, he said.

So here we go…

API

  • Crude -8.322mm (-2.1mm exp)

  • Cushing +548k

  • Gasoline -3.611mm (-2.0mm exp)

  • Distillates +3.03mm (+1.1mm exp)

DOE

  • Crude -7.493mm (-2.1mm exp)

  • Cushing +949k

  • Gasoline -3.147mm (-2.0mm exp)

  • Distillates -453k (+1.1mm exp)

After the prior week’s surprise crude build, expectations for last week were for a modest crude draw (which API crushed with the biggest draw since December) but the official data showed a notable crude draw and a surprise Distillates draw…

Source: Bloomberg

Crude oil production in the Lower 48 fell by ~100k b/d. That was partially offset by an increase in Alaska. Overall the number is still stuck at 11 million barrels a day…

Source: Bloomberg

Demand continues to be the even bigger question (with the caveat that the latest week is likely to drop versus the July 4th weekend’s seasonal demand spike). But the smoothed 4-week average shows continued demand rebound…

Source: Bloomberg

Crude imports fell a whopping 25% last week, the biggest weekly drop since 2016.

WTI was hovering back just above $40 (at pre-API) levels ahead of the EIA data, in the middle of its recent range…

But as the official inventory data hit WTI prices spiked…

Will this be the breakout? Even with OPEC+ tapering its production cuts?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Zy4Jz7 Tyler Durden

Walmart Will Require All Customers To Wear Masks Starting July 20

Walmart Will Require All Customers To Wear Masks Starting July 20

Tyler Durden

Wed, 07/15/2020 – 10:36

Following in the footsteps of CostCo, Best Buy and Starbucks, moments ago Walmart – the world’s largest retailer – became the latest national chain to require all customers to wear masks.

“As the number of confirmed cases has spiked in communities across the country recently, so too have the number and types of face covering mandates being implemented,” Walmart said in a news release Wednesday. About 65% of its more than 5,000 stores, including its Sam’s Club locations, are located in areas where there is government mandate on face coverings.

“To help bring consistency across stores and clubs, we will require all shoppers to wear a face covering starting Monday, July 20. This will give us time to inform customers and members of the changes, post signage and train associates on the new protocols.”

The change will be enforced on July 20, and comes even as there is federal mandate to wear a mask exists, however the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says everyone “should wear a cloth face cover when they have to go out in public” adding that “face coverings are meant to protect other people.”

Most major retailers and grocers initially hesitated to enact their own mask mandates for customers during the pandemic, partly over fears of antagonizing shoppers who refuse to wear them, they have also been reluctant to put their employees in the position of enforcing mask requirements.

But sentiment has changed in recent weeks as more than 3.3 million people have now tested positive for the coronavirus nationwide. Cases are climbing in much of the country and many cities and states are reimposing restrictions to contain new outbreaks, including mask requirements in public settings.

Industry groups and unions have also stepped up their calls around mask requirements for customers. Last week, the Retail Leaders Industry Association, an industry trade group, called on the nation’s governors to pass statewide mandates requiring citizens to wear masks in public. The United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union also urged government officials and business leaders to require masks for customers in an advertisement over the weekend.

Starbucks said last week that it will require customers to wear facial coverings or masks in all 9,000 of its company-owned US stores beginning Wednesday. Best Buy also announced Tuesday that it will also require all shoppers coming into its approximately 1,000 stores to wear face masks. Costco began requiring its members to wear masks in stores beginning in May.

Walmart’s requirement will likely result in more scenes such as this one.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/307k8p2 Tyler Durden