Historic Eurodollar Panic: Negative Rates Now Expected As Soon As November

Historic Eurodollar Panic: Negative Rates Now Expected As Soon As November

We, as well as every Short-Term Interest Rate trader on Wall Street (or rather at home) is speechless at the insane action in the Eurodollar futures complex, where shortly after the Jan 2021 implied fed funds rate turned negative, the cascade of buying in ED futures has tripped above 100 in both Dec and moments ago, November 2020, meaning that the market is now expecting negative rates as soon as November.

And if one waits just a few more minutes, the Sept 2020 contract is about to flip negative too, as the market now expects the Fed to go NIRP in as soon a 4 months!

Needless to say, for ED traders to expect negative rates in months if not weeks, means that the economy is about to implode, and it appears bank stocks are starting to wake up to just how bad this news is…

How that is still positive for stocks we leave to Jerome Powell to explain who is about to have the worst summer/fall of his life.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 05/07/2020 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YKg1jE Tyler Durden

Coronavirus Cases Pit Constitutional Rights Against Public Health Authority

The First Amendment protects “the free exercise” of religion and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” According to a federal judge in California, those constitutional rights do not trump the power of state and local officials to prohibit in-person religious services in the name of combating COVID-19.

On March 4, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) issued a statewide “stay at home” order as part of his administration’s efforts to arrest the spread of the coronavirus. Local officials in San Joaquin County soon followed suit with an order of their own, which banned “all non-essential gatherings of any number of individuals.” Both orders effectively prohibited churches from holding in-person religious services.

The San Joaquin-based Cross Culture Christian Center took the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, asking Judge John Mendez to declare the orders unconstitutional as applied to its religious practices and to enjoin the government from enforcing them. According to the lawyers for the church and its pastor, Jonathan Duncan, if allowed to reopen, they planned to “follow CDC guidelines and San Joaquin County social distancing protocols in the use of their sanctuary for assemblies and their parking lot for drive-in services.”

Judge Mendez ruled against the church this week. “The incidental—albeit uncomfortable—burden the State and County orders place on the exercise of religion simply do not engender the type of religious discrimination the Constitution aims to prevent,” Mendez wrote in Cross Culture Christian Center v. Newsom. “The State and County orders are not unconstitutional. Rather they are permissible exercises of emergency police powers especially given the extraordinary public health emergency facing the State.”

In Mendez’s view, the courts should be extremely wary about second-guessing the wisdom of these sorts of public health orders. In fact, he maintained, the government should get to enjoy broad leeway to operate against the coronavirus. “During public health crises,” Mendez maintained, “government officials must ask whether even fundamental rights must give way to a deeper need to control the spread of infectious disease and protect the lives of society’s most vulnerable. Under these rare conditions, the judiciary must afford more deference to officials’ informed efforts to advance public health—even when those measures encroach on otherwise protected conduct.”

A different vision of the judicial role in the age of coronavirus was offered last month by Judge Justin Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. In On Fire Christian Center v. Fischer, Walker enjoined Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer (D) from enforcing a ban on drive-in Easter services. Yes, the city may take various actions in order to stop the spread of infectious diseases, Walker acknowledged. But “it appears likely that Louisville’s interest in preventing churchgoers from spreading COVID-19 would be achieved by allowing churchgoers to congregate in their cars as On Fire proposes.” In other words, according to Walker, this particular prohibition amounted to an unjustifiable exercise of government power.

Walker also differed from Mendez and his call for judges to show “more deference” to government officials battling the disease. “The COVID-19 pandemic has upended every aspect of our lives,” Walker wrote. Nevertheless, “constitutional rights still exist.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3fqU66V
via IFTTT

YouTube Deletes Viral Video Claiming Dr. Fauci Spewing ‘Absolute Propaganda’ About COVID-19

YouTube Deletes Viral Video Claiming Dr. Fauci Spewing ‘Absolute Propaganda’ About COVID-19

One thing that should be abundantly clear by now is that any thoughts, opinions, or speculation which challenges the official narratives regarding COVID-19 will be promptly silenced by Silicon Valley, under the guise of protecting the public – which apparently can’t be trusted to absorb information and form their own opinions.

The most recent example of censored wrongthink is a new documentary, Plandemic, which features former chronic fatigue researcher Judy Milkovits, who claims that Dr. Anthony Fauci – head of the  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) – is spewing ‘absolute propaganda’ about COVID-19.

In the video, Mikovits claimed Fauci perpetrated propaganda that led to the deaths of millions of people in the past. She also raised questions about how COVID-19 deaths are being counted.

However, one of her biggest beefs against Fauci dates to the battles for credit over the discovery of HIV in the early 1980s.

In the video, Mikovits claimed she isolated HIV from the saliva and blood of patients in France but that Fauci was involved in delaying research so a friend could take credit, which allowed the HIV virus to spread. These claims are not proven. They were also disseminated in April by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy alleged on the Children’s Health Defense website (where he is chairman) –Heavy

Google’s YouTube is currently playing whack-a-mole with a 25 minute promotional vignette for the documentary which has gone viral – deleting new versions seemingly as fast as they pop up. The original version had over 1.6 million views when it was censored.

Facebook, however, hasn’t deleted it (yet):

As noted by Heavy‘s Jessica McBride, Mikovits has a new book out, Plague of Corrpution, which currently has 4.5 / 5 stars on Amazon.

Mikovits, who has a new book out, was featured in the first vignette released to promote the movie. Her controversial career in the scientific community has been punctuated by an arrest, lawsuit, retracted research study, allegations against Fauci and clashes with the founders of the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, which is located in Reno, Nevada. -Heavy

Mikovits has claimed that she published a “blockbuster” study which revealed that “the common use of animal and human fetal tissues were unleashing devastating plagues of chronic diseases,” and that the “minions of Big Pharma” have been waging war against her to destroy her “good name, career and personal life.”

In the Plandemic video, Mikovits makes other claims, including that patents are a conflict of interest, and she criticizes the concept of mass vaccines. “They will kill millions, as they already have with their vaccines,” she said, stressing she was not anti-vaccine. She claims there is a financial incentive in COVID-19 strategies to not use natural remedies in order to push people to use vaccines.

Mikovits co-wrote a book called Plague: One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases and claims 30% of vaccines are contaminated with retroviruses. The book contains a forward from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The book was No. 2 on the Amazon bestseller list on May 6. -Heavy

Plandemic has received both praise and criticism, however Google thinks it’s best if you leave the thinking to them.

Read more about Mikovits here.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 05/07/2020 – 12:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3cgN7f4 Tyler Durden

US To Remove Patriot Missile Protection From Saudi Arabia Amid Oilpocalypse

US To Remove Patriot Missile Protection From Saudi Arabia Amid Oilpocalypse

Petrodollar panic?

As tensions between OPEC (cough – the Saudis – cough) and Washington rise over the supply (and price) of oil globally amid a pandemic-driven demand collapse, it would appears President Trump may have just gone ‘nuclear’.

“…there will be blood.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that The U.S. is removing Patriot anti-missile systems from Saudi Arabia and is considering reductions to other military capabilities – marking the end, for now, of a large-scale military buildup to counter Iran, according to U.S. officials.

As a reminder, OilPrice.com’s Simon Watkins warned last week that President Donald Trump was considering all options available to him to make the Saudis pay for the oil price war as the crash that followed has done significant damage to the U.S. oil industry.

With last month having seen the indignity of the principal U.S. oil benchmark, West Texas Intermediate (WTI), having fallen into negative pricing territory, U.S. President Donald Trump is considering all options available to him to make the Saudis pay for the oil price war that it started, according to senior figures close to the Presidential Administration spoken to by OilPrice.com last week. It is not just the likelihood that exactly the same price action will occur to each front-month WTI futures contract just before expiry until major new oil production cuts come from OPEC+ that incenses the U.S. nor the economic damage that is being done to its shale oil sector but also it is the fact that Saudi is widely seen in Washington as having betrayed the long-standing relationship between the two countries. Right now, many senior members on Trump’s closest advisory circle want the Saudis to pay for its actions, in every way, OilPrice.com understands.

This relationship was established in 1945 between the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Saudi King at the time, Abdulaziz, on board the U.S. Navy cruiser Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake segment of the Suez Canal and has defined the relationship between the two countries ever since.

As analysed in depth in my new book on the global oil markets, the deal that was struck between the two men at that time was that the U.S. would receive all of the oil supplies it needed for as long as Saudi Arabia had oil in place, in return for which the U.S. would guarantee the security of the ruling House of Saud.

The deal has altered slightly since the rise of the U.S. shale oil industry and Saudi Arabia’s attempt to destroy it from 2014 to 2016 in that the U.S. also expects the House of Saud to ensure that Saudi Arabia not only supplies the U.S. with whatever oil it needs for as long as it can but also that it also allows the U.S. shale industry to continue to function and to grow.

For the U.S., if this means that Saudi Arabia loses out to U.S. shale producers by keeping oil prices up but losing out on export opportunities to U.S. firms then that is just the price that the House of Saud must pay for the continued protection of the U.S. – politically, economically, and militarily.

And now, as The Journal reportsthe U.S. is removing four Patriot missile batteries from Saudi Arabia along with dozens of military personnel sent following a series of attacks on the Saudi oil facilities last year, according to several U.S. officials. The attacks were part of hostilities that took place over several months.

President Donald Trump has made clear whenever he has sensed a lack of understanding on the part of Saudi Arabia for the huge benefit that the U.S. is doing the ruling family:

“He [Saudi King Salman] would not last in power for two weeks without the backing of the U.S. military.”

Trump has a very good point, as it is fair to say that without U.S. protection, either Israel or Iran and its proxy operatives and supporters would very soon indeed end the rule of the House of Saud, even though The Journal reports that The Pentagon’s removal of the Patriot antimissile batteries from Saudi Arabia, as well as the other reductions, are based on assessments by some officials that Tehran no longer poses an immediate threat to American strategic interests.

In a U.S. presidential election year, the last thing that a U.S. president wants is increasing diesel prices or shortages making a coronavirus-hit economy even worse. It is a fact that since the end of the First World War, the sitting U.S. president has won re-election 11 times out of 11 if the U.S. economy was not in recession within two calendar years ahead of an election whilst presidents who went into a re-election campaign with the economy in recession over the same time-frame won only once out of seven.

This said, it may be that Trump will use the threat of such military asset removals from Saudi Arabia, as his mercurial reputation may work to convince the Saudis that he is unpredictable enough to do just that, regardless of the short-term economic consequences. 


Tyler Durden

Thu, 05/07/2020 – 12:29

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

Joe Biden Leads Democrats Back to the Norm of Ignoring Inconvenient #MeToo Accusations

The liberal activist group MoveOn.org, a seven-million-member organization that lobbies for progressive causes, was founded in 1998 to oppose the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying to Congress about his sexual improprieties. The organizers thought the public should stop caring so much about Clinton’s mistreatment of women, thus the genesis of the name: It was time to move on.

That same year, the crusading feminist Gloria Steinem, known for her support of alleged victims like Anita Hill and the completely discredited children claimed to have been abused at Satanic daycare, penned an op-ed for The New York Times in support of Clinton, even “if all the sexual allegations swirling around the White House turn out to be true.”

On Monday, The New York Times published a piece by the feminist attorney and scholar Linda Hirshman: “I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway.” Hirshman’s piece is well in-keeping with a long tradition of liberals and Democrats discounting problematic sexual misconduct allegations leveled against members of their own political tribe. Indeed, the Democratic establishment has greeted Reade’s sexual assault accusation against the former vice president with an all-too-familiar collective shrug. Those who broke ranks and gave voice to Reade’s accusation, including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, were met with condemnation.

This is the norm of politics: He may be a sexual predator but he’s our sexual predator, damn it. We are witnessing a reversion to this norm, and it should take no one by surprise.

The actual surprise was that, for a brief moment, at the height of the #MeToo movement, there was an effort by liberals to stand on principle and hold powerful Democrats accountable. This culminated in late 2017 with the successful ouster of Sen. Al Franken (D–Minn.) for alleged sexual harassment and nonconsensual touching. Then the reversion began: The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer, who once teamed up with Ronan Farrow in the service of publishing one of the less credible Brett Kavanaugh allegations, wrote a piece arguing that Franken was wronged by his overzealous colleagues.

One of those overzealous colleagues, Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D–NY), has become synonymous with #MeToo feminism. Gillibrand invited Emma Sulkowicz to the State of the Union in 2015. She said “I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.” When she was running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination last year, she complained that some of her rivals were insufficiently committed to the cause of combatting rape. “I’ve got to tell you, I’m really sick of it,” she said. “I’m so freaking sick of it.”

When asked last week about Reade’s allegation, Gillibrand said that Biden had her support.

Biden, similarly, has balked at being held accountable under the harsh standards that he himself worked tirelessly to enshrine for people accused of rape on college campuses. On Wednesday, following Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s final approval of new rules that restore due process and the presumption of innocence to college Title IX adjudication, Biden issued a promise to reverse the changes if elected president.

This hypocrisy runs in both directions, of course. Republicans who were silent about the numerous sexual assault allegations against President Donald Trump don’t exactly have the moral standing to weaponize the Reade allegation, though that obviously won’t stop them.

Trump himself is apparently wary of the accusation against Biden, though. He reportedly asked an aide, “Does it sound like bullshit to you?”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2L5ks0u
via IFTTT

The U.S. Postal Service ‘Unsustainable,’ Says GAO. And That Was Before COVID-19 Hit.

After losing $78 billion since 2007 amid a decline in mail volume coupled with soaring pension costs, the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) business model is “not financially sustainable,” a government audit has concluded.

In a scathing report set to be released later today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) calls on Congress to reevaluate all aspects of the Postal Service’s operations, from how often Americans receive their mail to whether the USPS should be restructured to receive annual infusions of taxpayer dollars. “Absent congressional action on critical foundational elements of the USPS business model, USPS’ mission and financial solvency are increasingly in peril,” the audit concludes.

The report comes at a crucial moment. In March, Congress extended a $10 billion line of credit to the USPS as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) after rejecting an earlier draft of the stimulus bill that would have sunk $25 billion in cash into the beleaguered agency. House Democrats are now seeking a $25 billion Postal Service bailout in the so-called “phase four” stimulus bill lawmakers are currently negotiating.

Due to the sharp drop in mail volume during the COVID-19 pandemic, the USPS expects to lose as much as $13 billion this year, Postmaster General Megan Brennan told the House Oversight and Reform Committee last month.

President Donald Trump has been unwilling to bail out the USPS without reforms. Asked about it at a press conference last month, Trump said the agency should “raise the prices by actually a lot, then you’d find out that the Post Office could make money or break even.”

The new GAO report makes clear that neither one-time bailouts nor higher prices for mail will be sufficient.

In the 10 years since the GAO first classified the USPS as “high-risk”—a designation that means an agency or department is vulnerable to waste, mismanagement, and needs reform—the service’s fiscal status has “worsened due to declining mail volume, increased employee compensation and benefit costs, and increased unfunded liabilities and debt,” the GAO’s new report states.

Perhaps the best indicator of the Postal Service’s structural problems is the divergence between the number of employees it has and the amount of mail it delivers. Since 2006, First Class mail has declined by 44 percent, the GAO found, but the number of postal workers has grown during the same period of time.

Also of concern is the growth of debt in funds that are supposed to pay for pensions and other benefits for retired workers. At the end of 2019, the pension fund had $50 billion in unfunded liabilities—that’s the long-term gap between what the fund expects to pay out to current and future beneficiaries and the amount of revenue the fund is expected to collect from workers’ paychecks and investment earnings. The fund that covers health care expenses for retired postal workers is facing a $69 billion unfunded liability.

None of these problems should surprise lawmakers. After the USPS reported a $4 billion loss in 2018, Brennan warned that the agency “cannot generate revenue or cut enough costs to pay our bills.” Raising prices has not staunched the flow of red ink. The cost of a stamp jumped 10 percent on January 1, 2019, and other mailing services increased by 2.5 percent on average—but expenses have been outpacing revenues by a wide margin.

“If Congress is going to be asked to get the Postal Service out of yet another fiscal jam, we owe it to the American people to make sure we aren’t just setting them up for yet another bailout the next time there’s an emergency,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), the highest-ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement about the new GAO report. “The USPS needs to be a self-sufficient, competitive enterprise, and a legislative overhaul for the long-term is the only way to make it one.”

In 2018, the Trump administration outlined two plans for privatizing the USPS in whole or in part, either by handing over management of the service to a private operator under federal oversight or by selling off the postal service in its entirety.

Privatization of the USPS—something Reason has been advocating for literally over 50 years—would give the agency the ability to free itself from its current mess, which is largely the result of overlapping and sometimes unnecessary congressional mandates.

“The USPS is in a straitjacket unable to save itself during the crisis because Congress imposes restrictions on costs, pricing, labor unions, delivery, and other operational factors,” writes Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “Congress should allow the USPS to implement long‐​needed reforms such as reducing delivery days, closing locations that have few customers, repealing collective bargaining, and other cost‐​saving changes.”

The level of debt within the USPS makes privatization a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. It would probably require significant restructuring and service changes for the privatized service to net a profit, and the federal government would likely need to absorb the current debts. And it could net a windfall for the government to help meet its pension obligations to postal workers. Cornell economist Richard Geddes estimates that a postal IPO could raise $40 billion.

It would have been far better for Congress to have considered a comprehensive overhaul of the USPS prior to the current crisis. But waiting any longer is only going to make the mess harder to clean up.

“Comprehensive postal reform has not taken place in part because of the difficulty in obtaining compromise among various stakeholders with divergent views,” the GAO report states. “Continued inaction will result in deepening financial problems—putting the USPS’ mission to provide universal postal service at greater risk and minimizing the ability to make the most appropriate or sustainable policy decisions.”

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

Everyone Knows The Gov’t Wants A “Controlled” Weimar

Everyone Knows The Gov’t Wants A “Controlled” Weimar

Authored by Jeffrey Snider via Alhambra Investments,

There are two parts behind the inflation mongering. The first, noted yesterday, is the Fed’s balance sheet, particularly its supposedly monetary remainder called bank reserves. The central bank is busy doing something, a whole bunch of something, therefore how can it possibly turn out to be anything other than inflationary?

The answer: the Federal Reserve is not a central bank, not really. What it “prints” are, as Emil Kalinowski likes to call them, the equivalent of laundromat tokens (I wonder if they’re even that useful). Even Jay Powell knows this, but he’s absolutely thrilled that so many people believe otherwise.

When grasped by the dark specter of deflation, what better way (according to an Economist) to get out of it than to make people think you’re being monetarily reckless; therefore, he’s not about to correct the record as to what QE really is. As Paul Krugman once put it, credibly promise to be irresponsible.

It’s the “credible” part that goes lacking. Thus, the parade of counterexamples – “Japan 2001. America 2008. Japan 2013. Europe 2015” – each one unanswered by any inflationary breakout. Has the whole world just forgot about QQE? It’s still ongoing seven years later!

The other part or half of what’s driving fears is fiscal, governmental in general. Come hell or high water, it is told, the feds as opposed to the Fed are going to drive inflation. Why? Because, as legend has it, that’s the way you “pay down” massive debt loads. You go nuts borrowing and then, quietly, ambiguously, you screw your lenders (bond holders) by devaluing the currency.

Occasionally, as the kids say, they say the quiet part out loud.

working paper just released (but not edited) by the Chicago branch of the Federal Reserve does just that. A taste:

The current low interest rate environment limits the Federal Reserve’s ability to stabilize the economy, while the large public debt curtails the efficacy of fiscal interventions by inducing expectations of costly fiscal adjustments. A solution to this impasse is a coordinated fiscal and monetary strategy aiming at creating a controlled rise of inflation to wear away a targeted fraction of debt. Under our coordinated strategy, the fiscal authority introduces an emergency budget with no provisions on how it will be balanced, while the monetary authority allows a temporary increase in inflation.

See!!, bond vigilantes will scream. We told you that’s what they’re up to!

Sorry, folks, this isn’t actually a surprise nor is it the matter for debate since everyone knows that’s what politicians want. It won’t make one bit of difference what authorities want to do, under cover or right out in the open, it’s what they actually can do.

And it’s just not all that much when it comes to the monetary system.

Controlled inflation, by the way, is not a new concept, either (obviously). Lost deep within the minutiae of the flurry of programs brought on by the Great Depression is something called the Thomas Amendment to FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (better known as the Farm Relief Bill).

Not just the Thomas Amendment, it was actually called the Thomas Inflation Amendment because it included a number of legal provisions which would force the costs of all manner of produce to be set (read: increased) by the diktat of federal government agencies. American farms and farmers had, like industry, been equally ravaged by deflationary prices.

But that wasn’t all, the amendment would have required the Federal Reserve to buy, at the President’s request, another $3 billion in federal government bonds (super QE) beyond those already purchased while also giving Roosevelt added authority to further lower the gold content of the dollar (statutory approval for official devaluation, meaning default, having  been given just a few months earlier).

There was more: authority to put silver on par with gold, or at any ratio in between that possible extreme and where it was priced at the time; legal approval for the Fed to issue greenbacks, $3 billion of them, to finance the bond purchases rather than use reserve bank credit (bank reserves).

On May 13, 1933, in Britain’s The Economist these provisions were soundly condemned as going way too far:

The passage of the Thomas amendment by both houses of Congress has answered the question of whether we are going to have inflation. The only topic of conversation in New York during the past week has been ‘inflation.’ It is evident that the tide of inflationary sentiment is running at full flood.

Both The Economist article and one published in BusinessWeek four days later referred to “controlled inflation”, with the former quite negative on the theory, charging, “the country has exchanged a President with little effective power for a ‘currency dictator.’”

The latter, BusinessWeek, was far more sanguine:

This inflation is different. It contains controls that can be used to prevent a runaway…

Disagreement over the wisdom behind the amendment was fierce, but the foreseeable result, inflation, was widely viewed as a foregone conclusion.

As noted yesterday, on the contrary, there was none to be found anywhere – not until the mid-sixties under very different underlying (not deflationary) circumstances.

It wasn’t up to authorities to create it, no matter how much they wanted to or how willing they were to just tear up tradition and exceed political limits. The monetary power for inflation, or deflation, as the case would be, rested within the banking system which, contrary to “recovery” expectations, wasn’t recovering.

This undercurrent would persist for decades. Though the New Deal raised the budget deficit to extreme proportions, World War II would take them even further. And still no inflation.

Fearing it anyway, because central bankers through history have continuously proved how little they understand their jobs, the Federal Reserve by the time of America’s entry into WWII, wounded and weakened by its disastrous performance throughout the decade before, was made subservient to the Treasury Department. Its primary task had been whittled down to little more than bond market policeman; beginning in 1942, enforcing a ceiling on UST yields by promising to buy bonds at predetermined prices.

And yet, even that much was never required. Low interest rates persisted; the Fed, as I recalled a few years ago, never much more than a bystander and spectator as the banking system feared liquidity and deflation regardless of the government’s condition, intent, or disposition. You can’t credibly promise to be irresponsible when everyone, including Treasury, knows you’re toothless.

If you understand why interest rates had only gone lower in the thirties you can easily understand why they didn’t just surge one day in the forties or even fifties. Yes, the Fed kept a ceiling on long rates from ’42 to ’51, but in all that time the central bank rarely had to intervene in the market; none at all over the final years. There was no artificially constrained bond bear lurking underneath.

What ended this bond “bull” market was the same thing which would end up balancing the federal government’s books. Growth and opportunity, not inflation.

Thus, the question before us today isn’t really about inflation, either, it’s whether the debt being further piled on to defeat deflation (which has zero chance of succeeding at that) simply tightens the deflationary trap that much more.

Just like all these previous periods in history. “Japan 2001. America 2008. Japan 2013. Europe 2015.” Everyone 2020.

I’ll get to Japan in the nineties hopefully at some point this week. That’ll finish up the major episodes of this un-killable interest rate fallacy.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 05/07/2020 – 12:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2A8DHnC Tyler Durden

Database Of Wuhan’s ‘Batwoman’ Altered 48 Hours Before COVID-19 Samples Ordered Destroyed

Database Of Wuhan’s ‘Batwoman’ Altered 48 Hours Before COVID-19 Samples Ordered Destroyed

As Western intelligence continues to investigate China’s handling of COVID-19 as it spread throughout Hubei province in December, disturbing evidence continues to emerge that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) engaged in a massive cover-up of what was going on.

Now, we’ve learned that the Wuhan Institute of Virology – which was conducting controversial experiments into animal-to-human transmission of bat coronaviruses, altered their database in an apparent attempt to distance the lab from the outbreak.

“Days before the Wuhan wet market was bleached, whistleblowers were punished and virus samples were destroyed, someone at the high-security Wuhan Institute of Virology censored its virus database in an apparent attempt to disassociate the laboratory from a novel-coronavirus outbreak that would become a global pandemic,” reports the New York Post‘s Miranda Devine, citing a UK intelligence analyst who found the alterations via open-source methods.

Notably, the alteration occurred two days before a gene sequencing lab was reportedly ordered by the Health and Medical Commission of Hubei Province to destroy samples of the new disease and withhold information.

According to the report, the alterations – conducted on the evening of Dec. 30 – were substantial, and occurred the day before the CCP notified the World Health Organization about the outbreak of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan.

The primary database contact is none other than Shi Zhengli – now known as “batwoman” for her controversial experiments, including the creation of a ‘chimeric’ coronavirus that can infect humans. According to the report, Zhengli was in Shanghai for a conference when she was summoned back to Wuhan to deal with the outbreak which had been detected in two pneumonia patients. While on the overnight train back to Wuhan, the database was altered.

Most of the changes were to delete the keywords “wildlife” or “wild animals.” This is significant, because global health researchers say the virus jumped from bats to humans via another wild animal — the crucial “missing link” in the COVID-19 transmission chain.

Shi used to boast that her bat-virus database was unique because it included data on virus variants in other wild animals.

Was her database censored to keep prying eyes away from references to cross-species transmission of viruses in wild animals?

For instance, the title of the ­database was changed that night from “Wildlife-borne viral pathogen database” to “Bat and rodent-borne viral pathogen database.”

“Wild animal” was replaced with “bat and rodent” or “bat and rat” at least 10 times in the database. Also, a reference to “arthropod vectors” was removed.

Keywords that might facilitate searches potentially connecting the database with the outbreak also were deleted. “Wild animal samples,” “viral pathogen data,” “emerging infectious diseases” and “cross-species infection” were keywords associated with the original version.

On Dec. 30 they were replaced with “bat,” “rodent” and “virus.” –New York Post

“It looks like a rushed, inconsistent effort to disassociate the project from the outbreak by ­rebranding it,” according to the UK intelligence analyst who discovered the alterations. “It’s a strange thing to do within hours of being informed of a novel-coronavirus outbreak.”

“If the WIV had found the missing link between bat virus RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 [the coronavirus that causes COVID-19] from an animal vector, it would have been in Shi’s database,” he added.

Read the rest of the report here.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 05/07/2020 – 12:03

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

Joe Biden Leads Democrats Back to the Norm of Ignoring Inconvenient #MeToo Accusations

The liberal activist group MoveOn.org, a seven-million-member organization that lobbies for progressive causes, was founded in 1998 to oppose the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying to Congress about his sexual improprieties. The organizers thought the public should stop caring so much about Clinton’s mistreatment of women, thus the genesis of the name: It was time to move on.

That same year, the crusading feminist Gloria Steinem, known for her support of alleged victims like Anita Hill and the completely discredited children claimed to have been abused at Satanic daycare, penned an op-ed for The New York Times in support of Clinton, even “if all the sexual allegations swirling around the White House turn out to be true.”

On Monday, The New York Times published a piece by the feminist attorney and scholar Linda Hirshman: “I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden Anyway.” Hirshman’s piece is well in-keeping with a long tradition of liberals and Democrats discounting problematic sexual misconduct allegations leveled against members of their own political tribe. Indeed, the Democratic establishment has greeted Reade’s sexual assault accusation against the former vice president with an all-too-familiar collective shrug. Those who broke ranks and gave voice to Reade’s accusation, including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, were met with condemnation.

This is the norm of politics: He may be a sexual predator but he’s our sexual predator, damn it. We are witnessing a reversion to this norm, and it should take no one by surprise.

The actual surprise was that, for a brief moment, at the height of the #MeToo movement, there was an effort by liberals to stand on principle and hold powerful Democrats accountable. This culminated in late 2017 with the successful ouster of Sen. Al Franken (D–Minn.) for alleged sexual harassment and nonconsensual touching. Then the reversion began: The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer, who once teamed up with Ronan Farrow in the service of publishing one of the less credible Brett Kavanaugh allegations, wrote a piece arguing that Franken was wronged by his overzealous colleagues.

One of those overzealous colleagues, Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D–NY), has become synonymous with #MeToo feminism. Gillibrand invited Emma Sulkowicz to the State of the Union in 2015. She said “I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.” When she was running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination last year, she complained that some of her rivals were insufficiently committed to the cause of combatting rape. “I’ve got to tell you, I’m really sick of it,” she said. “I’m so freaking sick of it.”

When asked last week about Reade’s allegation, Gillibrand said that Biden had her support.

Biden, similarly, has balked at being held accountable under the harsh standards that he himself worked tirelessly to enshrine for people accused of rape on college campuses. On Wednesday, following Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s final approval of new rules that restore due process and the presumption of innocence to college Title IX adjudication, Biden issued a promise to reverse the changes if elected president.

This hypocrisy runs in both directions, of course. Republicans who were silent about the numerous sexual assault allegations against President Donald Trump don’t exactly have the moral standing to weaponize the Reade allegation, though that obviously won’t stop them.

Trump himself is apparently wary of the accusation against Biden, though. He reportedly asked an aide, “Does it sound like bullshit to you?”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2L5ks0u
via IFTTT

The U.S. Postal Service ‘Unsustainable,’ Says GAO. And That Was Before COVID-19 Hit.

After losing $78 billion since 2007 amid a decline in mail volume coupled with soaring pension costs, the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) business model is “not financially sustainable,” a government audit has concluded.

In a scathing report set to be released later today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) calls on Congress to reevaluate all aspects of the Postal Service’s operations, from how often Americans receive their mail to whether the USPS should be restructured to receive annual infusions of taxpayer dollars. “Absent congressional action on critical foundational elements of the USPS business model, USPS’ mission and financial solvency are increasingly in peril,” the audit concludes.

The report comes at a crucial moment. In March, Congress extended a $10 billion line of credit to the USPS as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) after rejecting an earlier draft of the stimulus bill that would have sunk $25 billion in cash into the beleaguered agency. House Democrats are now seeking a $25 billion Postal Service bailout in the so-called “phase four” stimulus bill lawmakers are currently negotiating.

Due to the sharp drop in mail volume during the COVID-19 pandemic, the USPS expects to lose as much as $13 billion this year, Postmaster General Megan Brennan told the House Oversight and Reform Committee last month.

President Donald Trump has been unwilling to bail out the USPS without reforms. Asked about it at a press conference last month, Trump said the agency should “raise the prices by actually a lot, then you’d find out that the Post Office could make money or break even.”

The new GAO report makes clear that neither one-time bailouts nor higher prices for mail will be sufficient.

In the 10 years since the GAO first classified the USPS as “high-risk”—a designation that means an agency or department is vulnerable to waste, mismanagement, and needs reform—the service’s fiscal status has “worsened due to declining mail volume, increased employee compensation and benefit costs, and increased unfunded liabilities and debt,” the GAO’s new report states.

Perhaps the best indicator of the Postal Service’s structural problems is the divergence between the number of employees it has and the amount of mail it delivers. Since 2006, First Class mail has declined by 44 percent, the GAO found, but the number of postal workers has grown during the same period of time.

Also of concern is the growth of debt in funds that are supposed to pay for pensions and other benefits for retired workers. At the end of 2019, the pension fund had $50 billion in unfunded liabilities—that’s the long-term gap between what the fund expects to pay out to current and future beneficiaries and the amount of revenue the fund is expected to collect from workers’ paychecks and investment earnings. The fund that covers health care expenses for retired postal workers is facing a $69 billion unfunded liability.

None of these problems should surprise lawmakers. After the USPS reported a $4 billion loss in 2018, Brennan warned that the agency “cannot generate revenue or cut enough costs to pay our bills.” Raising prices has not staunched the flow of red ink. The cost of a stamp jumped 10 percent on January 1, 2019, and other mailing services increased by 2.5 percent on average—but expenses have been outpacing revenues by a wide margin.

“If Congress is going to be asked to get the Postal Service out of yet another fiscal jam, we owe it to the American people to make sure we aren’t just setting them up for yet another bailout the next time there’s an emergency,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio), the highest-ranking Republican on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement about the new GAO report. “The USPS needs to be a self-sufficient, competitive enterprise, and a legislative overhaul for the long-term is the only way to make it one.”

In 2018, the Trump administration outlined two plans for privatizing the USPS in whole or in part, either by handing over management of the service to a private operator under federal oversight or by selling off the postal service in its entirety.

Privatization of the USPS—something Reason has been advocating for literally over 50 years—would give the agency the ability to free itself from its current mess, which is largely the result of overlapping and sometimes unnecessary congressional mandates.

“The USPS is in a straitjacket unable to save itself during the crisis because Congress imposes restrictions on costs, pricing, labor unions, delivery, and other operational factors,” writes Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. “Congress should allow the USPS to implement long‐​needed reforms such as reducing delivery days, closing locations that have few customers, repealing collective bargaining, and other cost‐​saving changes.”

The level of debt within the USPS makes privatization a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. It would probably require significant restructuring and service changes for the privatized service to net a profit, and the federal government would likely need to absorb the current debts. And it could net a windfall for the government to help meet its pension obligations to postal workers. Cornell economist Richard Geddes estimates that a postal IPO could raise $40 billion.

It would have been far better for Congress to have considered a comprehensive overhaul of the USPS prior to the current crisis. But waiting any longer is only going to make the mess harder to clean up.

“Comprehensive postal reform has not taken place in part because of the difficulty in obtaining compromise among various stakeholders with divergent views,” the GAO report states. “Continued inaction will result in deepening financial problems—putting the USPS’ mission to provide universal postal service at greater risk and minimizing the ability to make the most appropriate or sustainable policy decisions.”

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