In a decision that could potentially have a profound impact on US trade policy, the US International Trade Commission has ruled that a flood of cheap, foreign solar panels is unfairly hurting US manufacturers, creating the opportunity for President Donald Trump to follow through on his protectionist campaign rhetoric and impose tariffs and import quotas as soon as November.

If Trump imposes the tariffs, what would be his second significant protectionist act targeting China since approving an investigation into the country's controversial IP policies that some view as tantamount to starting a trade war. Tariffs would upend the $29 billion US solar industry, according to Bloomberg. More expensive prices for cells and panels would hurt demand for solar potentially reversing a trend of growing demand that has persisted for much of the past decade. Even before the Friday vote, some developers had halted construction and begun hoarding supplies, anticipating that tariffs could double the price of imported components.

The ITC is now set to deliver its recommendations to address the import surge to the president by Nov. 13, handing him an opportunity to score political points on three priorities: He can slap a tariff on China and argue he’s protecting US jobs, all while undermining an industry that competes with coal, an energy that Trump cultivated close ties with during the campaign. The ITC's vote gives Trump a measure of cover to impose the sanctions.

The case was inspired by Georgia-based Suniva Inc., which filed for bankruptcy protection in April and followed up days later with the trade suit. The company is seeking import duties of 40 cents a watt for solar cells, and a floor price of 78 cents a watt for panels, which currently average about 32 cents worldwide. The US unit of German panel manufacturer SolarWorld AG joined Suniva to argue that the company had been driven to bankruptcy by a global glut of cheap cells, an industry dominated by China. Unlike earlier trade cases, this one would apply on U.S. imports from any nation.

Shares of First Solar popped because it’s panel technology would be excluded while shares of other solar companies tumbled. 

Shares of Tesla, which bought Solar City last summer, remain at the lows of the day.

Most of the US solar industry, which uses the cheap panels for rooftop or utility-scale projects, oppose tariffs, arguing that inexpensive imports have driven a boom in US solar projects and tens of thousands of jobs hang in the balance. Abigail Ross Hopper, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, called it an “ill-conceived case” driven by creditors wanting to recover some of their investments “in poorly run companies.”

“The petitioners made bad business decisions during the biggest boom in American solar energy history,” Ross Hopper said before the vote. “These companies are not worthy of an injury finding.”

The ruling is unusual because it relies on a rarely used provision of a trade law that offers companies a “global safeguard” that can result in broad, uniform protection against imports – not just tariffs on specific countries or companies. Under that 1974 trade measure, Suniva only had to prove that imports have caused it “serious injury” — not that foreign competitors did anything unfair or illegal. Also, Suniva's majority owner, Shunfeng International Clean Energy Ltd., opposes the move. The ITC is also pursuing a separate global safeguard investigation of large residential washers as manufacturers, encouraged by Trump's rhetoric, have filed more cases, believing the administration would follow up on a favorable ruling with sanctions.

Of course, tariffs would also complicate Trump's relationship with China at a time when the administration is pressuring China to do more about North Korea.

Read the ITC's full statement below:

The U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat of serious injury, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article in the United States.

As a result, the investigation will move to a remedy phase.

More information will be provided in a news release to be issued later today.  That news release will replace this bulletin when it is available.

via http://ift.tt/2hlgS6N Tyler Durden

Confirming reports that reception for Apple’s newly launched iPhone 8 may be “underwhelming” to put it lightly, as the phone provides little if any material improvement over its lower-priced predecessor even as sales for hardcore fans will be cannibalized by the iPhone X, is the following report from Hangzhou, China which shows that all of 2 people were waiting in line for the latest gizmo from Tim Cook.

As Chinese media reports, summarized by David Kersten, “note the barricades for the anticipated queue…

… that had to be put away because only 2 people showed up.”

Some more details:

I’ve C&P’d this article, clumsily translated by Google, because, being from a Chinese site, it doesn’t adapt well to the Facebook environment, however, the link is provided as are the pictures.

 

“Embarrassing! IPhone 8 today, Hangzhou, security guards are busy removing the fence.

 

 

September 22, the Bank of China iPhone 8 officially opened in the major channels. Hangzhou Apple West Lake shop, more than six in the morning to thirty or forty security. Black fence posture full of a row of rows, turn a few 90 degrees bend. 8:00 to open the door, the door on the two line up. 8:43 security guards began to withdraw fence …

 

 

According to Hong Kong media, and the mainland, Hong Kong, Apple shop customers have no more employees.”

 

With the iPhone 8 a dud, at least in China, AAPL longs are hoping that the reception for the iPhone X in a few weeks will be notably more enthusiastic, or else Apple may have a major problem on its hands.

via http://ift.tt/2fn3nD9 Tyler Durden

As promised, the European Commission responded promptly to Theresa May’s speech with remarks from Michel Barnier hitting the tape, in which he says that “Prime Minister Theresa May has expressed a constructive spirit which is also the spirit of the European Union during this unique negotiation” and notes that “Today, for the first time, the United Kingdom government has requested to continue to benefit from access to the Single Market, on current terms, and to continue to benefit from existing cooperation in security. This is for a limited period of up to two years, beyond its withdrawal date, and therefore beyond its departure from the EU institutions.”

Commenting further, Barnier said that “if the European Union so wishes, this new request could be taken into account by the EU and examined in light of the European Council stated in its guidelines of 29 April 2017: “Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.”

While the remarks are hardly surprising, the one section that appears to be grabbing attention is the following: “The fact that the government of the United Kingdom recognises that leaving the European Union means that it cannot keep all the benefits of membership with fewer obligations than the other Member States is welcome. In any case, the future relationship will need to be based on a balance of rights and obligations. It will need to respect the integrity of the Union’s legal order and the autonomy of its decision-making.“

He also said that “Prime Minister May’s statements are a step forward but they must now be translated into a precise negotiating position of the UK government” and adds that “The EU will continue to insist on sufficient progress in the key areas of the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom before opening discussions on the future relationship. Agreeing on the essential principles in these areas will create the trust that is needed for us to build a future relationship together.”

Indeed, this is what will be the focus of the Brexit process as it moves on to the next phase of the “divorce” proceedings.

Full Barnier statement below (link).

European Commission – Statement

 

Statement by Michel Barnier

 

Brussels, 22 September 2017

 

In her speech in Florence, Prime Minister Theresa May has expressed a constructive spirit which is also the spirit of the European Union during this unique negotiation.

 

The speech shows a willingness to move forward, as time is of the essence. We need to reach an agreement by autumn 2018 on the conditions of the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the European Union. The UK will become a third country on 30 March 2019.

 

Our priority is to protect the rights of citizens. EU27 citizens in the United Kingdom must have the same rights as British citizens today in the European Union. These rights must be implemented effectively and safeguarded in the same way in the United Kingdom as in the European Union, as recalled by the European Council and European Parliament. Prime Minister May’s statements are a step forward but they must now be translated into a precise negotiating position of the UK government.

 

With regard to Ireland, the United Kingdom is the co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement. Today’s speech does not clarify how the UK intends to honour its special responsibility for the consequences of its withdrawal for Ireland. Our objective is to preserve the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions, as well as the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union.

 

The United Kingdom recognises that no Member State will have to pay more or receive less because of Brexit. We stand ready to discuss the concrete implications of this pledge. We shall assess, on the basis of the commitments taken by the 28 Member States, whether this assurance covers all commitments made by the United Kingdom as a Member State of the European Union.

 

Today, for the first time, the United Kingdom government has requested to continue to benefit from access to the Single Market, on current terms, and to continue to benefit from existing cooperation in security. This is for a limited period of up to two years, beyond its withdrawal date, and therefore beyond its departure from the EU institutions.

 

If the European Union so wishes, this new request could be taken into account by the EU and examined in light of the European Council stated in its guidelines of 29 April 2017: “Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.”

 

The sooner we reach an agreement on the principles of the orderly withdrawal in the different areas – and on the conditions of a possible transition period requested by the United Kingdom – the sooner we will be ready to engage in a constructive discussion on our future relationship.

 

The EU shares the goal of establishing an ambitious partnership for the future. The fact that the government of the United Kingdom recognises that leaving the European Union means that it cannot keep all the benefits of membership with fewer obligations than the other Member States is welcome. In any case, the future relationship will need to be based on a balance of rights and obligations. It will need to respect the integrity of the Union’s legal order and the autonomy of its decision-making.

 

The EU will continue to insist on sufficient progress in the key areas of the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom before opening discussions on the future relationship. Agreeing on the essential principles in these areas will create the trust that is needed for us to build a future relationship together.

 

David Davis and I will meet in Brussels next Monday to begin the fourth round of the negotiations. As always, we are preparing the upcoming round with the 27 Member States and the European Parliament. On Monday I will have a discussion with the European Parliament in its Brexit Steering Group, as well as with all Member States in the General Affairs Council.

 

We look forward to the United Kingdom’s negotiators explaining the concrete implications of Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech. Our ambition is to find a rapid agreement on the conditions of the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal, as well as on a possible transition period.

via http://ift.tt/2jQNeXZ Tyler Durden

 

 

Central Bank “Cryptocurrencies”? Just a Different Kind of Funny-Money

Written by Jeff Nielson, Sprott Money News

 

It is quite hilarious to watch the posturing of central banks and their media mouthpieces on the subject of cryptocurrencies. A recent Reuters article on the subject provided numerous moments of mirth. The title alone is good for a chuckle.

 

Too Soon to Determine Risks of Central Bank-Issued Cryptocurrencies: BIS

It’s always amusing when these shameless con-men (and women) attempt to portray themselves as sober arbiters of risk. Those who understand our monetary system are aware that the funny-money that these shysters are currently peddling is completely worthless.

 

The “fiat currencies” of Western central banks have had highly questionable value ever since the final connection to the gold standard was severed in 1971. However, since 2009 there has no longer been any question at all – ever since the Federal Reserve launched the Bernanke Helicopter Drop.

 

 

U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply.

— B.S. Bernanke, November 21, 2002

 

Since 2009 and the era of unlimited dollar-supply began, the U.S. dollar (and all its fiat currency derivatives) has been completely worthless. It is with this backdrop that we watch these Clown Princes of our monetary system debating the “risks” involved with crytpocurrencies.

 

The article starts with a straight line and then heads straight for laughs.

 

It is too soon to determine whether central banks should issue their own cryptocurrencies, the Bank for International Settlements said on Sunday, as the risks could not yet be fully assessed and the technology underpinning them is still unproven.

Central banks already use electronic money – only a very small proportion of their assets are now backed by gold – but this is exchanged in a centralized fashion, across accounts at the central bank.

“Only a very small proportion of their assets are now backed by gold”. What proportion would that be? Zero – a very small proportion indeed.

 

Currency reserves (including gold) represent – at best – indirect backing for these worthless currencies. A government trying to prop up their own paper can liquidate their currency reserves, and use the proceeds to buy-up their own currencies. Hardly “backing” in any formal sense.

 

The whole objective of these criminal central banks in assassinating the gold standard was to completely divorce their money-printing from gold. Gold-backed money is Honest Money, and there is nothing remotely honest about central bank fiat currencies.

 

Central banks already have their own funny-money that they can conjure into existence in infinite quantities. So why are these institutions of monetary crime openly expressing interest in cryptocurrencies?

 

Envy.

 

Blockchain technology enables peer-to-peer payments to be made using decentralized cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, by means of a shared ledger that verifies, records and settles transactions in a matter of minutes.

“While it seems unlikely that bitcoin or its sisters will displace sovereign currencies, they have demonstrated the ability of the underlying blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT),” BIS said.

Cryptocurrencies can also be conjured into existence in infinite quantities, limited only by the algorithms that spawn them into existence. But adding blockchain technology adds a money-pump dimension not possessed by current central bank money-printing operations.

 

“Peer-to-peer payments.”

 

What is the appeal here? Such a totally electronic means of delivering payment for transactions makes the War on Cash that these criminals have already declared even easier to impose upon us. Furthermore, the whole concept of cryptocurrencies adds an element of quasi-legitimacy not possessed by central bank fiat currencies.

 

What gives a gold-backed currency value? It is backed by a hard asset with a 5,000 year pedigree.

 

What gives a fiat currency value? Our (honest and trustworthy) governments say that that this funny-money has value.

 

What gives a cryptocurrency value? An algorithm.

 

The vast majority of our populations have no clear understanding of what an algorithm is. That’s how and why the banksters have gotten away with imposing their totally fraudulent trading algorithms on our markets – no one understands the obvious criminality of allowing computers to hijack our markets.

 

So it comes down to a choice. Are the masses more likely to retain faith in our funny-money knowing that it is “backed” by an algorithm, or “backed” by the good word of our governments? Framed in those terms, the choice seems obvious: fiat currencies out; cryptocurrencies in.

 

A recent article distinguished cryptocurrencies from real money: gold and silver or precious metals-backed money.

 

…mere currencies (such as all of our
paper currencies) are not “money”. They are not a store of value. They are not rare or precious. They have no intrinsic value. Their utility is purely as a medium of exchange.

Crypto-currencies, as the name directly implies, are not money. They are not a store of value. They are mere currency.

They can still be distinguished from our fraudulent (central bank-created) fiat currencies. As was previously discussed, many credible sources will attest to the fact that crypto-currencies are not fraudulent.

Here is the appeal. Cryptocurrencies are not money, meaning they are not a store of value, thus they will not intrinsically help the masses preserve their wealth. At the same time, unlike the central bank’s fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies are not open frauds that are rapidly losing any veneer of legitimacy.

 

Cryptocurrencies are becoming more legitimate in the eyes of the masses, eyes which (more and more often) are coloured by greed. See how high Bitcoin soared last week/month/year?

For 45 years, all we have seen is the purchasing power of our (so-called) money plummeting. The same chocolate bar that cost a dime when the gold standard was killed costs a dollar today. Now the masses are actually catching a glimpse of currencies that rise in purchasing power, even as the supply increases.

 

Something for nothing.

 

Of course, in the real world there is “no free lunch”. Understand that the value of a cryptocurrency cannot increase as the supply increases simultaneously. That is nothing more than the same lie that the central bankers currently peddle regarding the U.S. dollar.

 

The price of a cryptocurrency can go up (temporarily), but only for so long as holders are willing to bid up that price. As soon as the tide goes out, a cryptocurrency has identical value to a fiat currency: zero. Framed in those terms, it’s no wonder that our monetary con-men are expressing more and more public interest in cryptocurrencies.

 

Central bank flirtations with cryptocurrencies may be viewed by some as the green light to pile into this new form of currency. Think again. There is a 100% opposite way in which this scenario could play out.

 

It goes like this. Central banks continue their “risk assessment” of cryptocurrencies as the price of these virtual currencies spirals higher. But before the central banks embrace cryptocurrencies officially, the bottom falls out and these currencies plummet to near-worthlessness.

 

Sound implausible? Whose money has fueled the spike in value of these cryptocurrencies to date? Very probably it is the dirty money of the banking crime syndicate.

 

The motivation should be obvious to astute readers. Cryptocurrencies represent competition for the official (but fraudulent) fiat currencies produced by central banks. The oligarchs who control this crime syndicate despite competition in any form – and even more so with respect to their money-printing monopoly.

 

What is the modus operandi of these oligarchs when it comes to anything which seeks to compete with their criminal empire? Control it. Or destroy it. Or control it then destroy it.

 

As regular readers already know, the banking crime syndicate has the capacity to legally counterfeit infinite quantities of its fiat currency funny-money. Surely this crime syndicate would not be sloppy enough to simply watch these cryptocurrencies emerge as direct competition?

 

Throw some of their spare change into Bitcoin et al and they take control of the competition. At that point they are free to promote their success, or to destroy these cryptocurrencies by suddenly and dramatically pulling out all their own dirty money.

 

Are cryptocurrencies going to become the successor to our fiat currencies, and another stepping-stone toward “a cashless society”? Or, are these virtual currencies destined to be a flash-in-the-pan, destroyed by the banking crime syndicate before they can become formidable competition for our official (but worthless) currencies?

 

The latter scenario seems the more likely one, for one important reason. If central banks embrace cryptocurrencies and thus confer even greater legitimacy upon them, they would be legitimizing the competition.

 

The whole theft-by-money-printing scam of the central banks is based upon us holding and using their fiat currencies. If we are holding and using independent cryptocurrencies instead, this weakens their control over us and reduces the amount of our wealth they are able to pillage. It’s almost as bad (for the bankers) as if we were holding precious metals.

 

Central banks are showing cautious interest in cryptocurrencies today. They may even express open admiration tomorrow. However, we may still see the banking crime syndicate completely and utterly destroy these cryptocurrencies the day after that.

 

Virtual currencies can be destroyed. Real money (precious metals) cannot. All that can be done is what has been done: temporarily suppressing the price of these eternal metals.

 

 

Questions or comments about this article? Leave your thoughts HERE.

 

 

 

 

Central Bank “Cryptocurrencies”? Just a Different Kind of Funny-Money

Written by Jeff Nielson, Sprott Money News

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2xlVi8C Sprott Money

Via TheAntiMedia.org,

At a time when South Floridians rocked by Hurricane Irma were still surveying the damage to their properties, the county of Miami-Dade apparently thought it appropriate to begin handing out safety notices.

Celso Perez told local WSVN-TV that he, his family, and his neighbors were starting to clear fallen trees from the streets after the storm passed through at nine in the morning on Monday. Hours later, in the afternoon, Perez got a visit from the county.

“And we thought he was here to help us or offer some type of assistance with the trees, maybe he was going to bring us ice or something,” Perez told WSVN. Instead, the official slapped a safety notice on the only part of Perez’s fence still standing.

 

“I laughed,” he said. “I thought he was kidding. ‘You are kidding right? We just had a hurricane six hours ago.’ ‘No, I’m not kidding. I have to cite you for this.’ I just laughed. OK, whatever; knock yourself out!”

But Perez stopped laughing when the official told him he would be writing up a report and would be back to check on the property. Perez told WSVN that the man said he’d “have to write me a fine” if the fence wasn’t up to code by then.

“At the time this officer was out here, we didn’t have power, we didn’t have food, we didn’t have ice. He is crazy, ridiculous,” Perez said, adding that “it’s not like I can go to Home Depot” because all the stores were closed.

The South Floridian says he understands that there is a lot of work that needs to be done but that the county’s rush to issue warnings was inappropriate:

“Give us a minute to breathe. Let us get our power back on. And I wouldn’t mind if they told me that a few days down the line or due time but it bothers me that they came out here just a few hours after the storm had passed.”

On the issue of restoring power, Reason noted that at the time Miami-Dade was handing out citations — the WSVN investigation found Perez was far from alone; the county handed out 680 pool barrier and 177 electrical hazard notices in the hours after Irma — 16,510 homes and businesses were still without power.

When Reason tried to confirm with Miami-Dade if monetary fines would be attached to citations, the county responded with the following statement:

“We were looking to advise residents of the following hazards on their properties that they may not have been aware of, but that pose a life safety threat: damaged structures that rendered them unsafe, unsecured pools with no barriers, electrical hazards (down lines, damaged meters) and gas hazards (damaged meters).

 

If any of these hazards were found, our inspectors gave out a safety notice, which is neither a notice of violation warning nor a citation. That means there is no fine attached. The safety notices given to property owners identify the hazard, steps that should be taken to correct the hazard, and who to contact for additional information.”

Fine or no, WSVN’s legal expert and Broward County public defender, Howard Finkelstein, said the timing was “awful” for the people trying to recover:

“This is outrageous. After Irma, people were stressed, they were worried and for a government official to slap a warning notice on them to add to their misery is insulting.”

via http://ift.tt/2xtpjm1 Tyler Durden

…as 2017 earnings expectations hit year-to-date lows…

 

And yes, we know financials are a major driver of the Russell 2000… so here’s some more humor…

via http://ift.tt/2jT4qMy Tyler Durden

Hurricane Maria has moved on from Puerto Rico and was passing the Turks and Caicos Islands Friday morning as a Category 3 storm. But the devastation it caused will disrupt life on the island for the next six months, possibly longer, as the cash-strapped US territory struggles to rebuild its power grid and other crucial infrastructure that was completely destroyed by the storm, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

More than 95% of Puerto Rico’s wireless cell sites are currently out of service, according to the FCC. That is worse than the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, which knocked out 56% of the island’s wireless network. Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Brock Long said restoring electricity to the island “could take weeks or many, many months.”

But the damage goes beyond cell towers. The most powerful hurricane to hit the US territory in almost a century hobbled the island's telecommunications system, destroyed its power grid and left communities facing widespread devastation. Puerto Rican authorities have warned the island’s 3.4 million residents that the island faces a difficult and expensive path to recovery from Maria. As the territory rushes to provide initial relief to its struggling citizens, Abner Gómez, executive director of the island’s emergency-management agency, said residents should be prepared to sustain themselves without aid for 72 hours, given the severity of the damage, the obstacles to reach people and how thinly stretched government resources are.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said the agency is working with telecom providers to help get the communications networks back online. About a week after Irma hit, all but 6% of Puerto Rico’s cell sites were back online.

“Unfortunately, getting Puerto Rico’s communications networks up and running will be a challenging process, particularly given the power outages,” Mr. Pai said.

In an interview aired on the only radio station left that could still broadcast across the island, PR Gov. Ricardo Rosselló described the situation on the island as a crisis. Flooding and mudslides are a “giant problem” especially in rural, mountainous areas, he said, adding that damage to the island’s infrastructure was enormous and the cost to fix it will be “humongous.”

But in a heartening demonstration of resilience, residents of San Juan – the Puerto Rican capital, which experienced flooding throughout most of its downtown area, including its financial district – are banding together to compensate for the loss of essential services. Left to fend for themselves, San Juaneros took to the streets Thursday to "figure it out," the Miami Herald reports.

"No electricity? A mustachioed man in a white undershirt played traffic cop at a Santurce intersection. No ambulances? A daughter borrowed her brother’s SUV to race her frail mother from the La Perla neighborhood to a hospital. No debris removal? A physician and two neighbors borrowed garden tools to clear main Condado thoroughfares on their own.

 

With the enormity of Maria’s destruction still unknown even to the overwhelmed Puerto Rican government, the capital’s storm-dazed residents ventured outside Thursday, clogging roadways while trying to bring some semblance of order to their bruised city."

One doctor chided his neighbors for not pitching in, criticizing them for coping with their problems by "stress eating."

“Get busy!” implored Dr. Joseph Campos, a 52-year-old internist at the San Juan Veterans Administration hospital, tree-trimmer in hand as he and his neighbors cut down a tree partially blocking access to a highway. “Even if all you can do is pick up a single, little branch. I’m not eating, and I’m healthy, and I’m working. You don’t have to sit home stress-eating.”

Countless roads were impassable, some neighborhoods largely cut off because of debris or flooding. Most areas outside metro San Juan remained unreachable Thursday, both by road and by phone. Campos had no news of his parents in western Puerto Rico and how they’d fared after the Category 4 storm knocked out power to the entire island. Despite the loss of comunication tools, some damage reports from across the island have trickled out. Three sisters were confirmed dead in a building collapse in the mountainous central region of Utuado, according to local press accounts, while authorities declared small communities across the island as essentially destroyed. The official death toll in Puerto Rico has risen to 10. Across the Caribbean, Maria caused the deaths of 30 people.

As of Thursday afternoon, more than 4,000 people had been rescued by helicopter, trucks and boats by the National Guard, police, firefighters and municipal officials, according to the Herald.

Mr. Rosselló ordered an overnight curfew from Wednesday to Saturday and banned liquor sales. The move appears to be an effort to prevent looting and to maintain security. After Hurricane Irma, there were reports of incidents of looting in St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands, some of the British Virgin Islands, and in St. Martin.

Fortunately for the cash-strapped island, Trump declared a major disaster in Puerto Rico on Wednesday and ordered federal assistance for 54 of the island’s 78 municipalities, including grants for temporary housing and home repairs and low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses. FEMA has hundreds of staff members in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands conducting initial impact assessments and helping to get seaports and airports open, said Mr. Long, the agency’s administrator, in an interview Thursday.

While the damage to Puerto Rico was unprecedented and severe, it pales in comparison to the total destruction that Maria brought to the tiny Caribbean island of Dominica, which saw its agriculture-based economy totally wiped out, along with towns, roads, forests and its communications and electricty infrastructure.

via http://ift.tt/2jRJQMs Tyler Durden