Month: December 2020

Is Anthony Fauci Right That Federalism Undermined the U.S. Response to COVID-19?

Anthony-Fauci-12-22-20-Newscom

Anthony Fauci, an infectious disease expert who has played a leading role in advising the Trump administration on COVID-19, thinks federalism has undermined America’s response to the pandemic. “The states are very often given a considerable amount of leeway in doing things the way they want to do it, as opposed to in response to federal mandates, which are relatively rarely given,” Fauci, who has directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, recently told BBC Radio 4. “What we’ve had was a considerable disparity, with states doing things differently in a nonconsistent way….There have been a lot of factors that have led to the fact that, unfortunately for us, the United States has been the hardest-hit country in the world, but I believe that disparity among how states do things has been a major weakness in our response.”

The “leeway” that bothers Fauci is required by the Constitution, which gives states the primary responsibility for dealing with public health threats under a broad “police power” that the federal government was never given. So his beef is not simply with the way COVID-19 policy happened to play out in the United States. It is an objection to the basic structure of our constitutional design, which limits the federal government to specifically enumerated powers that do not include a general mandate to fight communicable diseases or protect public health. Although Congress has invoked its authority over interstate and international commerce to justify certain disease control measures, the power to deal with epidemics lies mainly with the states, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized.

That point aside, is Fauci right that federalism has proven to be “a major weakness in our response”? A centralized response to COVID-19 might have been better in some respects, assuming that the federal government was wise, knowledgeable, and competent enough to settle on an ideal policy for the entire country. But that assumption is manifestly wrong.

In the areas where the federal government has taken the lead, including vaccine approval, the deployment of virus tests, and advice on face masks, its performance has been characterized by striking incompetence, bureaucratic intransigence, bewildering inconsistency, and lethal foot dragging. Given that track record, trusting the feds to decide every detail of COVID-19 control measures seems ill-advised, even if the Constitution permitted it.

While state and local officials are not necessarily smarter or more competent than national politicians and federal bureaucrats, they are more familiar with the local conditions that should inform COVID-19 policies and more accountable to the people affected by their decisions. In a huge country that includes sparsely populated, largely rural states as well as states with highly concentrated urban centers, a one-size-fits-all policy formulated in Washington, D.C., makes little sense. U.S. jurisdictions also differ widely in the extent and speed of virus transmission, the capacity and quality of their health care systems, and demographics that affect the infection fatality rate, which varies dramatically across the country. Such factors are clearly relevant in weighing the costs and benefits of interventions aimed at curtailing the epidemic.

The proliferation of “nonconsistent” policies that result in “disparity” among states also creates an opportunity for learning from the successes and failures of different approaches. Are states that imposed lockdowns early and relaxed them gradually doing better than states that acted later, lifted restrictions faster, or never imposed general lockdowns at all? Does allowing businesses such as restaurants to operate with COVID-19 safeguards create an intolerable risk? Do bans on outdoor activities make any sense at all? Do mask mandates make an important difference? What is the best way to protect high-risk groups, such as nursing home residents and prisoners? It would be much harder even to try answering questions like these without the jurisdictional variation that Fauci decries.

However you come down on those issues, the risk of centralization should be clear. If you believe that lockdowns played an important role in reducing COVID-19 deaths, would you want to trust a president who is leery of that policy and asserts “total” authority to reopen the economy? If you think face masks are a vital tool for reducing virus transmission, would you want a president who disagrees to decide whether they should be legally required? If you think some states have failed abysmally at protecting prisoners and nursing home residents, are you confident that a federal policy would be better?

Incidentally, the U.S. is not, as Fauci claimed, “the hardest-hit country in the world.” While our COVID-19 numbers are certainly nothing to brag about, the United States currently ranks 14th in deaths per capita, according to Worldometer’s tallies. Developed countries such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and Belgium—all of which imposed sweeping restrictions on social and economic activity at the national level—are doing worse by that measure. The U.K., where Fauci’s interview slamming federalism was broadcast, has imposed national lockdowns repeatedly, but its death rate is still somewhat higher than the U.S. rate. Sweden, which eschewed such measures, ranks 27th in per capita COVID-19 deaths, much higher than its Scandinavian neighbors but lower than many other European countries.

Many things went wrong with the U.S. response to COVID-19. But the most conspicuous failures happened at the federal level, where Fauci seems to think all the important decisions should have been made. The wisdom of that approach is by no means obvious from interstate or international comparisons. Centralization makes sense only if you ignore relevant differences in local circumstances and if you trust the federal government to make the right choices. If it errs, whether by failing to take steps that would have substantially reduced the death toll or by imposing restrictions that cost much more than they are worth, all of us have to live with the consequences.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n1Fde8
via IFTTT

Tesla To Begin Selling Model 3 In India “Early Next Year”

Tesla To Begin Selling Model 3 In India “Early Next Year”

Having apparently fallen out of favor with the Chinese government already, and having used up all his promises in Germany, Elon Musk now appears to be getting ready to take his magical Tesla flying circus to India. 

The country’s mark transport minister, Nitin Gadkari, said early this week that Tesla would be on its way to the country “early next year”, according to Reuters. 

Tesla plans to start by selling vehicles and then “might look at assembly and manufacturing based on the response”, Gadkari said. 

India is one country where EV adoption has taken hold slower than the rest of the world. The country’s lack of infrastructure – especially when compared to neighboring China – has kept EV investments to a minimum. 

Tesla has said the Model 3 will be the first to launch in the country, starting at 5.5 million Indian rupees, or about $74,750 U.S.

Despite not having facilities in the country yet, Tesla will begin bookings for sales in January. The company could see a robust response, as mom and pop investors in the country are already happily playing the part of Tesla cult members, loading up on Tesla stock, and placing “bigger-than-ever bets on U.S. stocks this year”.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/28/2020 – 13:41

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

Surrendering on COVID Spending Is a Predictable, Fitting End for Trump’s Tenure

admphotostwo728775

President Donald Trump’s decision to sign on Sunday night a bill that averts a government shutdown and provides $900 billion in emergency spending for COVID-19 relief was a fitting end to his term in office—a predictable surrender that followed days of manufactured drama and bluster, ultimately changing nothing.

When the 5,000-page, $2.3 trillion bill landed on his desk a week ago, Trump objected to a variety of its provisions. In a video statement, he called the package “a disgrace” and demanded that Congress authorize larger stimulus checks for all Americans while cutting frivolous spending on foreign aid and the arts, among other things.

By then, it was probably too late for Trump to force Congress to make meaningful changes to the legislation. As a lame-duck president with a track record of not caring about policy specifics, he wasn’t in a very strong position. But it wasn’t too late to create unnecessary and meaningless drama, which is about the only thing the president has delivered consistently. Trump withheld his signature long enough to force some unemployment benefits to lapse and raise the prospect of a month-long government shutdown—one that would likely not have been resolved until President-elect Joe Biden takes the oath of office.

In the end, however, Trump signed the bill, sent a meaningless list of demands back to Congress, and nonsensically claimed victory—the equivalent of drawing a frowny face on the last page of the bill, right next to his own signature.

It’s a pattern that has played on repeat for nearly four years now. Trump prides himself on being unpredictable—he “thrives” on chaos, or so he claims—but the reality-TV-star-turned-president’s approach to governing is as formulaic as an episode of The Apprentice.

When Congress sent Trump a budget bill in March 2018 that annihilated previous spending caps and put the country on a trajectory toward larger deficits, Trump threatened to veto it—on the very day when he was expected to sign it.

Hours later, he backed down and inked the budget, but not without issuing a stern warning to Congress. “I will never sign another bill like this again,” he promised. “I’m not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It’s only hours old.”

But when Congress sent Trump an even larger budget in 2019, he dutifully signed it.

Trump’s pattern of bluster-and-surrender has played out elsewhere too. He promised a “good and easy to win” trade war against China that has proven to be neither of those things. It turned out to be disruptive, messy, and expensive—and the “deal” struck last year between the U.S. and China has been mostly ignored by both sides.

He came into office promising to blow up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), then spent two years sowing chaos before eventually agreeing to a deal that was just a slightly updated version of the status quo.

While there are many reasons for libertarians to be disappointed with the past four years, one of the underappreciated failures is Trump’s squandering of an incredibly rare opportunity to reset how Washington operates—particularly with regard to budget-making and spending.

Trump entered office without being beholden to any of the usual power structures that help someone get elected president, and he brought with him a powerful bully pulpit that he’s never been afraid to use. A version of Trump who actually cared about making a difference could have used those things to shine a spotlight on the waste and cronyism that dominate federal spending.

He did that on occasion, of course, but never demonstrated any serious interest in setting policy or governing—he spent four years being distracted by whatever Democrats were saying about him on CNN and whether NFL players were kneeling before their games. He ranted and raved, and he approved one spending hike after another.

As Reason‘s Matt Welch has summarized, Trump’s record on spending includes “a half-dozen continuing resolutions, plus a few longer-term omnibus deals, that together eliminated Obama-era spending caps, suspended the debt ceiling borrowing limit, and ratcheted up the size of government, all at the tail end of a historically long economic expansion and stock market bull run.” Even if you exclude the epic amounts of money the government has spent in response to the pandemic, Trump increased federal spending by as much as President Barack Obama did—and in half the time.

Fittingly, then, Trump will exit office with almost no legacy other than an astonishing increase in government spending. Most of his regulatory reforms will be undone quickly by the incoming Biden administration. The major tax reform that passed under his watch was mostly the product of the very Republican establishment Trump has spent years demolishing. He hasn’t brought the troops home. He hasn’t built the wall.

Sunday’s bill-signing is likely to be the last significant legislative act of Trump’s presidency, and it is a fitting cap for a president who should be remembered mostly for speaking loudly and carrying a small veto pen.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37UpIA7
via IFTTT

Surrendering on COVID Spending Is a Predictable, Fitting End for Trump’s Tenure

admphotostwo728775

President Donald Trump’s decision to sign on Sunday night a bill that averts a government shutdown and provides $900 billion in emergency spending for COVID-19 relief was a fitting end to his term in office—a predictable surrender that followed days of manufactured drama and bluster, ultimately changing nothing.

When the 5,000-page, $2.3 trillion bill landed on his desk a week ago, Trump objected to a variety of its provisions. In a video statement, he called the package “a disgrace” and demanded that Congress authorize larger stimulus checks for all Americans while cutting frivolous spending on foreign aid and the arts, among other things.

By then, it was probably too late for Trump to force Congress to make meaningful changes to the legislation. As a lame-duck president with a track record of not caring about policy specifics, he wasn’t in a very strong position. But it wasn’t too late to create unnecessary and meaningless drama, which is about the only thing the president has delivered consistently. Trump withheld his signature long enough to force some unemployment benefits to lapse and raise the prospect of a month-long government shutdown—one that would likely not have been resolved until President-elect Joe Biden takes the oath of office.

In the end, however, Trump signed the bill, sent a meaningless list of demands back to Congress, and nonsensically claimed victory—the equivalent of drawing a frowny face on the last page of the bill, right next to his own signature.

It’s a pattern that has played on repeat for nearly four years now. Trump prides himself on being unpredictable—he “thrives” on chaos, or so he claims—but the reality-TV-star-turned-president’s approach to governing is as formulaic as an episode of The Apprentice.

When Congress sent Trump a budget bill in March 2018 that annihilated previous spending caps and put the country on a trajectory toward larger deficits, Trump threatened to veto it—on the very day when he was expected to sign it.

Hours later, he backed down and inked the budget, but not without issuing a stern warning to Congress. “I will never sign another bill like this again,” he promised. “I’m not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It’s only hours old.”

But when Congress sent Trump an even larger budget in 2019, he dutifully signed it.

Trump’s pattern of bluster-and-surrender has played out elsewhere too. He promised a “good and easy to win” trade war against China that has proven to be neither of those things. It turned out to be disruptive, messy, and expensive—and the “deal” struck last year between the U.S. and China has been mostly ignored by both sides.

He came into office promising to blow up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), then spent two years sowing chaos before eventually agreeing to a deal that was just a slightly updated version of the status quo.

While there are many reasons for libertarians to be disappointed with the past four years, one of the underappreciated failures is Trump’s squandering of an incredibly rare opportunity to reset how Washington operates—particularly with regard to budget-making and spending.

Trump entered office without being beholden to any of the usual power structures that help someone get elected president, and he brought with him a powerful bully pulpit that he’s never been afraid to use. A version of Trump who actually cared about making a difference could have used those things to shine a spotlight on the waste and cronyism that dominate federal spending.

He did that on occasion, of course, but never demonstrated any serious interest in setting policy or governing—he spent four years being distracted by whatever Democrats were saying about him on CNN and whether NFL players were kneeling before their games. He ranted and raved, and he approved one spending hike after another.

As Reason‘s Matt Welch has summarized, Trump’s record on spending includes “a half-dozen continuing resolutions, plus a few longer-term omnibus deals, that together eliminated Obama-era spending caps, suspended the debt ceiling borrowing limit, and ratcheted up the size of government, all at the tail end of a historically long economic expansion and stock market bull run.” Even if you exclude the epic amounts of money the government has spent in response to the pandemic, Trump increased federal spending by as much as President Barack Obama did—and in half the time.

Fittingly, then, Trump will exit office with almost no legacy other than an astonishing increase in government spending. Most of his regulatory reforms will be undone quickly by the incoming Biden administration. The major tax reform that passed under his watch was mostly the product of the very Republican establishment Trump has spent years demolishing. He hasn’t brought the troops home. He hasn’t built the wall.

Sunday’s bill-signing is likely to be the last significant legislative act of Trump’s presidency, and it is a fitting cap for a president who should be remembered mostly for speaking loudly and carrying a small veto pen.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/37UpIA7
via IFTTT

Inflation Expectations Solidly On The Rise

Inflation Expectations Solidly On The Rise

Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

Inflation expectations appear to be solidly on the rise and that spells big problems for the financial system. For years the central banks across the world have claimed deflation has driven or allowed their QE policies to remain. This is central to their ability to stimulate. The moment inflation begins to take root or becomes apparent much of their flexibility in policy is lost. The 2% inflation target central banks have deemed optimum is not valid. This argument is becoming harder to make since many people now feel so much money pouring into the financial system is beginning to move inflation higher.

Expectations Can Drive Inflation

Up until now, the law of diminishing returns has required larger and larger amounts of stimulus to be thrown at the financial system each time the economy begins to turn down. The continued appointment of dovish and easy money advocates to positions in high finance does little to reinforce confidence in the fiat currencies on which we rely. The rising value and interest in precious metals and cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin stand as evidence investors are seeking alternatives to the fiat currencies issued by nations and central banks.

At Some Point Inflation Will Raise Its Ugly Head

In the past, I have put forth the idea that inflation could rule the day even if central banks are unable to keep the wheels on the bus and the economy collapses. This powerful force of inflation coupled with slow economic growth is known as stagflation. Like inflation, it can devastate those improperly invested when it moves onto play. It is important to remember the cost of all commodities, goods, and services do not move and the same rate or even necessarily in the same direction. 

This means it is the overall rate of inflation we should be concerned about. Prices can rise for several reasons such as strong demand, a scarcity of goods, or even because of how things are taxed. Many people look at how much money or credit is being created as an indicator of what is to come. Of course, it is not just the amount of money but how fast it is moving through the economy that complicates currency expansion as a guide. This is known as the velocity of money which has been falling for years. 

I contend a large often overlooked contributor for this falling velocity is rooted in the growing inequality of wealth distribution. Simply put, as wealth matriculated to a smaller share of the population at the top, the money they acquired has been put into investments where it just sits. This drags down the overall speed at which money is moving throughout the system. If this is correct, a case can be made that when money starts to be reallocated and shifted to other investments the effect on inflation could be quite dramatic.

M2 the broader measure of the money supply has soared

By simply adding in the expectation that inflation is waiting in the wings to make a grand entrance a new threat is added to the financial system. Even investors beginning to shift towards assets that do well during times of inflation may be enough to set in motion a self-feeding loop or cycle. When fiat money that has quietly sat in paper promises begins to be exchanged for tangible assets and inflation hedges it will reverse the long falling velocity of money.

Inflation puts a spotlight on the difference between liquidity and solvency. It also brings with it a slew of other issues such as higher interest rates which generally hit many sectors of the economy such as construction very hard. Higher interest rates also result in people having a difficult time paying for or financing big-ticket items such as automobiles and homes. In short, it puts a great deal of stress on all parts of the economy including the government deficits that have exploded since the 2008 financial crisis.

Two often-overlooked factors support the idea we are headed down a path of inflation rather than deflation. The first is many laws have been set in place to raise the minimum wage. The second is the fact is so many Americans work for the government. These are mostly full time and workers seldom get laid-off without pay. Figures from the National Debt Clock show just under 150 million workers are in the workforce and nearly 24 million of them are employed by the government. That is almost one in six.

As for the potential for deflation taking hold when defaults rise as debt becomes unsustainable, this is far less likely than in the past. This is because several safety valves have been put into the system over the years. These are evident in the way bankruptcies take place, companies are now factoring in more bad debt in their price structure and last but not least an attitude governments and central banks should step in and save large businesses and institutions in danger of failure.

The government’s oversized role in today’s economy which is much larger than it was during the Great Depression tends to put a net under the ability of prices to fall. Many people see this as a good thing but it has also led to the perpetual zombification of problems that artificially low-interest rates will not solve. Masking the fact many companies and pension funds are insolvent does not garner a strong economy. 

The massive growth in negative-yielding debt across the globe has reached a record $18 trillion. This effort to extend the pretense the growth in debt can be sustained has been led by the euro-zone and Japan, is not a sign of confidence, but rather a huge risk of secular stagnation. The chickens may soon come home to roost is an old saying that means, you cannot escape the consequences and repercussions of your actions. In this case, when applied to the Fed and other central banks it means they have put the world’s financial system in a precarious position.

The policy of Modern Monetary Theory has failed in places like Venezuela and Argentina. In these countries, “money for the people” policies have-resulted in rampant inflation. While these small countries have little effect on the overall global financial system, the Fed does and it has massively increased the US M1 money supply. In the last two weeks of November, the M1 money supply jumped by over 14%. This would constitute an annualized rate of 367%. More important is this has allowed the other major central banks to follow suit and increase their money supply without debasing their currencies.

While the blame for this is being solidly placed on the back of Covid-19, it could be argued the financial system and the economy has been skating on thin ice for over a decade. This is not the first time the Fed and other central banks have been forced to pony up liquidity in an effort to shore up a sagging stock market. The oversized deficits governments have been running are also a sign all is not well. As far as returning to what many people see as normalcy, that seems to be a mirage that continues to move away every time we think we are getting closer.

Across the globe, the growth in the money supply, paper promises, and credit has far outpaced the growth in tangible assets. This includes pensions and a slew of other unsustainable Ponzi scheme like investments. Instead of stimulating economic activity, the current expansion in the money supply has the strong potential to unleash inflation across the globe. If this happens, far more countries will slip into hyperinflation than in the past. Restoring faith in fiat money following such an event will be painful and difficult. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/28/2020 – 13:20

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

In 2nd Subpar Auction Of The Day, Record Big 5Y Treasury Sale Tails Amid Weak Demand

In 2nd Subpar Auction Of The Day, Record Big 5Y Treasury Sale Tails Amid Weak Demand

Just 90 minutes after subpar buyside demand saw the latest record 2Y auction tail in one of the last Treasury auctions of the year, moments ago the Treasury sold another record batch of debt, this time in the form of $59 billion in 5Y coupons, the biggest amount for the tenor sold on record.

And just like this morning’s 2Y auction, the 5Y also tailed the When Issued, pricing at 0.394%, virtually unchanged from last month’s 0.397%, and a 0.3bps tail to the 0.391% WI.

The bid to cover was also lackluster, printing effectively flat for the third month in a row at 2.39 vs 2.38 in Oct and Nov.

Finally, the internals were also disappointing because with Indirects taking down 57.1%, this was below the 61.2% six-auction average, if just above last month’s 56.5%. And with Directs poking a bit higher, and at 18.1% the highest since April – the same as today’s 2Y auction – Dealers were left with 24.9% of the final allotment, virtually on top of the 23.9% recent average.

Overall, another lackluster auction, which leave just tomorrow’s $59 billion 7Y auction before we close the book on 2020’s Treasury sales for ever.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/28/2020 – 13:16

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

House Set To Override Trump Veto Of $740 Billion Defense Bill

House Set To Override Trump Veto Of $740 Billion Defense Bill

The House of Representatives are preparing to vote Monday evening on whether to override President Trump’s veto of the $740 billion 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – which passed both chambers of Congress earlier this month with margins large enough to override the veto.

That said, several lawmakers have suggested in recent days that the override may be in jeopardy if some Republicans change course and back Trump – which risks falling short of the two-thirds majority of votes in the House and Senate to make the bill veto-proof.

“I don’t want to say I’m confident because we are in such a time that I just have no idea right now,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) told CNN on Sunday. “But, you know, we passed with a significant amount of votes. There is some flex to lose some people that voted for it that don’t vote to override the veto. That would be a tough one for me to explain, I just don’t know how you do it. Hopefully, we can still get it overridden.”

For the override to fail, dozens of Republicans would need to flip their votes, while some Democrats who previously voted against the defense bill could switch votes.

Trump vetoed the NDAA last week, arguing that it doesn’t make changes to a law which provides liability protections to tech companies (section 203), and authorized the renaming of military bases named after Confederate generals.

On Sunday, President Trump relented and signed the COVID-19 relief and government spending bill, averting a government shutdown starting on Tuesday and preserving pandemic relief measures which were set to lapse on Dec. 31.

Meanwhile, in another Monday vote, House Democrats are set to approve a measure to replace the $600 stimulus payments in the newly enacted pandemic relief law with $2,000 checks demanded by President Trump before he caved and signed the bill.

The bill requires two-thirds support to clear the House, and will undoubtedly fail in the still-GOP-controlled Senate.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/28/2020 – 13:02

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Mi93hP Tyler Durden

Travel Insurers Likely To Make Vaccination A Requirement, New Report Finds

Travel Insurers Likely To Make Vaccination A Requirement, New Report Finds

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Yet another sector of the travel industry has signalled that it could mandate vaccination against coronavirus to provide services to travellers, according to a report that notes insurers may demand to see proof of vaccination before covering those wishing to go on holiday.

The international Travel and Health Insurance Journal reports that “If the EU obliges travellers to vaccinate, travel insurance providers may refuse to cover those who decline to have the vaccination.”

The report notes that the European Union has previously indicated that travellers and anyone applying for a visa could be mandated to get the vaccine in order to enter and move between EU countries.

“If EU makes vaccines mandatory, travel insurers will likely follow suit,” the journal emphasises.

Elvio Chilelli at insurer Europ Assistance commented that while vaccination is currently not a requirement, if the EU does mandate it then the insurer will adopt the same policy.

AXA insurance also plans to make COVID vaccination a compulsory requirement if the EU does so.

“It is likely that countries are going to require people to have had the vaccine to enter. Therefore, if customers haven’t been inoculated, they will not be covered,” the company stated.

“If there is no requirement from the entering country, we cannot enforce that people have had the vaccine – as customers may not have had the opportunity to get one,” a Axa spokesperson said.

EU news website Schengenvisainfo also reported on the likely move by insurers, pointing out that anti-vaxxers will likely be specifically targeted by the mandates.

“Even if anti-vax travellers find a loophole in the requirement and manage to enter any of the Member States, travel insurance providers may refuse to cover them,” the report states.

It continues, “With the high volume of fake news and conspiracy theories that have been going on for months now on the pandemic and vaccination, the real challenge for the EU will not be to purchase the necessary vaccine doses, but rather to convince people to be vaccinated.”

The report adds that “Conspiracy theorists, in Europe and further in the world, have targeted Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who is known as a supporter of vaccination, claiming he is responsible for the Coronavirus pandemic.”

Some responded to the likely move by insurers, questioning what happens if people choose not to be vaccinated for medical reasons, or cannot get vaccinated:

Even those who are willing to get vaccinated may not be able to do so for some time. Are they also to be refused basic travel freedoms?

Surveys have indicated that around half the people in the world are not willing to take the vaccine at this stage.

The news about insurance companies potentially mandating vaccination follows indications from scores of airline executives and travel industry officials that proof of vaccination, through ‘COVID passports’, will become mandatory in order to fly.

 In addition, hotels have also indicated they will do the same.

The head of one of the world’s most prominent tourism lobby groups has warned that if governments embrace “no jab, no fly” polices, it will kill the travel industry.

Gloria Guevara, head of the World Travel and Tourism Council, said recently “I don’t think governments will require vaccination next year,” warning that “If they do that they will kill their sector.”

As we reported last month, the IATA, the world’s largest air transport lobby group, expects its COVID travel pass app to be fully rolled out in the first months of 2021.

Another ‘COVID passport’ type system known as the CommonPass, sponsored by the World Economic Forum, is also under development.

A further ‘COVID passport’ app called the AOKpass from travel security firm International SOS is currently undergoing trials  between Abu Dhabi and Pakistan.

Hundreds of Tech companies are scrambling over themselves to develop COVID passport systems.

UK based human rights group Privacy International has warned that if “immunity” passports are issued by some governments, it could signal a creep toward “digital identity schemes” and other mandatory ID schemes. 

“Once you have multiple uses (e.g. access to services) in multiple domains (i.e. public sector, private sector), in multiple countries (i.e. travel), then we are approaching a global identity document needed to live your life,” the group warned.

Sweden based human rights group The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) warned last week that 61 per cent of countries have used COVID restrictions “that were concerning from a democracy and human rights perspective.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/28/2020 – 12:45

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

Natgas Plunges 10% On “Extremely Bearish” Warmer January Forecast

Natgas Plunges 10% On “Extremely Bearish” Warmer January Forecast

Natural gas futures are down more than 10% on Monday morning following new weather models that suggest warmer weather is ahead.

Meteorologists at BAMWX show one model that suggests temperature anomalies for much of the country could be well above average for early January. 

For the next two weeks, heating degree days for US-Lower 48 will be below trend, suggesting warmer temperatures and a decline in energy use to heat homes.

“I suspect, however, the forecast for January came out extremely bearish over the weekend, triggering the gap opening, but we’ll learn more about that on Monday. The big takeaway this week is likely to be that next week’s government report is going to show an average draw. Remember that professionals look at least two weeks ahead,” said FX Empire. 

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/28/2020 – 12:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3rHluE7 Tyler Durden

E-commerce Sales Jump Nearly 50% This Holiday Season

E-commerce Sales Jump Nearly 50% This Holiday Season

Submitted by Market Crumbs,

With the holiday shopping season now officially in the books, Mastercard on Saturday gave a look into what consumers shopped for this year.

Using aggregate sales activity in the Mastercard payments network and survey-based estimates for other payment forms such as cash and check, MasterCard SpendingPulse found that U.S. retail sales excluding automotive and gasoline jumped 3% during this year’s holiday shopping season, which ran from October 11 through December 24.

With many people continuing to stay at home as a result of Covid-19, it’s not surprising that online sales jumped by 49% compared to last year. E-commerce accounted for 19.7% of overall retail sales during this year’s holiday shopping season compared to 13.4% in 2019.

Given people are spending so much time at home, home furniture and furnishings was the biggest winner, showing the largest growth of any sector as sales jumped by more than 16% from last year. Home improvement also saw a boost as sales increased by more than 14% from last year as e-commerce sales jumped by nearly 80%.

“American consumers turned the holiday season on its head, redefining ‘home for the holidays’ in a uniquely 2020 way. They shopped from home for the home, leading to record e-commerce growth,” Mastercard senior advisor Steve Sadove said. “And, consumers shopped earlier than ever before. Across our expanded 75-day holiday shopping season, sales were up 3.0%, a testament to the holiday season and strength of retailers and consumers alike.”

Department stores continue to lose their luster as sales fell by more than 10% from last year. Department stores saw their e-commerce sales grow by just over 3% compared to 2019.

Despite seeing overall sales decline by more than 16% from last year, Black Friday remained the top shopping day of the season by spend while the day after came in the second spot. December 12 and 11 rounded out the next two spots as consumers rushed to take advantage of “guaranteed by Christmas” offers.

Consumers appeared to have their shopping done early this year, as the Monday before Christmas didn’t even make the top 10 this year after being the third-biggest shopping day in 2019.

With Mastercard providing a glimpse into this year’s holiday shopping season, investors will now look forward to earnings season to see which companies were the big winners this year.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 12/28/2020 – 12:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hmCj2a Tyler Durden